I assume the solution for this , for Ishagu and co will be "If you want to try different subfaction rules just buy another army and paint it differently lol"
I mean, I personally don't think this is *quite* as ludicrous an idea as you're insinuating it is. Where do you draw the line? What if I want to play my Orks using the Marines rules cos I like the Ork figures better but the Marines Codex "gives me more tactical options"? Is anyone who suggests I buy a Space Marine army being ridiculous?
I'm sorry but different models for different armies has existed since the game inception. This "A certain paint scheme goes with a certain amount of rules" is something very new. If GW wants to force paintschemes into us, then better they start selling prepainted miniatures.
You know many people play armies not only because how they look but also because they enjoy playing them?
Ishagu wrote: That's exactly the point I'm making. We all have a line, I'm saying it should be moved for the benefit of the hobby and the community.
This rubbish about punishing long term hobbyists is nonsense. It's a tiny minority of competitive players doing it on the cheap at the expense of everything else in the hobby, including the enjoyment of their opponents.
But at the end of the day this is not true. Actual meta-chasers just buy and sell armies on ebay , and if they need to they'll have their armies painted in the appropiate colours (I don't really understand this way of playing because... I mean. Warhammer 40k as a pure gameplay element is not very good. Is not even mediocre. But I suppose everyone enjoys different things)
Ishagu wrote: That's exactly the point I'm making. We all have a line, I'm saying it should be moved for the benefit of the hobby and the community.
This rubbish about punishing long term hobbyists is nonsense. It's a tiny minority of competitive players doing it on the cheap at the expense of everything else in the hobby, including the enjoyment of their opponents.
So you're just going to keep asserting this without evidence then, while ignoring all the collateral damage your poorly thought through proposals create? Seems reasonable. I don't see how punishing people, especially a lot of new players, for their choice of colour scheme is going to benefit the community or the hobby.
Or how about we tackle the core problem which is the balance within the game? If the game was better balanced in the first place we wouldn't even be having this conversation because the guy using Iron Hands and the guy using White Consuls wouldn't have such a disparity in power level between their armies.
Balance with the game is certainly an issue, although a small one. Most Marine lists doing damage are being run as Iron Hands or Raven Guard with Centurions. Are you telling me that 80% of Marine players have painted Iron Hands armies? Of course not. It's people running their existing forces as something else for an advantage.
Iron Hands would not be a problem if they made up 5% of the meta, would they?
To pass off all responsibility for the health of the game to GW, when many players ignore the hobby and play using unlicensed 3rd party rules is arrogant and stupid. The community is as much to blame as the makers of the game. If the community is not willing to do it's part in making this social hobby better, it deserves nothing. It's immature to expect someone else to fix everything for you whilst you do everything you can to get a advantage without putting effort.
Ishagu wrote: That's exactly the point I'm making. We all have a line, I'm saying it should be moved for the benefit of the hobby and the community.
This rubbish about punishing long term hobbyists is nonsense. It's a tiny minority of competitive players doing it on the cheap at the expense of everything else in the hobby, including the enjoyment of their opponents.
So you're just going to keep asserting this without evidence then, while ignoring all the collateral damage your poorly thought through proposals create? Seems reasonable. I don't see how punishing people, especially a lot of new players, for their choice of colour scheme is going to benefit the community or the hobby.
Or how about we tackle the core problem which is the balance within the game? If the game was better balanced in the first place we wouldn't even be having this conversation because the guy using Iron Hands and the guy using White Consuls wouldn't have such a disparity in power level between their armies.
Balance with the game is certainly an issue, although a small one. Most Marine lists doing damage are being run as Iron Hands or Raven Guard with Centurions. Are you telling me that 80% of Marine players have painted Iron Hands armies? Of course not. It's people running their existing forces as something else for an advantage.
Iron Hands would not be a problem if they made up 5% of the meta, would they?
To pass off all responsibility for the health of the game to GW, when many players ignore the hobby and play using unlicensed 3rd party rules is arrogant and stupid. The community is as much to blame as the makers of the game.
In Smash Bross Meele, Fox is 35% of the competitive scene. That means of 26 characters, one represents 1/3 of the competitive scene. And that will happen in all kind of games, be them video or tabletop. In the competitive scene people will use the most powerfull tool to achieve victory.
The only way to change that is by balancing the OP stuff. Thats the objetive and for many people hard truth, because they can't do it properly.
So by you reasoning I assume ALL competitive comunities are to blame, and all rules creators are free of any kind of responsability?
We can't compare video games to tabletop games. The variables are much higher, and this is an analogue experience.
Equally there are fighting games with much better balance.
