I'm constantly made to feel like some elitist donkey-cave for the social equivalent of asking someone else to also wear pants. That doesn't mean I'll never ever tolerate unpainted or unfinished models, but when a friend doesn't have time to finish a model and the game can't be put off till it's done because its a practice game for a tournament, I basically just put the camera down and play. But the biggest problem is the second my buddy tells me he couldn't get x model or models done, it kills my incentive to finish what I'm working on. It also means I might not have a game this week to upload pics of.
I can understand why someone might see my preference to only play with painted models as elitism. But feth those people, I put a lot of effort into my armies and setting up boards with painted terrain and documenting it all and it's a better set of images for it. You wanna play me? Paint your gak.
Drops the mic.
Can we stop with the false equivalence? We now have both a compression between both never bathing and rocking out with your cock out with not painting models. Come on.
Not wanting to play with or against unpainted models is fine. Expecting everyone to conform to that is the problem.
You are not an elitist if you decide your time is better spent playing with painted models and prefer to not play with them. You are an elitist if you start claiming that anyone who wants to play with unpainted models should be a social pariah who should be banned from gaming until they paint a full army and having the audacity to try to game with like minded players who also dont care about the models being painted is the equivalent of them walking into the store with their moldy armpits and their schlong out.
Don't play with or against unpainted models that's fine I entirely understand that desire. Don't try to claim like Peregrine does that people who are ok with playing with unpainted or semi painted models should be prevented from gaming. As I said elsewhere in this thead there i a huge difference between the two replys to someone asking to play against you with an army that is unpainted or part painted.
"Sorry I don't like to play against unpainted models, maybe you can find another opponent who doesn't mind"
That's a perfectly reasonable response.
"You shouldn't be allowed to play wargames until you have painted everything. Leave the store and come don't come back until all your models are painted. Also take with you anyone else who wants to play with unpainted models, they shouldn't be allowed in the store"
I hope you can apprecaite the difference. If you fit into the first response I don't think your elitist if you fit the second I do.
carlos13th wrote: Still failed to establish it as bad behavior just repeating your own personal peeves. Not everyone thinks unpainted models look like gak and not all opponents significantly have their enjoyment reduced by a lack of painted models.
Yes, I agree with you that It wouldn't be fair claiming a lack of will to paint ones models is a sign of bad behaviour. One should be able to bring unpainted models to a store with a reasonale expection of a chance to play against like-minded folks. But on the same note, if Peregrine or I were ever to play a game with you and we decided that playing against you wouldn't be worth our time becuase your models were unpainted, then it would be perfectly reasonable for us to decline playing a game with you. For people like Peregrine and me, unpainted armies are an eyesore and completely immersion breaking. You and I just wouldn't be compatible in a game of 40K.
I am going to assume you have missed some of my other posts as I have repeatedly said what you have here. I take no issue with a single thing you have said here.
I even said that I personally prefer to play with painted models and don't tend field anything before I have painted it. I just don't think my preference should be applied to everyone is all and while unpainted models wouldn't make me say no to a game with someone I certainly understand why it might be a bigger factor to others. I don't think anyone has the right to say because I don't like to play games with unpainted models everyone should have to paint their models before playing the game and it should be a hobby wide requirement.
You have the right to refuse someone a game because you don't like playing with unpainted models, because you hate Tau or because they are the type of player you don't like to play against maybe you like hard core toruniment lists and they just wanna play fluffy lists with no challenge. No one should be forced to play against an unpainted army they don't want to play against anymore than someone else should be forced to paint their army in order to play the game. They just have to find like minded opponents is all.
I'm constantly made to feel like some elitist donkey-cave for the social equivalent of asking someone else to also wear pants. That doesn't mean I'll never ever tolerate unpainted or unfinished models, but when a friend doesn't have time to finish a model and the game can't be put off till it's done because its a practice game for a tournament, I basically just put the camera down and play. But the biggest problem is the second my buddy tells me he couldn't get x model or models done, it kills my incentive to finish what I'm working on. It also means I might not have a game this week to upload pics of.
I can understand why someone might see my preference to only play with painted models as elitism. But feth those people, I put a lot of effort into my armies and setting up boards with painted terrain and documenting it all and it's a better set of images for it. I've never mocked or chastised anyone for the quality of their paintwork, I barely paint tabletop myself. Consistency, not quality, just consistency is all takes to paint an army, that and time. You wanna play me? Paint your gak.
Drops the mic.
Just curious, but why do you feel the need to have the camera and take pictures of everything? Say I had an army and we were to play would you play if I asked you to not take pictures of the army, say because for example I wasn't comfortable with the paint job or scheme? I mean I assume you would because you'd put it down to play with an army where a model or two isnt finished. Only a question though, because I wouldnt care if you did take pictures.
Personally, I don't care if an army is painted or not, because to me 40k isn't just about the game or the models there is a whole lot more to the setting. I also dont mind if every guy is a different color because you cant decide what you want to do with your army. Do painted armies look better? Of course. Do unpainted take things away from the game? Not so much to me. Though I also get frustrated at painting easily so it takes me a while to get something done because it doesnt look just right. Also I used to use a grey legion, but these days, restarting the game Im gonna finish the painting before feilding.
I do find a post of page one insulting because it states if you don't paint you aren't a fan of 40k. What about those that don't play the game or work with the models, but read the fluff and play the computer games?
tgjensen wrote: So, what, is it also bad behavior to be a poor painter?
No, because there's a difference between refusing to try and not having Golden Demon level natural talent..
Sounds hypocritical. I often seen "tabletop-standard" armies in WD when I used to sculpt and paint and they were no good looking at all. Also, seen some in FLGS before it turned to MTG-only and they also weren't a source of aesthetic ecstasies that would justify playing a game with bad rules.
I'm constantly made to feel like some elitist donkey-cave for the social equivalent of asking someone else to also wear pants.
The "constantly" part indicates that you are in position of "you and what army?". Apparently most of people like just playing the game.
As I have mentioned before - GW killed the games that allowed to play with a few quality miniatures or a mass of fast-painted ones. Which is why it's going to be hard if not impossible to implement a "mandatory painting" rule.
You know what the best part of this is? THE PAINT SNOBS CAN'T DO A THING ABOUT IT. The best plan they have is to take their ball and go home. By all means refuse to play people. There are plenty of other people willing to take their place.
evil_kiwi_60 wrote: You know what the best part of this is? THE PAINT SNOBS CAN'T DO A THING ABOUT IT. The best plan they have is to take their ball and go home. By all means refuse to play people. There are plenty of other people willing to take their place.
Being a snob about them being a snob is not gonna help at all and just keep this going around in circles. Not that it wasnt the case anyway.
If I ever met peregrine IRL I would have the urge to punch him in the face due to his elitism attitude, with that said, I would still rather play against his fully painted army and attempt to table him than playing against any grey/black/primer legion.
I would play against anyone, even their grey legion at least once, there won't be a second game unless there is some progress. In my opinion, the attempt matters, otherwise you mind as well play video games.
This is kind of weird in that some of the non-painters in here are just as guilty of being snobs and demanding "How dare you - you'll see things my way, and you'll like it or go home" as the guys that are pro-painting, but for some reason they aren't being demonized at all.
It's just as drastic.
I'm all for playing against someone who's army is an obvious work in progress, but somebody taking the stance of "Pfft, ain't no reason to paint my minis" is kinda lazy considering the hobby it's taking place in. Used to be miniatures wargaming was all about having cool looking armies to show off. Or at least it's always been in my experience.
That's why the game isn't using cardboard chits with full-color images on them to basically play like flat 6-15mm miniatures, like Heroes of Normandie:
Those games are incredibly fun, but at least to me, there is an obvious reason to turn those counters into miniatures, and that's to see them in color.
But I also see lackluster terrain in a minis game the same way. If the table doesn't look cool (my version of "cool" being pretty easy to attain), why bother?
evil_kiwi_60 wrote: You know what the best part of this is? THE PAINT SNOBS CAN'T DO A THING ABOUT IT. The best plan they have is to take their ball and go home. By all means refuse to play people. There are plenty of other people willing to take their place.
Being a snob about them being a snob is not gonna help at all and just keep this going around in circles. Not that it wasnt the case anyway.
Granted, this argument will go on till the apocalypse. At the end of the day though, there's nothing they can really do about it. I find that amusing.
AegisGrimm wrote: I'm all for playing against someone who's army is an obvious work in progress, but somebody taking the stance of "Pfft, ain't no reason to paint my minis" is kinda lazy considering the hobby it's taking place in. Used to be miniatures wargaming was all about having cool looking armies to show off. Or at least it's always been in my experience.
That's why the game isn't using cardboard chits with full-color images on them to basically play like flat 6-15mm miniatures, like Heroes of Normandie:
Those games are incredibly fun, but at least to me, there is an obvious reason to turn those counters into miniatures, and that's to see them in color.
Maybe a gamer's edition that would be in 15mm and would have counters/pre-painted 15mm miniatures would solve the problem of unpainted armies?
This thread in a nutshell. No seriously, I came here to state that while I didn't like playing against unpainted models, I'm not entirely adverse to it if that's all you've got or really want to play with a new model you've bought as soon as you assembled and glued/magnatized it. Flying Spaghetti Monster knows that painting horde armies can be a chore at times. But then I saw that this thread was eleven pages of arguing in circles.
This thread in a nutshell. No seriously, I came here to state that while I didn't like playing against unpainted models, I'm not entirely adverse to it if that's all you've got or really want to play with a new model you've bought as soon as you assembled and glued/magnatized it. Flying Spaghetti Monster knows that painting horde armies can be a chore at times. But then I saw that this thread was eleven pages of arguing in circles.
No level-headed sanity from you. No! You'll re-rail this thread.
You can't refuse to play me! I'll refuse to play you first! < Most of this thread.
Yeah, I'll chime in with the opinion that painted armies are nicer to play and against than unpainted armies, and I'll always encourage people to paint, actively and passively, but I wouldn't turn down a game for painting alone. I feel the experience is better with painted armies and painted terrain, so given the choice between two identical players, but one is painted and the other is not, I'll always pick the painted.
That said, I also try to paint my forces. Most of my spaceships are painted, and when I finally get around to my Guard MkII, I'll be bringing that up to tabletop standard as well.
Apparently some people can't have fun without demanding that random people adhere to their arbitrary and draconian standards regarding aesthetics. I think this is probably the wrong hobby for those kinds of players. 40k is beer and pretzels. (I'm not being sarcastic, I love the 'beer-and-pretzels' feel.)
That's sad for you but IMO, you're missing the whole point of why playing 40k. And you will never prevent real 40k fans (understand : painters) from judging you for this. Whether you like it or not, there's a hierarchy between painters and non painters.
The only people getting judged are the ones trying to pretend like their toy soldiers means something more about them, and their character then the reality of who they are.
"real" fans huh.
Ya go play toy soldier with your sense of elitism. Somewhere else. I'll be fine.
Blacksails wrote:Yeah, I'll chime in with the opinion that painted armies are nicer to play and against than unpainted armies, and I'll always encourage people to paint, actively and passively, but I wouldn't turn down a game for painting alone. I feel the experience is better with painted armies and painted terrain, so given the choice between two identical players, but one is painted and the other is not, I'll always pick the painted.
That said, I also try to paint my forces. Most of my spaceships are painted, and when I finally get around to my Guard MkII, I'll be bringing that up to tabletop standard as well.
Yeah that's about my stance too. I often sit down with friends and help paint up armies. It's a good way to kill a few hours.
AegisGrimm wrote:
This thread in a nutshell. No seriously, I came here to state that while I didn't like playing against unpainted models, I'm not entirely adverse to it if that's all you've got or really want to play with a new model you've bought as soon as you assembled and glued/magnatized it. Flying Spaghetti Monster knows that painting horde armies can be a chore at times. But then I saw that this thread was eleven pages of arguing in circles.