If you want a meta where 80% of Marines lists at events aren't Iron Hands there are very simple thing that can be done. The Iron Hands issue is only temporary and will be resolved sooner or later, and then the same people will abuse the next best thing, and on and on it goes with every faction.
If you want a meta where 80% of Marines lists at events aren't Iron Hands there are very simple thing that can be done.
Banning iron hands rules competitively if they are so meta-breaking they needed to be brought up in this thread about paint instead of messing with how a number of hobby folk of every army interact with their rulesets?
I could just say ban marines in general until the other books come out, but Id rather not move to quickly.
I assume the solution for this , for Ishagu and co will be "If you want to try different subfaction rules just buy another army and paint it differently lol"
I mean, I personally don't think this is *quite* as ludicrous an idea as you're insinuating it is. Where do you draw the line? What if I want to play my Orks using the Marines rules cos I like the Ork figures better but the Marines Codex "gives me more tactical options"? Is anyone who suggests I buy a Space Marine army being ridiculous?
I'm sorry but different models for different armies has existed since the game inception. This "A certain paint scheme goes with a certain amount of rules" is something very new. If GW wants to force paintschemes into us, then better they start selling prepainted miniatures.
"This is how things were done in earlier versions of the game" is a bit of a slippery slope – Ork Clans had different rules in 1st-ed; Marine chapters have had different rules since 2nd (1st if you include Space Wolves). So "a certain paint scheme goes with certain rules" is far from a new thing. And I don't see what pre-painted miniatures have to do with this at all.
As I said before though, it's largely down to preference of what you want for the game, and there's not necessarily a hard and fast "correct" answer to that.
I remember when taking certain units required the permission of your opponent in advance? Should we go back to that because it was a thing in the past?
If you want a meta where 80% of Marines lists at events aren't Iron Hands there are very simple thing that can be done.
Banning iron hands rules competitively if they are so meta-breaking they needed to be brought up in this thread about paint instead of messing with how a number of hobby folk of every army interact with their rulesets?
How is "ban this army outright" *less* restrictive on people's choice of what they play than "play your army as what it's painted as"? The latter doesn't exclude anyone, it simply requires that they use a particular set of unified rules.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ishagu wrote: I remember when taking certain units required the permission of your opponent in advance? Should we go back to that because it was a thing in the past?
i mean, it's *kind of * still the case in any non-competitive environment. "Hey would you mind not using that? [Insert reason here]"
If you want a meta where 80% of Marines lists at events aren't Iron Hands there are very simple thing that can be done.
Banning iron hands rules competitively if they are so meta-breaking they needed to be brought up in this thread about paint instead of messing with how a number of hobby folk of every army interact with their rulesets?
How is "ban this army outright" *less* restrictive on people's choice of what they play than "play your army as what it's painted as"? The latter doesn't exclude anyone, it simply requires that they use a particular set of unified rules.
as a preface, even though I personally dislike marines in general, I think both ideas are silly. that said...
assuming we're talking about the "meta" a competitive ban on iron hands would only affect the tournaments. those people would be free to use whatever rules they like otherwise in the faction that are deemed more "balanced". if people want to play those rules outside of those tournaments, then that's on them to sign that social contract. and this ban could be employed whenever a subfaction is to strong for the current curve against the rest of the game by a very noticable margin, say enough statistics over a long enough period of months. it's actually really common in games on top of that. the largest nontournament consequence is like every other tournament suggestion thusfar, it gets taken as Gospel and people wouldn't want to play that subfaction in non-competitive games... which would trim down on the complaining about said subfaction, though not by much.
the proposed alternative would be to tell all the painters across all armies they are ramrod stuck with whatever they painted if they liked the schemes GW already came up or may use soon, and if they later change their minds, or painted what just looked cool and it affects their gameplay, then they should just repaint the whole thing or go buy more plastic to paint in a scheme they may not even enjoy for whatever reason.
the first one should likely affect a smaller group than the second, hammers down the errant nail lickedy split, and can be shifted as necessary. if all the complaining is based primarily on iron hands, then why shouldn't they get the banhammer until at least more books arrive? seems like a much more workable thing to me if we have to make this argument at all. someones gonna get inconvenienced, but if we gotta talk in the name of balance, this seems easier. may as well consider unit bans as well, though id REALLY not wanna open any such can of worms.
Ishagu wrote: This community spends a good portion of it's time complaining, yet is unwilling to police itself to make things better.
We are policing ourselves to make the community better. That's what everyone telling you that your idea is toxic rubbish is.
Your negative toxic attitude is a problem. I get accused of trolling for not hating enough things.
Fine job of policing the community. It's overrun by entitled whingers looking to pass the blame for their own bad habits.