No level-headed sanity from you. No! You'll re-rail this thread.
You can't refuse to play me! I'll refuse to play you first! < Most of this thread.
Does this mean we can get off Mr.Bones' wild ride now?
Zomnivore wrote: And you will never prevent real 40k fans (understand : painters) from judging you for this. Whether you like it or not, there's a hierarchy between painters and non painters.
This is smearing coloured substances onto little toy men, not fething Game of Thrones.
carlos13th wrote: Some of the people in this thread I wouldn't want to play against or spend time with no matter how well painted their armies are.
This is very true. Regardless of their stance on painting, gaming groups and communities should police the kind of behavior they accept. Rudeness and general unpleasantness should be nipped in the bud quickly.
If you want to see painted armies being inclusive and help people paint and give them interesting avenues to do so. Don't go being an donkey-cave towards them and exclude them until they have painted their armies.
This is what our club has always done. We always make sure to have figures on hand to lend to anyone who doesn't have figs painted for a given game. This is especially important since the club runs a reasonably wide range of games. We trade painting tips and encourage each other and sometimes we trade units for painting as a way of getting armies done without too much monotony. If a club or community is going to have a paint requirement they should strive to make sure that no one is excluded for not having painted minis. I like to say that "Unpainted minis are not welcome ON the table, but everyone is welcome AT the table."
Life's to short for unpainted minis or unpleasant opponents
.
Eilif am I right in thinking your club also generally has spare painted armies for people to play with until theirs is painted up too? So that people don't feel excluded while painting up their armies?
The problem I have with some people here is that it's not just they want to not play with unpainted minis but they want to make it a worldwide rule that anyone should follow at every store. I take no issue with our club saying only painted miniatures sorry it's how we prefer to game. I would have a problem if you tried to make every other club conform to that.
Yep, when we're setting up a given club night (we meet on alternating thursday evenings) if someone doesn't have the necessary figs, we make sure to have figs for them. To be fair, we do play alot of small skirmish games, but even when we do a BIG game, we can put together extra armies. I don't want anyone to not be able to participate because they either don't have their figs painted yet or arent' interested in buying or painting figs for a particular genre.
I wouldn't want to force everyone to play only with painted minis all the time, but I would like to see painted armies become the norm. I'm not going to "force" anyone, but I think that it would be a very good thing if gamers worldwide had the expectation that when they came to the FLGS most figs would be painted.
Everyone has a line in the sand on preference.
Unless it is in game rules we cannot make anyone do anything they do not want. Even using the rules to force can be ignored.
I had an opponent who printed pictures of models and glued them to hardboard glued to wood bases. He thought he did awesome. Would the unpainted crowd like to play this fellow who spent a total of $10 on his army and 3 hours work?
We all have a right to our preferences.
I am tired of indulging all manor of people only willing to do the minimum to play. I have done my time. They can play someone who cares less than I do = win-win for all.
Apparently some people can't have fun without demanding that random people adhere to their arbitrary and draconian standards regarding aesthetics.
But, which side of the argument are you talking about? In this thread that applies to both at times.
This thread is "I don't mind if your models aren't painted" versus "if your models don't meet my exacting and insanely high standards, you ought to be ejected from the store."
"Ask not what the hobby can do for you but what you can do for the hobby."
Elitists vs the selfish.
Done.
Agree to disagree until we meet on the field of battle.
But I am the "game nazi", "Not painted??!? No game for you!".
Talizvar wrote: "Ask not what the hobby can do for you but what you can do for the hobby."
Elitists vs the selfish.
Done.
Agree to disagree until we meet on the field of battle.
But I am the "game nazi", "Not painted??!? No game for you!".
I really dont see how not painting an army makes you selfish. Because they can choose to paint or play in their busy schedule and they choose to play makes them selfish?
It inconveniences the delicate sensibilities of these people to be reduced to playing against a filthy unpainted assortment of tiny plastic men commanded by a peasant.
j31c3n wrote: It inconveniences the delicate sensibilities of these people to be reduced to playing against a filthy unpainted assortment of tiny plastic men commanded by a peasant.
I saw someone who exhibited dignity and self respect once, that elitist bastard even told me to put pants on, what a douche.
To me this whole thing is like nudists characterizing anyone who isn't a nudist as puritan elitists.
I will play against an army that isn't fully painted on the rare occasion, but I'm sorry, people can make my preferences out to be bigotry all they want, won't change the fact that I have basic expectations from opponents. Like not having their junk out in my personal space. That and to paint their gak. And for some reason that's made out to be akin to wearing a monocle, eating exclusively caviar not paying attention to the little people. -sips tea and sneers-
j31c3n wrote: It inconveniences the delicate sensibilities of these people to be reduced to playing against a filthy unpainted assortment of tiny plastic men commanded by a peasant.
I saw someone who exhibited dignity and self respect once, that elitist bastard even told me to put pants on, what a douche.
To me this whole thing is like nudists characterizing anyone who isn't a nudist as puritan elitists.
I will play against an army that isn't fully painted on the rare occasion, but I'm sorry, people can make my preferences out to be bigotry all they want, won't change the fact that I have basic expectations from opponents. Like not having their junk out in my personal space. That and to paint their gak.
Except that line of thinking, that an army not being painted is the same as going into public with out pants on is marking you as an Elitist. Simply ending your point with, I prefer my opponents to have a painted army. Is all you need to say.
Not going into public with your twig and berries flopping in the wind is law. Having a painted army to field is a recommendation at most places and a courtesy to your opponent.
j31c3n wrote: It inconveniences the delicate sensibilities of these people to be reduced to playing against a filthy unpainted assortment of tiny plastic men commanded by a peasant.
I saw someone who exhibited dignity and self respect once, that elitist bastard even told me to put pants on, what a douche.
To me this whole thing is like nudists characterizing anyone who isn't a nudist as puritan elitists.
I will play against an army that isn't fully painted on the rare occasion, but I'm sorry, people can make my preferences out to be bigotry all they want, won't change the fact that I have basic expectations from opponents. Like not having their junk out in my personal space. That and to paint their gak.
Except that line of thinking, that an army not being painted is the same as going into public with out pants on is marking you as an Elitist. Simply ending your point with, I prefer my opponents to have a painted army. Is all you need to say.
Not going into public with your twig and berries flopping in the wind is law. Having a painted army to field is a recommendation at most places and a courtesy to your opponent.
That's where I'm going to dissagree with you, having your gak painted is one of the laws of my basement. And the batreps are better for it.
Granted, this argument will go on till the apocalypse. At the end of the day though, there's nothing they can really do about it. I find that amusing.
Actually there's plenty he can do about it: he can refuse to play you.
That leads to fewer potential opponents for you... -AND- for him. You'd play with others that are ok with unpainted stuff, and he'd find folks with painted armies to play with. But apparently, you'd both be ok with that, and in the end, that's all that matters.
I myself much prefer to play against painted armies. Would I kick someone out of the store for not having their army painted? No. Would I play them a second time? Let's say I would be less -likely- to play them a second time, if it's evident that they are making no effort whatosever to get some color on their figs. If anything, I'd try to be supporting and ask if they needed help, or if there was some other impediment from them painting their figs. Maybe they just don't know what to do, or need advice? Sure they could google until their fingers fell off, but lots of people just do better with a live person willing to show them the way, you know, in person. Like what we all used to do before the internet. Heck, on a few occasions I've let someone use one of my painted armies... and that can also get them pretty motivated. Not because my figs are awesome (they aren't, I promise), but because they're simply not gray plastic or silver metal.
But I don't demand Golden Demon quality. I don't even demand 'three color' quality. Just show me some effort beyond zapping them with black spray paint, and you'd never hear a peep from me.
I think there's a reasonable approach in this topic for everyone... and in some places, those approaches simply don't align. Peregrine wouldn't play with some super-stinky douchebag, nor would he play with some guy with a dusty grey-legion platter of figs. Meanwhile, folks like you likely wouldn't play with some super-stinky douchebag either, and you might not be interested in playing with someone who insists on your figs being painted.
It really does boil down to personal preference. Personally, I don't think either side is 'wrong'. I think both sides just have different preferences.
I do wish there was more incentive to paint beyond the aesthetic. I wish there was some sort of 'bonus' for having a painted army on the field - a once-a-game re-roll, or something limited like that. I love when tournaments give scores for painting. etc. But again, those who hate to/won't paint would hate those sorts of requirements. They just want to play.
Anyway - just my 2 coppers. I'm willing to bet most of you folks are good peeps, and seeing you got at it like this is a bummer.
Can we please stop.making ridiculous comparisons? Running around with your knob out is not the same as having unpainted.armies. the comparison is idiotic.
j31c3n wrote: It inconveniences the delicate sensibilities of these people to be reduced to playing against a filthy unpainted assortment of tiny plastic men commanded by a peasant.
I saw someone who exhibited dignity and self respect once, that elitist bastard even told me to put pants on, what a douche.
To me this whole thing is like nudists characterizing anyone who isn't a nudist as puritan elitists.
I will play against an army that isn't fully painted on the rare occasion, but I'm sorry, people can make my preferences out to be bigotry all they want, won't change the fact that I have basic expectations from opponents. Like not having their junk out in my personal space. That and to paint their gak.
Except that line of thinking, that an army not being painted is the same as going into public with out pants on is marking you as an Elitist. Simply ending your point with, I prefer my opponents to have a painted army. Is all you need to say.
Not going into public with your twig and berries flopping in the wind is law. Having a painted army to field is a recommendation at most places and a courtesy to your opponent.
That's where I'm going to dissagree with you, having your gak painted is one of the laws of my basement.
Even as someone that plays painted if you offered for me to play in your basement I would refuse, on the point that you are claiming your 'house law' is the same as a Federal Law and how you are presenting it. Sure you can have your rule, it needs to be painted, like everything it doesn't need to be presented in a manner that makes you look like a complete fethhead.
"Hey, I only really enjoy playing against painted armies. So if you want to play bring painted things. If you aren't painted that's cool you can come over and I'll help you get the basics on."
"Oh, hey that's cool I think I'll take you up on that, your stuff looks nice and I'd be happy to have you help.
vs
"Don't bring your unpainted gak, its insulting. Paint then we can play. Its like if you walked into my house naked when you don't have your stuff painted."
"Uh.. ok.. on second thought, you can go to hell, I'm gonna go chill with these other people."
Also what if someone would rather you not post pictures of their army because they aren't comfortable with the paint job? You gonna tell them to feth off too?
You should all know better. "Not painting your army is like not showering", "not painting is like cheating and rules lawyering" or "demanding that the army be painted is like the nazis" or whatever stupid arguments are being thrown out here in a desperate attempt to win an internet argument need to stop. Now. Next person to cross the line cops it and gets the thread locked.
Even as someone that plays painted if you offered for me to play in your basement I would refuse
That's a real tragedy. I mean, with all the incredibly adult characterizations you're capable of emitting. A true loss. I should look to better myself and lower my standards. Or something.
Even as someone that plays painted if you offered for me to play in your basement I would refuse
That's a real tragedy. I mean, with all the incredibly adult characterizations you're capable of emitting. A true loss. I should look to better myself and lower my standards. Or something.
You say that as if your standards are something of which to be exceedingly proud... lets keep things in context here, we're discussing the serious business of applying paint to little plastic man dollies that we push around a table going "pew pew pew" at each other.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
carlos13th wrote: We now have both a compression between both never bathing and rocking out with your cock out with not painting models. Come on.
I think the only similarity to not bathing and not painting is that both can be referred to as "The unwashed masses".
Even as someone that plays painted if you offered for me to play in your basement I would refuse
That's a real tragedy. I mean, with all the incredibly adult characterizations you're capable of emitting. A true loss. I should look to better myself and lower my standards. Or something.
Oh you mean the characterizations which had to be based on what you were telling me? Those characterizations? The ones you shaped?
You presented your non-nonsensical comparison about painted models, I simply responded. So you should look to your own arguments and see your incredibly 'adult' characterizations. They remind me somewhat of interacting with an adolescent.
I had for the most part presented a neutral ground stating that I agree painted models look better, they do get you more involved and I would prefer them. On the other hand though I understand why people would have incomplete or non paint jobs on units and I wouldn't use that as an excuse to not play them. Enforcing a 'models must be painted' rule can be just as damaging as it can be helpful if not done in the right manner. You could end up with some one who does work they aren't happy with and ultimately end up making them resent the hobby. Theoretically pushing someone from the game before you get a chance to know them.
As you are doing through you interactions with me, not pushing me out of the game mind you, but seriously not wanting anything to do with a man that must resort to the comparisons he has made to get his point across.
I never use a model on the table that isn't painted. That's my personal standard.
I don't expect anyone else to follow that standard. Some people just don't like painting at all.
I feel let down when I see bare minis facing me across the table, but whatever. To each his own.
That's why I like escalation leagues. It pushes people to paint their minis to earn points. Heck, some people win by painting more than anyone else.
For friendly games my club allow unpainted models. We know that every member constantly painting something for their armies. We all know the feeling of wanting to try new shiny model that you bought and assembled righ away)
Only for tournaments we make every painted model to have Prefered Enemy USR against unpainted, but unpainted models are still allowed.
I myself have about half of my 8000 point cost model painted and paint almost every day) But only because I like it. We have on member that rarely paint anything but I can not to call him on it as he paint realy well when he does so)
This thread is "I don't mind if your models aren't painted" versus "if your models don't meet my exacting and insanely high standards, you ought to be ejected from the store."
I don't think that's true. There are many suggestions on this thread by those in favor of painted miniatures for fast-painting methods to achieve basic tabletop results. Ironically, most of the mention of anything approaching "insanely high standards" are actually coming from folks on the unpainted side who put forth the time required for such a standard as a reason why they aren't able to get their army painted up.
This thread is "I don't mind if your models aren't painted" versus "if your models don't meet my exacting and insanely high standards, you ought to be ejected from the store."
I don't think that's true. There are many suggestions on this thread by those in favor of painted miniatures for fast-painting methods to achieve basic tabletop results. Ironically, most of the mention of anything approaching "insanely high standards" are actually coming from folks on the unpainted side who put forth the time required for such a standard as a reason why they aren't able to get their army painted up.
And is that a bad thing? It's my miniatures - I'd like to lavish time and love to make them look good, rather than slap 3 colors on haphazardly just to be able to play a few games with the army I spent a ton of money buying.
I should look to better myself and lower my standards. Or something.
You say that as if your standards are something of which to be exceedingly proud... lets keep things in context here, we're discussing the serious business of applying paint to little plastic man dollies that we push around a table going "pew pew pew" at each other.
Not going to address the rest of the exchange, but I think it is insensible to dismiss standards just because we're talking about miniatures and not more serious matters.
-If in a classic car club would you not paint your vehicle?
-If in a a finescale model club would one say "I just like to built and convert, I don't paint?
Of course not, in both cases. And yet in miniature wargaming, folks feel perfectly fine in tossing what has long been one of the standards of the hobby because they "don't feel like it" or "don't have time" or want to "hobby their way". Painted minaitures have been part of the wargaming hobby for over 100 years!. http://www-personal.umich.edu/~beattie/timeline2.html One can of course hobby "their way", but tossing out painting standards simply because they are standards or suggesting that painted miniatures aren't a core part of the hobby is silly and reflects an ignorance of history.
This thread is "I don't mind if your models aren't painted" versus "if your models don't meet my exacting and insanely high standards, you ought to be ejected from the store."
I don't think that's true. There are many suggestions on this thread by those in favor of painted miniatures for fast-painting methods to achieve basic tabletop results. Ironically, most of the mention of anything approaching "insanely high standards" are actually coming from folks on the unpainted side who put forth the time required for such a standard as a reason why they aren't able to get their army painted up.
And is that a bad thing? It's my miniatures - I'd like to lavish time and love to make them look good, rather than slap 3 colors on haphazardly just to be able to play a few games with the army I spent a ton of money buying.
I was responding to the previous suggestion that those in favor of painted miniatures are not usually the one's advocating extremely high painting quality. We're just happy to play with-and-against painted miniatures.
Of course having high standards for one's miniatures is not a bad thing, but neither it nor the fact that you "spent a ton of money" is going to make your unpainted miniatures look better on the tabletop.
Talizvar wrote: "Ask not what the hobby can do for you but what you can do for the hobby."
Elitists vs the selfish.
Done.
Agree to disagree until we meet on the field of battle.
But I am the "game nazi", "Not painted??!? No game for you!".
I really dont see how not painting an army makes you selfish. Because they can choose to paint or play in their busy schedule and they choose to play makes them selfish?
I really don't see how painting your army makes you elitist. Because they can paint and play in their busy schedule and they choose to play painted makes them elitist?
Not meaning overly much to parrot but the argument works both ways as I was trying to point out.
Exercising preference on both our counts.
The "culture" has started accepting unpainted as acceptable.
All tournaments and competitions and GW stores in general did not allow unpainted participants in the past.
The game has lately not looked very appealing due to this, I just prefer a higher standard.
X-wing does well where we can all play to a higher minimum standard, I still see all kinds of repaints posted that look awesome so if people have that kind of itch they can do it.
<edit> Could we at least accept that if we want more people involved in hobby we love, it has to be appealing to people.
This is how the pre-painted models have been so successful (being a decent game helps too!) is a minimum look has been set.
I know comparisons have been ridiculed but what attracts you initially to a person is their looks and what keeps you is their character.
Same applies to the game: if it looks "epic" it will capture the attention long enough to then be attracted to the game itself.
Pushing around unpainted models to the general public looks silly if not sad.
This is how unpainted seems selfish: you met your needs but not anything further for the opponent or any audience for that matter.
If you are "working on it" great!
If you want it to be awesome and you are slow, so be it.
Just show some progress.
Those who are fighting for the right of "Grey legion forever!!!!" have you no art or pride in your soul?
-If in a classic car club would you not paint your vehicle?
-If in a a finescale model club would one say "I just like to built and convert, I don't paint?
Of course not, in both cases. And yet in miniature wargaming, folks feel perfectly fine in tossing what has long been one of the standards of the hobby because they "don't feel like it" or "don't have time" or want to "hobby their way". Painted minaitures have been part of the wargaming hobby for over 100 years!. http://www-personal.umich.edu/~beattie/timeline2.html
How are either even close to w40k style of table top gaming. I could give you an example of people who build engines or do crash races. One groups doesn't paint the cars, because why bother and the other one doesn't even assemble cars, because they only do the engines. Some don't even have physical engines, but everything is made using car design programs. That would be like playing w40k without models.
The history example is also wack, it only shows what was done in US and western europe. For example russian or polish wargames done durning military training for officers used non painted stuff.
Your math is completely wrong. 76 weeks is a year and a half, not 19 years. So even if you only paint 3 hours per week it would take you a year and a half to paint your entire army. Spend a whole afternoon and make it 6 hours per week and you've got the whole thing done in less than a year.
It is 19 years if you count holdays, 3 months working durning summer and possibly being sicks and do what I normaly have free time. it drop to 1/4 of that if I have three time as much free time , which I don't have, and if the only thing I ever do on weekends is paint. So I stop learning, going out , playing the game, I never go on trips with school and never visit family if the trip there and back takes more then 4 hours.
Did you get all those models at the same time, or did you collect that over a space of months or years?
I got most of them at the same time I had an extra vendetta, less blobs and more vets. Otherwise I wouldn't have a 1500 army.
Mostly in general I find the more people you can play with has for the most part been a good thing. I don't really understand why you wouldn't want to grow your community.
I fee that the people who have a hard time dealing with it will probably be pushed out or stuck in their own small groups at some point in the future.
Eilif wrote: -If in a classic car club would you not paint your vehicle? -If in a a finescale model club would one say "I just like to built and convert, I don't paint?
I've heard you bring up these comparisons before and they are just massive false equivalences. Maybe not as bad as smelling bad or not wearing clothes, but still not good comparisons (and if anything reflects an ignorance of the hobbies you are using as analogies).
Car club... 1. Cars rust when they aren't painted. If you owned a car that didn't rust when it wasn't painted, I'm sure most car clubs would be fine with you having an unpainted car. However it's not a relevant problem for 99% of cars. Cars are also released painted from the factory. You don't buy a car then paint it, it comes painted. You only paint it if you're restoring it (and you don't just leave it unpainted because of rust destroying all the effort you put in to restoring it) or changing the colour. If you did have a car that didn't rust when painted, honestly I don't think anyone would care if you left it unpainted after a restoration.
And that's just talking about traditional classic car clubs, you do have things like rat rods which people intentionally leave unpainted as well, you also have people who build cheap racers who don't bother painting the cars because they are worth less than the paint job.
2. Even car clubs have various levels of involvement. At the car club I'm part of, I almost never go to "show and shine" days, they don't interest me. I'm sure there's people who would like me to go to them to boost attendance and have more vehicles present, but no one frowns on me for that. On the other side, I like to go on drive days, other people don't. Some people work on their own cars, some people get them worked on by other members of the club, others go to external mechanics, others don't even use their cars.
Finescale models... Fine scale modelling is not really a multifaceted hobby like wargaming. Honestly I didn't even think there were "clubs" for finescale modelling, what do people do in such clubs? lol. But either way, it's not comparable to wargaming because finescale modelling is the act of reproducing realistic scale models.... that's it.... that's all there is to it. Wargaming is multifaced, you collect, you assemble/paint, you game, you can create dioramas, you can write fan fiction, you can create drawings and paintings or whatever.
I should look to better myself and lower my standards. Or something.
You say that as if your standards are something of which to be exceedingly proud... lets keep things in context here, we're discussing the serious business of applying paint to little plastic man dollies that we push around a table going "pew pew pew" at each other.
Not going to address the rest of the exchange, but I think it is insensible to dismiss standards just because we're talking about miniatures and not more serious matters.
-If in a classic car club would you not paint your vehicle?
-If in a a finescale model club would one say "I just like to built and convert, I don't paint?
Of course not, in both cases. And yet in miniature wargaming, folks feel perfectly fine in tossing what has long been one of the standards of the hobby because they "don't feel like it" or "don't have time" or want to "hobby their way". Painted minaitures have been part of the wargaming hobby for over 100 years!. http://www-personal.umich.edu/~beattie/timeline2.html One can of course hobby "their way", but tossing out painting standards simply because they are standards or suggesting that painted miniatures aren't a core part of the hobby is silly and reflects an ignorance of history.
Because we're talking about specifically the gaming part of 'Wargaming'. Classic car club and fine scale model clubs are non equivalents, the whole point of them is to model something or have a car that looks nice. Paint doesn't have any effect on the actual gaming part of Wargaming at all. It's not like people are saying 'I want to enter a painting contest with my unpainted models', it's 'I don't enjoy painting but love playing' or 'I don't have much time and would rather be playing in that time than painting'. Yes painted miniatures are part of the hobby, but that's what they are. A part of it. And a smaller part to some people than others. It's nothing to do with 'ignorance of history'.
It's fair enough to prefer playing painted armies, I'm sure most people would. It's also fair enough to refuse games against unpainted armies. It's not fair to say people are doing the hobby 'wrong' or are ignorant or even that they shouldn't be allowed to play, because they don't prioritise painting as much as you.