@Bdrone
I have no complaint about any specific faction or sub faction. This same cycle repeats every year with different armies. Remember Eldar flyers? The Castellan? The Loyal 32? The Decurion? Etc, etc
If you want a meta where 80% of Marines lists at events aren't Iron Hands there are very simple thing that can be done.
Banning iron hands rules competitively if they are so meta-breaking they needed to be brought up in this thread about paint instead of messing with how a number of hobby folk of every army interact with their rulesets?
How is "ban this army outright" *less* restrictive on people's choice of what they play than "play your army as what it's painted as"? The latter doesn't exclude anyone, it simply requires that they use a particular set of unified rules.
assuming we're talking about the "meta" a competitive ban on iron hands would only affect the tournaments.
I mean, tbh, unless there's some sort of tournament ruleset imposing additional rules beyond the basic ones of the game, *either* option just boils down to "what you agree with whomever you're playing the game with".
It's still a lot easier to create a banlist as a means of restricting the choice seen as "overpowered" then to add entriely new game requirements by painting scheme if the banlist would solve the issue. why use paint scheme to restrict a game anyway if we know where the issues are and have the stats to back it up?
Your negative toxic attitude is a problem. I get accused of trolling for not hating enough things.
Fine job of policing the community. It's overrun by entitled whingers looking to pass the blame for their own bad habits.
You should consider getting a mirror!
Look, your idea is massively harmful. I want encourage people to paint their models, I want them to use the colour scheme they think looks the best, was it a canon or custom one. I really don't want to mechanically punish anyone for choosing the 'wrong colour', even if that 'punishment' was merely 'I don't like this playsyle' instead of 'your army now sucks' as it often is. Rules come and go but the miniatures stay. It is completely unreasonable to expect people to have precognitive powers when they choose their colour scheme that would allow them to know what the rules for that subfaction will be in five of then years.
People already explained this to you and there has been massive threads on the subject previously. That's why my terse response, as you already should know that this is a bad idea. But of course as usual, you're incapable of self reflection or humility and cannot admit that your idea is rubbish and instead belittle people and the community for not embracing your 'magnificent wisdom.' You truly are an excellent example of the Dunning-Kruger effect in action.
Stop with the hyperbole. No one is being punished. It's not like Salamanders and Imperil Fists are useless.
Every chapter, Brood, Klan, etc is perfectly playable.
The only people being "punished" are lazy meta chasers looking to squeeze any advantage they can at the expense of everything else.
"Oh no, I can't use my Novamarines as Iron Hands, how can I go on?"
Ishagu wrote: Stop with the hyperbole. No one is being punished. It's not like Salamanders and Imperil Fists are useless.
Every chapter, Brood, Klan, etc is perfectly playable.
The only people being "punished" are lazy meta chasers looking to squeeze any advantage they can at the expense of everything else.
Just no. Even a small punishment is a punishment. Why on earth why I would reward not painting models if I want encourage people to paint them? It is completely insane.
It is an undeniable fact that under the method you propose unpainted models have a competitive advantage and advantage of trying different playstyles. Now you may not care about that, I may not care about that but a lot of people do, and that doesn't automatically make them WAAC metachasers. You're introducing an element which directly pits aesthetics against power and flexibility in the game. It is harmful and completely unnecessary.
Who says anything about not painting? I also suggested we have stricter hobby criteria like the events at GW.
Are you a lazy meta chaser who swaps rules without converting or painting new models to gain any advantage you can? Why are you so worried about a greater focus on the hobby, lore and variety within the community?
I also suggested we have stricter hobby criteria like the events at GW.
Having super strict paint scheme requirement in top end tournaments would stifle creativity and encourage pay to win. Hard core competitive people will just commission a new army in the current meta colour. Not an improvement. And i half the armies need to be Iron Hands then at least it will nook nicer if all of them are not painted the same.
I look at painted models as a means to attract people to the game because it looks pretty.
I have NEVER seen anyone stop and ask about a game when bare plastic models are in use, unlike painted ones.
I want more players, painting is the "feathers on the peacock" that draws the eye and generates interest.
It is a courtesy.
You can get along fine without it but it just makes things more agreeable.
I personally have a comfort zone in assembly, painting has never come easy for me BUT it is the best means to make my model skills look good.
As stated earlier, few people comment on the good join filling and mold line removal unless they are hard-core modelers, "finished" product is where the interest is.
I also suggested we have stricter hobby criteria like the events at GW.
Having super strict paint scheme requirement in top end tournaments would stifle creativity and encourage pay to win. Hard core competitive people will just commission a new army in the current meta colour. Not an improvement. And i half the armies need to be Iron Hands then at least it will nook nicer if all of them are not painted the same.