Makumba wrote: It is 19 years if you count holdays, 3 months working durning summer and possibly being sicks and do what I normaly have free time. it drop to 1/4 of that if I have three time as much free time , which I don't have, and if the only thing I ever do on weekends is paint. So I stop learning, going out , playing the game, I never go on trips with school and never visit family if the trip there and back takes more then 4 hours.
If it takes you 19 years to produce an army that took 230 hours to make.... that's only 12 hours PER YEAR. While I don't want to be seen as siding with Peregrine in this thread, that's a pretty absurd statement. 1 to 3 years I could believe, 19 years is a bit absurd.
Interesting argument on the muti-faceted aspects of the game.
Like squishing the "chess club" in with the "fine scale modelers"?
A somewhat comparable hobby would possibly be the toy train folks?
Now imagine them showing off their fine landscape of bare plaster their scale train is rolling around on: lame.
Out of interest, I looked up a few articles on this matter for perspective (bunch O' links):
Interesting argument on the muti-faceted aspects of the game.
Like squishing the "chess club" in with the "fine scale modelers"?
A somewhat comparable hobby would possibly be the toy train folks?
Now imagine them showing off their fine landscape of bare plaster their scale train is rolling around on: lame.
Out of interest, I looked up a few articles on this matter for perspective (bunch O' links):
Why is model railway comparable too? It's not a game, again the point of model railway is essentially a big diorama. No ones saying 'I'm going to make a diorama but not paint it'.
j31c3n wrote: Apparently some people can't have fun without demanding that random people adhere to their arbitrary and draconian standards regarding aesthetics. I think this is probably the wrong hobby for those kinds of players. 40k is beer and pretzels. (I'm not being sarcastic, I love the 'beer-and-pretzels' feel.)
ImAGeek wrote: Why is model railway comparable too? It's not a game, again the point of model railway is essentially a big diorama. No ones saying 'I'm going to make a diorama but not paint it'.
Hooboy! Umm, we play a game with models.
You could say that the train people already have fully painted trains so all they need is a big flat board and some track.
The point is about running your train right? Not how it looks. Right?
Wargame miniatures could be playing pieces but typically for boardgames they would gussy them up with different colors of plastic if they figure they are to be unpainted.
A few would argue that wargaming with miniatures IS a form of diorama.
diorama /ˌdīəˈramə,-ˈrä-/ A model representing a scene with three-dimensional figures, either in miniature or as a large-scale museum exhibit.
•a miniature movie set used for special effects or animation.
The "game" is not chess, no one is saying "I'm going to buy a chess set and paint it".
With this logic I can cut out an odd shaped board of cardboard write a big "T" on it and I have my terrain of "trees", done!
Bah, just look up some pictures on the net, print them out onto card stock and save yourself the money and they will be in color!
Talizvar wrote: "Ask not what the hobby can do for you but what you can do for the hobby."
Elitists vs the selfish.
Done.
Agree to disagree until we meet on the field of battle.
But I am the "game nazi", "Not painted??!? No game for you!".
I really dont see how not painting an army makes you selfish. Because they can choose to paint or play in their busy schedule and they choose to play makes them selfish?
I really don't see how painting your army makes you elitist. Because they can paint and play in their busy schedule and they choose to play painted makes them elitist?
Not meaning overly much to parrot but the argument works both ways as I was trying to point out.
Exercising preference on both our counts.
The "culture" has started accepting unpainted as acceptable.
All tournaments and competitions and GW stores in general did not allow unpainted participants in the past.
The game has lately not looked very appealing due to this, I just prefer a higher standard.
X-wing does well where we can all play to a higher minimum standard, I still see all kinds of repaints posted that look awesome so if people have that kind of itch they can do it.
<edit> Could we at least accept that if we want more people involved in hobby we love, it has to be appealing to people.
This is how the pre-painted models have been so successful (being a decent game helps too!) is a minimum look has been set.
I know comparisons have been ridiculed but what attracts you initially to a person is their looks and what keeps you is their character.
Same applies to the game: if it looks "epic" it will capture the attention long enough to then be attracted to the game itself.
Pushing around unpainted models to the general public looks silly if not sad.
This is how unpainted seems selfish: you met your needs but not anything further for the opponent or any audience for that matter.
If you are "working on it" great!
If you want it to be awesome and you are slow, so be it.
Just show some progress.
Those who are fighting for the right of "Grey legion forever!!!!" have you no art or pride in your soul?
I'm not saying painted armies make you an elitist, nor is want or prefering to face opponents who have painted armies. Trying to force people that may not have the time, or drive to always have everything painted to paint otherwise they cant play in the store makes you(not you but in general) elitist. I think that when it comes to painting, particularly if they spent say their last weekend painting and this weekend they have time enough to paint or play, and they choose to play the game they spent hundreds of dollars on. It comes across as highly elitist and selfish for you to deny them that opportunity.
The table top game is equal parts modeling, painting and gaming. If you deny them the right to game against people who would be willing to play with their incomplete army, what drive will they have to keep going back to work on their force, or to come in and play when it's finished?
Like I have said before, I like looking at painted forces, as I restart the hobby squads are being painted before I will be willing to field them. But just because I want to do it that way doesn't mean I should force my beliefs on another. Life is full of times when you may need to compromise, so why not be willing to compromise for a game meant to be fun and make you friends, and be rigid and uncompromising when it comes to something that matters?
ImAGeek wrote: Why is model railway comparable too? It's not a game, again the point of model railway is essentially a big diorama. No ones saying 'I'm going to make a diorama but not paint it'.
Hooboy! Umm, we play a game with models.
You could say that the train people already have fully painted trains so all they need is a big flat board and some track.
The point is about running your train right? Not how it looks. Right?
Wargame miniatures could be playing pieces but typically for boardgames they would gussy them up with different colors of plastic if they figure they are to be unpainted.
A few would argue that wargaming with miniatures IS a form of diorama.
diorama /ˌdīəˈramə,-ˈrä-/ A model representing a scene with three-dimensional figures, either in miniature or as a large-scale museum exhibit.
•a miniature movie set used for special effects or animation.
The "game" is not chess, no one is saying "I'm going to buy a chess set and paint it".
With this logic I can cut out an odd shaped board of cardboard write a big "T" on it and I have my terrain of "trees", done!
Bah, just look up some pictures on the net, print them out onto card stock and save yourself the money and they will be in color!
If the train guy likes running track but not making scenery, then that's fine. It's his hobby. He's not doing anything 'wrong', he just enjoys a different aspect of the hobby. Your opponent with unpainted models? It's their hobby. You can choose not to play them, but they aren't doing anything wrong by not painting their models.
Pulling from Talizvar's link's, here's a quote that actually predates GW as a store, let a alone a company:
But do, please do, make some effort to paint them. Even if your hand isn't as steady as you would like, it isn't too much to ask of anybody a black shako (hat), red or blue jacket, and grey or white trousers, with perhaps a touch of pink for face and hands, and black shoes and musket - is it? If painted in batches of a dozen or so at a time, doing all the hats first, then all the jackets, and so on, it does not take long, and the results in terms of tabletop appearance well justifies the slight effort.
Bruce Quarrie, Napoleonic Wargaming, 1974
infinite_array wrote: Pulling from Talizvar's link's, here's a quote that actually predates GW as a store, let a alone a company:
But do, please do, make some effort to paint them. Even if your hand isn't as steady as you would like, it isn't too much to ask of anybody a black shako (hat), red or blue jacket, and grey or white trousers, with perhaps a touch of pink for face and hands, and black shoes and musket - is it? If painted in batches of a dozen or so at a time, doing all the hats first, then all the jackets, and so on, it does not take long, and the results in terms of tabletop appearance well justifies the slight effort.
Bruce Quarrie, Napoleonic Wargaming, 1974
As I said on another page....
"It's true that in historics there's the assumption that models are going to be painted before being played with.... but historics aren't 40k and I don't think 40k needs to narrow it's target audience to only include those willing to spend hundreds of hours painting models (or thousands of dollars for commission painters)."
ImAGeek wrote: He's not doing anything 'wrong', he just enjoys a different aspect of the hobby. Your opponent with unpainted models? It's their hobby. You can choose not to play them, but they aren't doing anything wrong by not painting their models.
Funny you are hung-up on "right or wrong", I do not think that exists in a court of law kind of way.
I have pretty much drawn my line with those who will not ever paint their miniatures.
Why get all nasty with new player or someone doing their best?
It is not "fair" and is unnecessary: eventually the end result I want will happen with these people.
Funny, I was a bit wishy-washy about all this but the demand of "You will accept my unpainted miniatures forever!" has polarized my opinion a little too well.
I just have MUCH stuff to paint to not be a bad, bad, hypocrite if I want to play any of my alternate armies.
The claims of prejudice here bothers me less than me playing with stuff less than cool looking.
As you get older, you need to "legitimize" your hobbies better or you come across as some crazy old kook.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Enigwolf wrote: I wonder if this circular debate will ever end...
I could swear and get personal about it and end all our suffering if you wish?
I may get baned and thank them for it...
Enigwolf wrote: I wonder if this circular debate will ever end...
Nope. It's twelve pages of "anyone that doesn't do things MY way is OBJECTIVELY WRONG." And counting.
Nobody has to play a game if they don't want to, or against someone they don't want to. If unpainted miniatures ruin your fun, don't play with or against them. If you don't care, fill your boots and play. Some places don't let unpainted models on the tables, or in tournaments. Some do. Find the one you like and go there. Simple really.
If you think that we need to band together and all collectively refuse games against unpainted models to preserve the integrity of the hobby from the unwashed masses (Peregrine), you're not going to get what you want. Not after 12 pages, not after 100 pages. Find a like-minded group/FLGS and play there, and leave the rest of us to play the way we like.
infinite_array wrote: Pulling from Talizvar's link's, here's a quote that actually predates GW as a store, let a alone a company:
But do, please do, make some effort to paint them. Even if your hand isn't as steady as you would like, it isn't too much to ask of anybody a black shako (hat), red or blue jacket, and grey or white trousers, with perhaps a touch of pink for face and hands, and black shoes and musket - is it? If painted in batches of a dozen or so at a time, doing all the hats first, then all the jackets, and so on, it does not take long, and the results in terms of tabletop appearance well justifies the slight effort.
Bruce Quarrie, Napoleonic Wargaming, 1974
As I said on another page....
"It's true that in historics there's the assumption that models are going to be painted before being played with.... but historics aren't 40k and I don't think 40k needs to narrow it's target audience to only include those willing to spend hundreds of hours painting models (or thousands of dollars for commission painters)."
I don't understand that reasoning. Is there some sort of intrinsic value that separates historical miniatures from those produced by Games Workshop?
AllSeeingSkink wrote: "It's true that in historics there's the assumption that models are going to be painted before being played with.... but historics aren't 40k and I don't think 40k needs to narrow it's target audience to only include those willing to spend hundreds of hours painting models (or thousands of dollars for commission painters)."
I don't understand that reasoning. Is there some sort of intrinsic value that separates historical miniatures from those produced by Games Workshop?
I am a little confused on this as well.
I play historical and just do not really see a difference (other than subject matter) of one type of tabletop miniatures game vs. another.
So the logic is that painting is expected in all other tabletop games but 40k is unique in it being "ok" not to?
As a rather extreme example, I touched on painting 100 imperial guard.
I was using an airbrush mind you but starting with black prime:
Spoiler:
1) White spray shoulder pads, not too worried going out of the lines.
2) Stick blobs of silly putty over shoulder pads to mask.
3) Spray entire bodies gray.
4) Spray base brown, little overspray on boots no big deal.
5) Pull off silly putty, drag our brush and flesh color paint the faces and hands.
6) Nail with some flesh wash previously painted faces and hands.
That was done in 4 hours(!) 2 of which was the skin painting.
Got a hand cramp part way through but again I had a goal to surprise a friend with this force and it had to get done.
It still could use the guns being painted red and much more detail but it would serve for 4 colors and in large amounts looks awesome.
Hundreds of hours to paint IS possible to do but a fraction of that when thought out can get to a playable standard and leave LOTS of room to continue your painting and not feeling you had to settled on a half-job. I hear inking and washes work better on a clear coat anyway...
I should look to better myself and lower my standards. Or something.
You say that as if your standards are something of which to be exceedingly proud... lets keep things in context here, we're discussing the serious business of applying paint to little plastic man dollies that we push around a table going "pew pew pew" at each other.
Not going to address the rest of the exchange, but I think it is insensible to dismiss standards just because we're talking about miniatures and not more serious matters.
-If in a classic car club would you not paint your vehicle?
-If in a a finescale model club would one say "I just like to built and convert, I don't paint?
Of course not, in both cases. And yet in miniature wargaming, folks feel perfectly fine in tossing what has long been one of the standards of the hobby because they "don't feel like it" or "don't have time" or want to "hobby their way". Painted minaitures have been part of the wargaming hobby for over 100 years!. http://www-personal.umich.edu/~beattie/timeline2.html One can of course hobby "their way", but tossing out painting standards simply because they are standards or suggesting that painted miniatures aren't a core part of the hobby is silly and reflects an ignorance of history.
I'd start with demanding the return of gamer's games like Epic and Necromunda first, though. GW killing the gamer's games and releasing Apocalypse is the reason why having a large Wh40k army is suddenly "necessary" which spoils fun of modellers like you.
Large 28mm armies are the problem. 28mm miniatures are expensive and detailed, which demands a high standard of painting. 6mm miniatures are made for fast massed painting, while skirmish gaming allows to concentrate efforts on painting a small warband.
infinite_array wrote: I don't understand that reasoning. Is there some sort of intrinsic value that separates historical miniatures from those produced by Games Workshop?
The miniatures themselves? No. But GW obviously caters to a more mainstream audience.
At this point, telling people they need to paint their models before playing with them would simply be telling many people to feth off because they don't have the time/interest/desire/enjoyment to paint their models.
Where as the historics community is already almost solely patroned by people who paint.
With 40k, it's not a matter of encouraging non-painters to paint, it's trying to exclude people who are already part of the community. Historics already exclude those people.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Talizvar wrote: That was done in 4 hours(!) 2 of which was the skin painting.
I'd say that's a (large) exception. The minimum standard I am willing to paint (which frankly isn't very high, check my gallery ) still takes me 30 minutes per guardsman from sprue to finished model. ~5 minutes to remove from sprue, clean mould lines, assemble, a couple of minutes to mount them for spraying and then spraying them, 5-10 minutes picking out details, a couple of minutes washing, another few minutes basing. I would expect your average gamer who is painting their first army (not their 4th or 5th army like I was) to take longer.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Talizvar wrote: Hundreds of hours to paint IS possible to do but a fraction of that when thought out can get to a playable standard and leave LOTS of room to continue your painting and not feeling you had to settled on a half-job.
To go from my "speed painted" stuff to my "high level" stuff would require a full repaint. Probably a strip and a repaint.
AllSeeingSkink wrote: "It's true that in historics there's the assumption that models are going to be painted before being played with.... but historics aren't 40k and I don't think 40k needs to narrow it's target audience to only include those willing to spend hundreds of hours painting models (or thousands of dollars for commission painters)."
I don't understand that reasoning. Is there some sort of intrinsic value that separates historical miniatures from those produced by Games Workshop?
I am a little confused on this as well.
I play historical and just do not really see a difference (other than subject matter) of one type of tabletop miniatures game vs. another.
So the logic is that painting is expected in all other tabletop games but 40k is unique in it being "ok" not to?
AllSeeingSkink wrote: "It's true that in historics there's the assumption that models are going to be painted before being played with.... but historics aren't 40k and I don't think 40k needs to narrow it's target audience to only include those willing to spend hundreds of hours painting models (or thousands of dollars for commission painters)."
I don't understand that reasoning. Is there some sort of intrinsic value that separates historical miniatures from those produced by Games Workshop?
I am a little confused on this as well.
I play historical and just do not really see a difference (other than subject matter) of one type of tabletop miniatures game vs. another.
So the logic is that painting is expected in all other tabletop games but 40k is unique in it being "ok" not to?
My first 40k army was little more than a couple of squads and a commander, which I expanded eventually with a tank (yes, one tank!). That would be considered an insignificant force by today's standards.
AllSeeingSkink wrote: With 40k, it's not a matter of encouraging non-painters to paint, it's trying to exclude people who are already part of the community. Historics already exclude those people.
Also, historics includes non-painters by providing a wide range board wargames for them to play.
Talizvar wrote: That was done in 4 hours(!) 2 of which was the skin painting.
I'd say that's a (large) exception. The minimum standard I am willing to paint (which frankly isn't very high, check my gallery ) still takes me 30 minutes per guardsman from sprue to finished model. I would expect your average gamer who is painting their first army (not their 4th or 5th army like I was) to take longer.
Talizvar wrote: Hundreds of hours to paint IS possible to do but a fraction of that when thought out can get to a playable standard and leave LOTS of room to continue your painting and not feeling you had to settled on a half-job.
To go from my "speed painted" stuff to my "high level" stuff would require a full repaint. Probably a strip and a repaint.
Very modest.
Certain techniques of yours blow mine out of the water like the texture on the Tyranids which I am unsure if it is edge highlighting or drybrush or both.
When I think of "speed painting" I am thinking more like the early stages where you are doing "block painting" and then can get down to the business of shading, edging etc.
30 minutes from sprue to finished model is amazing.
I trim, file, glue, sand base, white glue base and gravel then black prime in large batches but figure assembly works out to 20 minutes per model to this stage alone.
I AM faster at painting depending on what it is but find block painting "soul sucking" hence the airbrush use.
Many "spray bomb" versions of colored paint are out there (get 50% off coupon for "Michaels" for Liquitex spray paints!) so can be replicated without airbrush.
Early stages of painting are perfectly serviceable for gaming is what I was getting at for most.
Would not your high level stuff be viewable after an hour or so on the "trophy" models?
I am trying to offer solutions here, to draw interest, to be MORE inclusive by making the hobby something demonstrably better than just focusing on army lists.
AllSeeingSkink wrote: With 40k, it's not a matter of encouraging non-painters to paint, it's trying to exclude people who are already part of the community. Historics already exclude those people.
Also, historics includes non-painters by providing a wide range board wargames for them to play.
That's a terrible comparison, though. It's like saying 40k has Space Hulk to play unpainted. >.<
Board games with miniatures are also cooler with the miniatures painted than in grey/blue/red plastic.
By the way, it takes me 30 minutes just to choose the bits for an infantry-sized model, and to clean mold lines off of it Longer, probably! Heck, it probably takes me twice that to choose what I want to work on hahahaha.
AllSeeingSkink wrote: With 40k, it's not a matter of encouraging non-painters to paint, it's trying to exclude people who are already part of the community. Historics already exclude those people.
Also, historics includes non-painters by providing a wide range board wargames for them to play.
That's a terrible comparison, though. It's like saying 40k has Space Hulk to play unpainted. >.<
Board games with miniatures are also cooler with the miniatures painted than in grey/blue/red plastic.
I mean board wargames with counters. Historical gaming has a wide range of them and they not only allow playing without painting miniatures but also allow playing with large armies without buying miniatures.
Polish historical scene actually seems to be centred around large board wargames with tens to hundreds of counters per side.
When it comes to miniatures, historicals also include a wide variety of scales, including ones with cheap miniatures which allow very quick painting like 6mm and 15mm.
28mm miniatures cost 4x more than 15mm ones. So, if I would be playing on larger scale, I'd buy 15mm miniatures and quickly paint them to the tabletop standard. But if I'd collect 28mm ones, I'd try to carefully paint them to the showcase standard and play only in small scale, possibly slowly switching to larger scale much later.
15mm Ion Age has platoon deals and 28mm doesn't which clearly communicates which miniature scale is for larger battles:
http://theionage.com/products/iafp04-muster-platoon-platoon-pack-with-unique-miniature
VictorVonTzeentch wrote: At this point its probably a better choice to just bring up an incredibly fallacious argument just to get the thread locked.
Ok: Painted models are bad, because paint is bad for the environment. Plastic too. We should go to unpainted wood miniatures; that way, they'll compost when we don't want them anymore!
Unfortunately, a short time after this one dies, someone else will start a new thread with the same topic. I don't know why everyone can't be happy and just play the way the want to play with the people they want to play with, and leave other people alone
That's it for me, no more toe dipped in this thread.
It doesn't bother me, I paint my models (very slowly at that, and still play with a few grey minis) because I feel obligated to (hate it though).
I don't really have time to paint. Over the summer I think I can get the rest of me DE painted. I go to school from 8AM to 3PM, the attend part time work.
I play at my FLGS on saturdays, get home at 8, then do HW on sunday.
Paint your models or not to paint your models, that is the question. As long as you have a decent comprehension of the rules, and aren't TFG, your cool
thats just my $0.02, you can disagree with me though, happy wargaming,
Top and bottom of it is, if its completely unpainted I struggle to see what is what on the board, I don't have amazing eyesight even with Glasses and if its all grey or sprayed black then it all blends into one.
So its a completely unfair advantage or rubbish game as I ask every few minutes what is what.
Given the choice then I'm not playing unpainted if I can help it and another game is on offer. There is no law here its player choice, they choose not to paint and I choose someone else to play.
Enigwolf wrote: I wonder if this circular debate will ever end...
Nope. It's twelve pages of "anyone that doesn't do things MY way is OBJECTIVELY WRONG." And counting.
Yet another day in DakkaDakka Land...
Kain wrote:The points in the debate go round and round, round and round, round and round, the points in the debate go round and round; all the ding dong day.
I'm going to quote this for my signature, if you don't mind.
VictorVonTzeentch wrote:At this point its probably a better choice to just bring up an incredibly fallacious argument just to get the thread locked.
In summation, if you don't wish to have a shared experience with people who don't share your values, you're an elitist. Oh and all armies are beautiful.
Aszubaruzah Surn wrote: Historical gaming has a wide range of them and they not only allow playing without painting miniatures but also allow playing with large armies without buying miniatures.
So does 40k. If you don't value the miniatures just play 40k with cardboard counters. Or, more accurately, play a different scifi game with cardboard counters, because once you take away the aesthetic value of the miniatures you realize that 40k is an exercise in masochism.
If by "mainstream" you mean "kids who buy a box of space marines and then forget about the hobby", sure. But the fact that GW is obsessively focused on sales at all costs and willing to drop painting requirements if it means selling another box of space marines shouldn't matter to us as a community.
At this point, telling people they need to paint their models before playing with them would simply be telling many people to feth off because they don't have the time/interest/desire/enjoyment to paint their models.
And I don't really see the problem with this. Having the biggest possible gaming community has no value to me if those additional players aren't improving my enjoyment of the game.
VictorVonTzeentch wrote:At this point its probably a better choice to just bring up an incredibly fallacious argument just to get the thread locked.
CRASSUS ARMOURED TRANSPORT
Space Corridors and Industrial Towers
Crablezworth wrote:In summation, if you don't wish to have a shared experience with people who don't share your values, you're an elitist. Oh and all armies are beautiful.
Not everyone has been saying all armies are beautiful, there has been a clear majority of people saying they prefer painted but ultimately dont care if your army is painted. It's not the same point.
VictorVonTzeentch wrote: Not everyone has been saying all armies are beautiful, there has been a clear majority of people saying they prefer painted but ultimately dont care if your army is painted. It's not the same point.
And all the tolerant ones are just doing the freedom argument. They need more than chocolate, more than vanilla, they need freedom. It's really not hard to make preference out to be bigotry. It makes you look more tolerant.
If by "mainstream" you mean "kids who buy a box of space marines and then forget about the hobby", sure. But the fact that GW is obsessively focused on sales at all costs and willing to drop painting requirements if it means selling another box of space marines shouldn't matter to us as a community.
At this point, telling people they need to paint their models before playing with them would simply be telling many people to feth off because they don't have the time/interest/desire/enjoyment to paint their models.
And I don't really see the problem with this. Having the biggest possible gaming community has no value to me if those additional players aren't improving my enjoyment of the game.
The problem is you want people who are not directly improving your enjoyment of the game to not be allowed any enjoyment of the game themselves. Yet then have the audacity to call them selfish.
Before anyone starts attacking me for this statement I want to make it very clear I am not addressing people who only play painted or only play against painted with this comment. Look back at my other posts and you can see I take no issue with people who only want to play against painted model. This only dresses Peregrine and the fact he thinks anyone who doesn't play the game the way he wants to play it shouldn't be allowed to play at all.
VictorVonTzeentch wrote: Not everyone has been saying all armies are beautiful, there has been a clear majority of people saying they prefer painted but ultimately dont care if your army is painted. It's not the same point.
And all the tolerant ones are just doing the freedom argument. They need more than chocolate, more than vanilla, they need freedom. It's really not hard to make preference out to be bigotry. It makes you look more tolerant.
Preference is fine. Trying to apply that to all people including people who don't wish to play with you is not.
VictorVonTzeentch wrote: Not everyone has been saying all armies are beautiful, there has been a clear majority of people saying they prefer painted but ultimately dont care if your army is painted. It's not the same point.
And all the tolerant ones are just doing the freedom argument. They need more than chocolate, more than vanilla, they need freedom. It's really not hard to make preference out to be bigotry. It makes you look more tolerant.
I would argue that some of the people with the preference for playing the game only with painted models were already doing a well enough job making themselves out to be bigoted before some of us began arguing tolerance. If anything we exacerbated the issue, pushing the intolerant into more of a defensive corner.
Kain wrote: The points in the debate go round and round, round and round, round and round, the points in the debate go round and round; all the ding dong day.
The railway example is a very good one. Nearly every aspect of model railroading has a tabletop wargaming equivalent. Both hobbies involve
-Research: whether in the form of historical background research, listbuilding, fluff, etc
-Building and assembly
-Customization/kitbashing/scratchbuilding
-A public presentation: playing the game or "running" the trains.
Both activities can be done with unpainted models, but whereas many gamers have let the idea of painting slide, you're not going to find many folks publicly running unpainted trains.
Crablezworth wrote: I should look to better myself and lower my standards. Or something.
You say that as if your standards are something of which to be exceedingly proud... lets keep things in context here, we're discussing the serious business of applying paint to little plastic man dollies that we push around a table going "pew pew pew" at each other.
Spoiler:
Not going to address the rest of the exchange, but I think it is insensible to dismiss standards just because we're talking about miniatures and not more serious matters.
-If in a classic car club would you not paint your vehicle?
-If in a a finescale model club would one say "I just like to built and convert, I don't paint?
Of course not, in both cases. And yet in miniature wargaming, folks feel perfectly fine in tossing what has long been one of the standards of the hobby because they "don't feel like it" or "don't have time" or want to "hobby their way". Painted minaitures have been part of the wargaming hobby for over 100 years!. http://www-personal.umich.edu/~beattie/timeline2.html One can of course hobby "their way", but tossing out painting standards simply because they are standards or suggesting that painted miniatures aren't a core part of the hobby is silly and reflects an ignorance of history.
Because we're talking about specifically the gaming part of 'Wargaming'. Classic car club and fine scale model clubs are non equivalents, the whole point of them is to model something or have a car that looks nice. Paint doesn't have any effect on the actual gaming part of Wargaming at all. It's not like people are saying 'I want to enter a painting contest with my unpainted models', it's 'I don't enjoy painting but love playing' or 'I don't have much time and would rather be playing in that time than painting'. Yes painted miniatures are part of the hobby, but that's what they are. A part of it. And a smaller part to some people than others. It's nothing to do with 'ignorance of history'.
Wrong. No one is limiting the discussion to just the "gaming" aspects. We're talking about the entire hobby of Wargaming.
The point is not that cars rust without paint the point is that if you're going to display your classic car, the classic car community will expect to see paint. The point is not a functional equivalence of painting a mini and a car, but rather the validity of community standards for the visual aspect of any hobby.
The history example is also wack, it only shows what was done in US and western europe. For example russian or polish wargames done durning military training for officers used non painted stuff.
Sorry to break the news to you, but if you're playing Warhammer 40k, you're participating in an Anglo-originated wargames hobby. A hobby which can trace it's roots from rogue trader, back through Featherstone to HG Wells. There may be an eastern european tradition of wargaming (many countries had some sort of military wargaming), but your hobby is a British import.
carlos13th wrote: The problem is you want people who are not directly improving your enjoyment of the game to not be allowed any enjoyment of the game themselves.
You realize I'm not the only person who enjoys the game less when the other player has an unpainted army, right? And that not everyone whose enjoyment of the game suffers as a result of unpainted armies is willing to confront someone about it and refuse to play? Having unpainted armies is bad for the community as a whole, not just for me.
carlos13th wrote: The problem is you want people who are not directly improving your enjoyment of the game to not be allowed any enjoyment of the game themselves.
You realize I'm not the only person who enjoys the game less when the other player has an unpainted army, right? And that not everyone whose enjoyment of the game suffers as a result of unpainted armies is willing to confront someone about it and refuse to play? Having unpainted armies is bad for the community as a whole, not just for me.
I never said you were the only person who enjoys the game less not once. Just that saying no one should be allowed play unpainted and if a group are playing unpainted in your FLGS they should be asked to leave is ridiculous.
carlos13th wrote: I never said you were the only person who enjoys the game less not once. Just that saying no one should be allowed play unpainted and if a group are playing unpainted in your FLGS they should be asked to leave is ridiculous.
The point is that the people with unpainted armies don't magically sort themselves out into a separate group and never play anyone else, they show up and ask for games against everyone. And unfortunately they've managed to create an environment where unpainted models are acceptable and you risk being labeled TFG if you refuse a game against someone because their army isn't painted. So even people who don't enjoy playing against unpainted armies feel pressured to accept games against them. The best way to solve this problem is to restore the obligation to paint your armies.
And of course from the point of view of a store owner unpainted armies are terrible advertising. This is one of the reasons why GW used to require painted models in their stores, until their business model changed from producing the best gaming experience possible to selling plastic toys to kids.
Aszubaruzah Surn wrote: Historical gaming has a wide range of them and they not only allow playing without painting miniatures but also allow playing with large armies without buying miniatures.
So does 40k. If you don't value the miniatures just play 40k with cardboard counters. Or, more accurately, play a different scifi game with cardboard counters, because once you take away the aesthetic value of the miniatures you realize that 40k is an exercise in masochism.
Well, that's one reason that I don't play miniature wargames at all. GW killed specialist games and all the miniature wargaming stores in my city allow playing only Wh40k. There used to be a store that had Infinity, Warmachine, Hordes and Flames of War but they stopped selling/providing gamespace for anything that isn't Magic the Gathering.
Personally, I don't like GW miniatures enough to buy them because I dislike the whole caricature proportions thing.
When it comes to non-GW games, there's always a problem of finding other players and space to play because everyone else plays Wh40k and they love it so much that they'll play it with unpainted miniatures.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Peregrine wrote: The best way to solve this problem is to restore the obligation to paint your armies.
And restore Specialist Games for people who don't want to paint tens of 28mm miniatures.
Eilif wrote: The railway example is a very good one. Nearly every aspect of model railroading has a tabletop wargaming equivalent. Both hobbies involve
-Research: whether in the form of historical background research, listbuilding, fluff, etc
-Building and assembly
-Customization/kitbashing/scratchbuilding
-A public presentation: playing the game or "running" the trains.
Both activities can be done with unpainted models, but whereas many gamers have let the idea of painting slide, you're not going to find many folks publicly running unpainted trains.
Crablezworth wrote: I should look to better myself and lower my standards. Or something.
You say that as if your standards are something of which to be exceedingly proud... lets keep things in context here, we're discussing the serious business of applying paint to little plastic man dollies that we push around a table going "pew pew pew" at each other.
Spoiler:
Not going to address the rest of the exchange, but I think it is insensible to dismiss standards just because we're talking about miniatures and not more serious matters.
-If in a classic car club would you not paint your vehicle?
-If in a a finescale model club would one say "I just like to built and convert, I don't paint?
Of course not, in both cases. And yet in miniature wargaming, folks feel perfectly fine in tossing what has long been one of the standards of the hobby because they "don't feel like it" or "don't have time" or want to "hobby their way". Painted minaitures have been part of the wargaming hobby for over 100 years!. http://www-personal.umich.edu/~beattie/timeline2.html One can of course hobby "their way", but tossing out painting standards simply because they are standards or suggesting that painted miniatures aren't a core part of the hobby is silly and reflects an ignorance of history.
Because we're talking about specifically the gaming part of 'Wargaming'. Classic car club and fine scale model clubs are non equivalents, the whole point of them is to model something or have a car that looks nice. Paint doesn't have any effect on the actual gaming part of Wargaming at all. It's not like people are saying 'I want to enter a painting contest with my unpainted models', it's 'I don't enjoy painting but love playing' or 'I don't have much time and would rather be playing in that time than painting'. Yes painted miniatures are part of the hobby, but that's what they are. A part of it. And a smaller part to some people than others. It's nothing to do with 'ignorance of history'.
Wrong. No one is limiting the discussion to just the "gaming" aspects. We're talking about the entire hobby of Wargaming.
The point is not that cars rust without paint the point is that if you're going to display your classic car, the classic car community will expect to see paint. The point is not a functional equivalence of painting a mini and a car, but rather the validity of community standards for the visual aspect of any hobby.
When people are saying that they wouldn't play against unpainted armies or people shouldn't be allowed to play til they paint their armies, yes they are talking about the gaming aspects. And the discussion is limited to that by context anyway. It's about unpainted armies so we aren't going to be talking about painting competitions or anything are we.
I don't find it so much of an 'issue'. People wanna play the game. Some people don't have time to paint vast amounts of models. Or, some start very slowly when it comes to the intimidating task of painting an army.
In the end, THEY payed for the models. They can do with them as they see fit. I'd prefer their army be painted to make the table LOOK a lot better, but having unpainted models isn't going to affect the way the game plays. So, no, no 'issue'.
Then in your house it is your right to require painted, at a game shop it is also your right to politely refuse an offer of a game with an unpainted army. If you felt generous you could direct them to someone who wouldn't mind.
VictorVonTzeentch wrote: No, but on the other hand is taking pictures of the battle something you absolutely need to do for enjoyment of the game?
Let's rephrase that question, and ignore the minor detail of pressing a button or not:
No, but on the other hand is having photo-worthy moments in the battle something you absolutely need to do for enjoyment of the game?
And the answer here is a pretty clear "yes". 40k is not a game of complex strategy and move vs. counter-move, it's a bloated mess of half-functioning rules with all the depth of those games you get on the back of a cereal box. But why do we play it? Because of the story behind it. Because of moments like a heroic tactical squad sergeant holding his ground and decapitating a charging warboss with one swing of his power fist, or a giant Tyranid monster rampaging through hordes of guardsmen. And do those moments live up to their full potential when all of the models are bare plastic, the tactical squad sergeant is missing his arms because conversion parts are expensive, and the Tyranid monster has half of its spikes broken off from being carelessly thrown into a shoebox between games? Of course not. Paint your models.
VictorVonTzeentch wrote: Then in your house it is your right to require painted, at a game shop it is also your right to politely refuse an offer of a game with an unpainted army. If you felt generous you could direct them to someone who wouldn't mind.
I don't go to the game shop for pickup games, the viability of attempting that died with 5th
VictorVonTzeentch wrote: No, but on the other hand is taking pictures of the battle something you absolutely need to do for enjoyment of the game?
Let's rephrase that question, and ignore the minor detail of pressing a button or not:
No, but on the other hand is having photo-worthy moments in the battle something you absolutely need to do for enjoyment of the game?
And the answer here is a pretty clear "yes". 40k is not a game of complex strategy and move vs. counter-move, it's a bloated mess of half-functioning rules with all the depth of those games you get on the back of a cereal box. But why do we play it? Because of the story behind it. Because of moments like a heroic tactical squad sergeant holding his ground and decapitating a charging warboss with one swing of his power fist, or a giant Tyranid monster rampaging through hordes of guardsmen. And do those moments live up to their full potential when all of the models are bare plastic, the tactical squad sergeant is missing his arms because conversion parts are expensive, and the Tyranid monster has half of its spikes broken off from being carelessly thrown into a shoebox between games? Of course not. Paint your models.
I do paint my models, and while it does make it better to play against painted, I'm fine playing against unpainted its still enjoyable to see those things happen. In fact I had a cinematic moment, back in 4th or 5th before I dropped out of playing, with a unpainted model that spurred me on to paint him and add extra modification.
Crablezworth wrote:
VictorVonTzeentch wrote: Then in your house it is your right to require painted, at a game shop it is also your right to politely refuse an offer of a game with an unpainted army. If you felt generous you could direct them to someone who wouldn't mind.
I don't go to the game shop for pickup games, the viability of attempting that died with 5th
Well then, feel free to enforce your rule and offer suggestion to people to finish their armies.
But why do we play it? Because of the story behind it. Because of moments like a heroic tactical squad sergeant holding his ground and decapitating a charging warboss with one swing of his power fist, or a giant Tyranid monster rampaging through hordes of guardsmen. And do those moments live up to their full potential when all of the models are bare plastic, the tactical squad sergeant is missing his arms because conversion parts are expensive, and the Tyranid monster has half of its spikes broken off from being carelessly thrown into a shoebox between games? Of course not. Paint your models.
No one I know plays w40k, because of that. Wargaming. Winning tournaments. Spending time with other people. Playing because they played for so long they don't remember why. Yes because of those things people play w40k.
And no one glues spikes on their dakka tyrants.
VictorVonTzeentch wrote: At this point its probably a better choice to just bring up an incredibly fallacious argument just to get the thread locked.
It survived the (apparently serious) assertion that using unpainted minis is just like showing up at the store with your meat and two veg hanging out, so I don't think that's going to work.
Makumba wrote: No one I know plays w40k, because of that. Wargaming. Winning tournaments.
Then why play 40k, a game with terrible strategic depth and laughable competitive balance? It just doesn't make any sense to say "I care only about the game and competition" and then pick the game with the worst rules.
infinite_array wrote: Why does this topic only seem to come up in GW subforums? Is it because the company constantly pushes for larger games, making it more difficult for new players to get their collections painted? And the seemingly daunting task of painting those large collections of minis would make starting all the jarder?
Because back in the day, official GW tournaments always gave a small amount points for painting (there even used to be a quiz for 10 points). Thus, it was more important to have stuff painted and based. Privateer Press has 1 tournament format that can require all painted as well. So it's present in other game systems too.
If someone came into the shop I work at and politely refused to play an unpainted army we would be fine with that. However if the person refusing was being rude because the other army was unpainted or started belittling or trying to force the other player to paint their models we would flat out refuse table space to them and if they kept doing it they would get a swift boot out the door.
This is a hobby and a game, it's supposed to be fun. Different people have fun in different ways with it, don't be an donkey-cave and ruin someone else's fun.
I'm still trying to figure out why this entire thread is so cyclical.
Placing the demand on "pro-painters" that they must accept your unpainted minis or else they are labeled TFG, is just as narcissistic and draconian as those pro-painters demanding that you paint your minis or they won't play you. Except of course that the unpainted guys can just ignore the pro-painters and find other opponents, whereas the unpainted guys are demanding that they are accepted by all.
It all boils down to the statement of, "If you don't believe in and agree with my personal standards, you are a donkey-cave" applying to either side equally, which is hilarious to watch.
I find it hard to argue with the fact that painted armies look cooler. Even people I know that are not into wargaming at all think that.
When people are saying that they wouldn't play against unpainted armies or people shouldn't be allowed to play til they paint their armies, yes they are talking about the gaming aspects. And the discussion is limited to that by context anyway. It's about unpainted armies so we aren't going to be talking about painting competitions or anything are we.
Sorry you're wrong again. This entire conversation has been about how vital (or not) painting is to painting as a part of the entire wargaming hobby and whether or not community standards are warranted. Comparisons to other hobbies are instructive because they demonstrate that other hobbies that have both private and public aspects tend to have community expectations for the visual aspect of their hobbies during the public portion of the hobby.
Likewise, wargaming has a long history of community expectations for the visual aspect of the public portion of the hobby. Whether or not such expectations are good/bad, fair/unfair, beneficial/harmful is the substance of this thread. Attempting to disallow outside examples eliminates a very useful point of perspective.
Yes, in my book it's about whether they put real value on all facets of the hobby.
A guy who can't field a fully painted army for good reasons shows real value on the ones they do manage to paint. That's the guy I don;t have a problem with.
But if you are blandly pushing unpainted models around because you just can't be troubled to paint them even though you could, and once the game is over your time investment in what can be a very awesome hobby is finished... that bums me out.
But then I'm the kind of guy who sets down at 10:00 after the three month old is in bed, and over the course of a day or two repaints a stock X-Wing model because I want it to be unique to "me".
Makumba wrote: No one I know plays w40k, because of that. Wargaming. Winning tournaments.
Then why play 40k, a game with terrible strategic depth and laughable competitive balance? It just doesn't make any sense to say "I care only about the game and competition" and then pick the game with the worst rules.
Man... you have some serious beef with this game. I get voicing your opinion, but you always come off so toxic and hateful.
Rules are not perfect, granted. But there are loads of people who enjoy it. Plenty of folks who enjoy playing with unpainted armies for the sake of throwing some dice and having a good time. Trying to enforce your opinion on how people play might be why you stopped liking the game... Something for consideration.
When people are saying that they wouldn't play against unpainted armies or people shouldn't be allowed to play til they paint their armies, yes they are talking about the gaming aspects. And the discussion is limited to that by context anyway. It's about unpainted armies so we aren't going to be talking about painting competitions or anything are we.
Sorry you're wrong again. This entire conversation has been about how vital (or not) painting is to painting as a part of the entire wargaming hobby and whether or not community standards are warranted. Comparisons to other hobbies are instructive because they demonstrate that other hobbies that have both private and public aspects tend to have community expectations for the visual aspect of their hobbies during the public portion of the hobby.
Likewise, wargaming has a long history of community expectations for the visual aspect of the public portion of the hobby. Whether or not such expectations are good/bad, fair/unfair, beneficial/harmful is the substance of this thread. Attempting to disallow outside examples eliminates a very useful point of perspective.
No it hasn't. It's been about playing against unpainted armies. Obviously if we were talking about something like painting competitions, unpainted models would be an issue. If it's not about gaming why is there even a discussion? You wouldn't see unpainted armies unless you were playing them so why would you care? People would just be privately not painting their models which is such a non issue that the discussion can only really be about gaming, because that would have literally no effect on you whatsoever. But people have been saying things like 'people shouldn't be allowed to play if their models aren't painted' and other elitist things, which is what I'm taking issue with. So whether the thread has been about the whole Wargaming hobby doesn't really matter to the point I'm making which is simple, I'll say it again: it's fine to prefer to play painted armies, it's fine to refuse to play unpainted armies. It's not okay to act as though those people with unpainted armies are doing something wrong, or act like they shouldn't be able to play at all, because they don't enjoy one facet of a multifaceted hobby.
Also, I never said outside examples weren't allowed. I said the examples given were false equivalences. Scale modelling isn't really a multifaceted hobby. It's basically making something look good. Model railway is basically the same. Wargaming also has the gaming part, which actually whether models are painted or not doesn't effect past aesthetics, and yes while aesthetics might be important to you, they might not be as important as the actual game to some people. So use outside examples if you want, but the ones you picked weren't equivalent to Wargaming past the fact they use models. There's no gaming side (or an equivalent) to scale modelling that you could enjoy over the actual modelling/painting, ditto for model railway.
FenixPhox wrote: trying to force the other player to paint their models
Can you describe to me in detail what you believe that would look like and what would it entail?
I would consider anybody who is shaming someone or telling them they HAVE to have their models painted to be trying to force the person into painting their models.
We strive to maintain a friendly fun environment in the shop, and someone being negative about the way someone else plays a game degrades the atmosphere we are trying to provide and therefore need to fix their habits or find a new place to play. I've had to warn some of our more competitive MTG players for trash talking new and casual player's deck choices before and to us someone going on about an unpainted army is no different than that. Our shop is new to 40k and thankfully the more experienced players that come don't care about playing against unpainted armies, they love the game and are just happy to be playing it with other people who share a passion for it. In our opinion that's the way it should be.
AegisGrimm wrote: I'm still trying to figure out why this entire thread is so cyclical.
Placing the demand on "pro-painters" that they must accept your unpainted minis or else they are labeled TFG, is just as narcissistic and draconian as those pro-painters demanding that you paint your minis or they won't play you. Except of course that the unpainted guys can just ignore the pro-painters and find other opponents, whereas the unpainted guys are demanding that they are accepted by all.
It all boils down to the statement of, "If you don't believe in and agree with my personal standards, you are a donkey-cave" applying to either side equally, which is hilarious to watch.
I find it hard to argue with the fact that painted armies look cooler. Even people I know that are not into wargaming at all think that.
Not everyone is claiming that. Many are claiming that play and let play is the way forward and while you may not enjoy playing against unpainted armies you shouldn't try to prevent those who do from playing or enjoying the game any more than anyone should force you to play with them.Only playing with and agaisnt painted models is fine, setting up a painted only club is fine, setting a rule that people in your house have to used painted models only is fine, setting up tournaments with a painted requirement is fine. Being horrible and insulting towards those who don't paint and trying to prevent them from playing at all is not fine. Trying to claim that no one should ever play a wargame until they have a fully painted army isn't fine.
Hell I prefer to play with painted miniatures too. That doesn't mean I feel that people who don't care should be forced to play with painted miniatures to satisfy me. You can say anyone who wants to play agaisnt you should play with painted models for sure, but don't go over to people playing on the other side of the store without fully painted models and tell them to get out of the store because they are some how ruining your hobby by playing in a way that you don't like.
ImAGeek wrote: [\e. So use outside examples if you want, but the ones you picked weren't equivalent to Wargaming past the fact they use models. There's no gaming side (or an equivalent) to scale modelling that you could enjoy over the actual modelling/painting, ditto for model railway.
We're just going to have to disagree, because it seem patently obvious to me that the running of railroads and displaying of cars and models at a show are comparable to the public playing of games in wargaming.
Of course as I've said (possibly twice now?), my main point isn't even the inclusion of painting in other hobbies. Rather, it's a more base argument about the usefulness of community standards in any multifaceted hobby.
It's not okay to act as though those people with unpainted armies are doing something wrong, or act like they shouldn't be able to play at all, because they don't enjoy one facet of a multifaceted hobby.
I'll agree with the "at all" statement. They can always play against each other.
As for "doing something wrong" , the word "wrong" has implications of moral judgement and I'll generally try to steer clear of that. However, I'm perfectly fine with judging that someones armies "aren't finished yet" (they aren't) or to suggest that someone bringing unpainted armies is -quite literally- "bringing less to the table". It's not a moral issue, it's simply that they are neglecting one important facet of the hobby.
Funny discussions of shaming or rather rude behavior.
I have not read anything in this cyclical argument other than the right of those who prefer to play against painted miniatures to say "No thanks" to the unpainted armies.
Done. No donkey cave or TFG required: right of choice.
Makumba wrote: No one I know plays w40k, because of that. Wargaming. Winning tournaments.
Then why play 40k, a game with terrible strategic depth and laughable competitive balance? It just doesn't make any sense to say "I care only about the game and competition" and then pick the game with the worst rules.
Because in Poland, Wh40k and MtG have monopolized the storespaces. There simply isn't an option of playing anything else.
ImAGeek wrote: [\e. So use outside examples if you want, but the ones you picked weren't equivalent to Wargaming past the fact they use models. There's no gaming side (or an equivalent) to scale modelling that you could enjoy over the actual modelling/painting, ditto for model railway.
We're just going to have to disagree, because it seem patently obvious to me that the running of railroads and displaying of cars and models at a show are comparable to the public playing of games in wargaming.
Of course as I've said (possibly twice now?), my main point isn't even the inclusion of painting in other hobbies. Rather, it's a more base argument about the usefulness of community standards in any multifaceted hobby.
It's not okay to act as though those people with unpainted armies are doing something wrong, or act like they shouldn't be able to play at all, because they don't enjoy one facet of a multifaceted hobby.
I'll agree with the "at all" statement. They can always play against each other.
As for "doing something wrong" , the word "wrong" has implications of moral judgement and I'll generally try to steer clear of that. However, I'm perfectly fine with judging that someones armies "aren't finished yet" (they aren't) or to suggest that someone bringing unpainted armies is -quite literally- "bringing less to the table". It's not a moral issue, it's simply that they are neglecting one important facet of the hobby.
It might be important to you, but that doesn't mean it's important to them. Different people will rank the different facets of the hobby with different significances, the way you rank them isn't the correct way, there is no correct way. It's their hobby too. They can enjoy it how they wish.
Also, running railroads/displaying cars/models/whatever isn't equivalent to gaming. With those, the only purpose is to show off whatever it is. With gaming, the main purpose is to play the game, which the aesthetics don't have much bearing on. Aesthetics is the primary purpose of the other hobbies you mentioned. When you play a wargame (actually play it, the gaming part) aesthetics aren't the primary concern to everybody. It is to some, sure, but to others the game is the primary purpose. See the difference?
]It might be important to you, but that doesn't mean it's important to them. Different people will rank the different facets of the hobby with different significances, the way you rank them isn't the correct way, there is no correct way. It's their hobby too. They can enjoy it how they wish.
So why is it required for anyone to accept unpainted miniatures in their game?
Aszubaruzah Surn wrote: Historical gaming has a wide range of them and they not only allow playing without painting miniatures but also allow playing with large armies without buying miniatures.
So does 40k. If you don't value the miniatures just play 40k with cardboard counters. Or, more accurately, play a different scifi game with cardboard counters, because once you take away the aesthetic value of the miniatures you realize that 40k is an exercise in masochism.
Crablezworth wrote:
Peregrine wrote: once you take away the aesthetic value of the miniatures you realize that 40k is an exercise in masochism.
Agreed and exalted.
But then why even play the game? I mentioned this earlier in the thread and it largely got ignored. Why not just set your models up on a table and pat yourselves on the back at the wonderful sight you've created.
I find it hard to follow your arguments, Peregrine, when you don't even like playing the game in the first place and it seems the only reason you do play is as an excuse to line up your models and admire them. It somewhat lessens your position.
If the only reason you play 40k is the aesthetics.... you don't actually need to be playing 40k You can spend your time making awesome dioramas like this one:
In fact, the very act of playing a game takes away from the aesthetic value because you have to design your table in a way that is practical for gaming. If you just throw away the idea of gaming you can make some really AWESOME dioramas.
If by "mainstream" you mean "kids who buy a box of space marines and then forget about the hobby", sure. But the fact that GW is obsessively focused on sales at all costs and willing to drop painting requirements if it means selling another box of space marines shouldn't matter to us as a community.
That's a great way to make an argument, baselessly denigrate the people you are arguing against, bravo
Firstly, no, there are people beyond kids who don't paint their armies.
Secondly, yes, it can benefit the community to have a wider audience and wider appeal.
Also, running railroads/displaying cars/models/whatever isn't equivalent to gaming. With those, the only purpose is to show off whatever it is. With gaming, the main purpose is to play the game, which the aesthetics don't have much bearing on. Aesthetics is the primary purpose of the other hobbies you mentioned. When you play a wargame (actually play it, the gaming part) aesthetics aren't the primary concern to everybody. It is to some, sure, but to others the game is the primary purpose. See the difference?
Not true at all. Don't incorrectly downplay the multifaceted aspects of those hobbies to beneift your argument. All of these activities have aspects that are as important to "showing things off" as I listed before. Just to name one, Railroaders and finescale military modelers research their subjects as much as wargamers read their fluff and tweak their lists. Listening to a railroader talk about lines and locos is like listening to 40k players discuss strategy and loadouts.
All the hobbies I listed are about much more than "display" just as wargaming is about much more than "playing the game".
amanita wrote: ]It might be important to you, but that doesn't mean it's important to them. Different people will rank the different facets of the hobby with different significances, the way you rank them isn't the correct way, there is no correct way. It's their hobby too. They can enjoy it how they wish.
So why is it required for anyone to accept unpainted miniatures in their game?
The problem is some people are not arguing that they have a right to play against only unpainted models. Some are arguing no one should play with unpainted models. That's the problem.
Kinda tired of repeating this but I will do it once more.
Anyone who is only arguing that they wish to play only against painted models is well within their rights to do so. The only people who are acting like TFG's are the ones who desire to make everyone play with painted models no matter what parts of the hobby those people enjoy. No one should be forced to paint their models to be allowed to play with what they have bought, similarly no one should be forced to play against unpainted models if they do not enjoy playing against them. Sadly some people on both sides of said argument want to have control over how others play the game.
Also, running railroads/displaying cars/models/whatever isn't equivalent to gaming. With those, the only purpose is to show off whatever it is. With gaming, the main purpose is to play the game, which the aesthetics don't have much bearing on. Aesthetics is the primary purpose of the other hobbies you mentioned. When you play a wargame (actually play it, the gaming part) aesthetics aren't the primary concern to everybody. It is to some, sure, but to others the game is the primary purpose. See the difference?
Not true at all. Don't incorrectly downplay the multifaceted aspects of those hobbies to beneift your argument. All of these activities have aspects that are as important to "showing things off" as I listed before. Just to name one, Railroaders and finescale military modelers research their subjects as much as wargamers read their fluff and tweak their lists. Listening to a railroader talk about lines and locos is like listening to 40k players discuss strategy and loadouts.
All the hobbies I listed are about much more than "display" just as wargaming is about much more than "the game".
The point is its not a fair comparison because the game in the case of a wargame and a display in the case of the modeling is not the same thing. While the hobbies as a whole may have comparisons they are not directly comparable in all aspects and comparing a wargame to displaying a hobby train layout or fine scale model isn't an accurate comparison. While its a far better comparison than some of the many down right ridiculous ones in this thread its still not accurate in the same way you cant compare a 3d animated movie to a computer game and say well they both contain stories and 3d computer generated visuals thus are directly comparable. People don't get the same things out of a movie as they do a computer game and people don't game for the same reasons they might create a beautiful diorama or a model railway, even if some of the reasons cross over they don't fully overlap.
The feature of 40k is that its a game played with expectation of a cinematic battle, which is why they came out with the absurd "forge the narrative" motto. Excuses for poorly written rules aside, a fully painted army delivers that scene of epic battles far better than an unpainted one, which is why the GW playerbase generally have a culture of painting, and which is why GW focuses on the miniatures first and foremost.
The whole debate stems from differences in expectations. Some think of 40k as a game, so are upset when they're denied play. Many think of 40k in the sense I highlighted above, so are upset that they have to play against unpainted models. There is no right or wrong here, just a difference in expectations.
This mirrors the "forge the narrative" players and those players who are upset because of imbalanced rules. People expect GW to focus on rules, and GW expects us to focus on miniatures, leading to the current friction due to differences in expectation.
Honestly, if you play with unpainted models, you really should be playing warmahordes instead, since miniature quality doesn't play a huge part, and it has far tighter rules.
kburn wrote: Honestly, if you play with unpainted models, you really should be playing warmahordes instead, since miniature quality doesn't play a huge part, and it has far tighter rules.
More importantly it tends to be played on smaller scale which removes the need for playing with unpainted models in first place. Do stores host warmahordes games, though?
kburn wrote: Honestly, if you play with unpainted models, you really should be playing warmahordes instead, since miniature quality doesn't play a huge part, and it has far tighter rules.
More importantly it tends to be played on smaller scale which removes the need for playing with unpainted models in first place. Do stores host warmahordes games, though?
warmahordes is the second most popular mini game out there, so it shouldn't be a huge stretch to actually find a game.
it is, however, rightly or wrongly, infamous for having players with entirely unpainted armies. Many just like the intense Mt:G like rules of the game, who do not really care about the miniatures. While golden demon is GW's highest honour, winning tournaments and getting badges is warmahordes highest honour. The focus is entirely different. Even if you go to their forum, there's a lot of talk about tactics and combos over fluff and painting, especially compared to 40k.
Even if you compare the 2 tactics of the different systems, 40k focuses on listbuilding, ie. what army you want to build, rather than on combos, terrain, flanking, blocking and ranges which warmahordes does. bad rules aside, this is highly indicative of the "collect and paint them" nature of 40k.
I would even argue that a smaller model count is better for players who want unpainted armies, as its cheaper, and larger armies better for painters, as they have more materials.
kburn wrote: Honestly, if you play with unpainted models, you really should be playing warmahordes instead, since miniature quality doesn't play a huge part, and it has far tighter rules.
More importantly it tends to be played on smaller scale which removes the need for playing with unpainted models in first place. Do stores host warmahordes games, though?
warmahordes is the second most popular mini game out there, so it shouldn't be a huge stretch to actually find a game.
it is, however, rightly or wrongly, infamous for having players with entirely unpainted armies. Many just like the intense Mt:G like rules of the game, who do not really care about the miniatures. While golden demon is GW's highest honour, winning tournaments and getting badges is warmahordes highest honour. The focus is entirely different. Even if you go to their forum, there's a lot of talk about tactics and combos over fluff and painting, especially compared to 40k.
Even if you compare the 2 tactics of the different systems, 40k focuses on listbuilding, ie. what army you want to build, rather than on combos, terrain, flanking, blocking and ranges which warmahordes does. bad rules aside, this is highly indicative of the "collect and paint them" nature of 40k.
I would even argue that a smaller model count is better for players who want unpainted armies, as its cheaper, and larger armies better for painters, as they have more materials.
The escalation leagues put on by FLGS's (official rules by PP) give points for painting, often people win by painting and not by superior generalship. A smaller army should be less intimidating to paint than a large army.
With the 10,000th revolution of this argument complete, I can safely say we've learned, we've laughed, and we've all lost a lot of our time with this useless thread.
Heck, on a few occasions I've let someone use one of my painted armies... and that can also get them pretty motivated. Not because my figs are awesome (they aren't, I promise), but because they're simply not gray plastic or silver metal.