I think you're probably right that the sort of people who go all-in on competitive play are always going to find some sort of loophole to bend things to their advantage, but my personal preference is for people (myself included) to use the rules that go with their figures' paint schemes, rather than taking a pick'n'mix approach.
That said, it's impossible to know for sure what people's underlying motivations are so, when it comes to tournaments/competitive play, isn't it better to err on the side of caution and be *more* rather than less restrictive? I.e. "if you want to play as this, you paint as this"?
Overally though, I don't particularly care about what tournaments do; they generally just encourage/reward gakky gaming behaviour by focusing on the competitive aspect imo.
(Although the rules around painting/rules they have at the WhW tournaments are one of the reasons I'd quite like to give one a go someday)
No he's not. He does share interest in the same game as you though.
I just don't like when people call non-painters lazy or scum, just because they don't find interest in the hobby side of 40K, don't have the resources to paint (usually time), or have to choose between painting and game time. It would be the same as calling people who don't read the 40K novels lazy.
Ishagu wrote: If people don't want to see every chapter run as Iron Hands or every Eldar run as Alaitoc we should be more strict with painting.
If the army is painted as a Chapter it must be played as that Chapter. Same for all other factions.
That sounds awful. If I like red marines, I have to be BA? Or blue, I have to be Ultras? No, that’s gak.
Edit: If anything, it’d DISCOURAGE people from painting, so they aren’t stuck with one faction they don’t know if they like yet.
Yep, it is absolutely terrible stance.
Agreed.
These are fake concerns. There are very few people who have BA painted Centurions or an army that would no longer be playable if it was tied to the chapter it was painted as. And those affected are meta chasers trying to do it on the cheap.
People are whinging in topic after topic about having to play against Iron Hands of all colours, but when a clear and effective solution is offered they reject it. If you want to use the best rules for the the strongest chapter it's perfectly fine. How about you actually collect and paint it?
Forgive me for not caring one bit about the shortcuts you want to take in your quest for power gaming.
Or they're people who want to keep their army playable and effective. Even if you were correct in assuming most of them were meta chasers though, it would still be an actual concern, rather than a 'fake' one.
Your 'clear and concise' solution is just as conceited as the people who think everyone who doesn't paint is lazy.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Spoiler:
Ishagu wrote: That's the thing. There is no collateral damage.
Every chapter and army is playable. The more casual players are not affected.
The only ones that are the "on-the-cheap" meta chasers who damage the experience for everyone else.
I'm not the one complaining on the forum about Iron Hands and Raven Guard Centurions. Do you want to see less Raven Guard Centurions and Iron Hands?
There very much is collateral damage. You just had three people point out some of it to you. As for IH and RG, it very much sounds like you are complaining.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Spoiler:
Ishagu wrote: Wrong. We need more strict painting and labelling rules to go with this, especially in competitive play.
So many armies look like absolute rubbish with no effort put in whatsoever, all because people rush out to abuse the "rules of the day."
Minimal standard should be 5 colours on fully painted models, fully based and with symbols/transfers/markings on models. This community creates it's own problems, it enhances exiting issues, and it refuses to take ownership of itself.
The only people affected by this would be the meta chasers who put rules ahead of everything else at the expense of the greater hobby and many in the community.
Meta chasers, people who like to experiment with different lists, casual gamers, people who suck at painting (but still want painted armies), the list goes on and on with who would be affected. The later in particular by your asinine 5 colors idea.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Spoiler:
Ishagu wrote: If people don't agree with what I suggested they cannot go on to complain about too many Iron Hands Astartes or Alaitoc Eldar in pick up games or tournaments.
Just because something hasn't mattered before doesn't mean it shouldn't matter. At official GW events they do expect you to play your Dark Angels as Dark Angels.
The meta chasers who do the minimal amount of work to get the best results are a tiny minority of the hobbyists, and they should not be the ones to steer the habits of the community.
They very much can still complain. Broken rules are broken rules. Why is this so hard for you?
The way marines work, except IH in which everything is good, is that each chapter mainly does one thing well and suck at the rest while previously and in the background they were all pretty much good at everything but had a slight bias. I might prefer JP models as a BA player but I still have dreads, a landraider, a whirlwind, a predator and some other non JP stuff and might want to play them as well. But if colored locked I might just sell them on ebay as the rules are right now.
My MM attackbike have more than twice the output against most of its prefered targets, 0.66wounds vs 0.25 with the melta against t8, and twice the survivability against ap 0 shots if played as IH successor over being played as BA. Thats TWICE the effectiveness and people want to have that locked due to colors! If I want to use my vehicle park im almost forced to play with another chapters rules, play with a huge handicap or just go in to the game with the mindset that a small loss is a victory for me since I wont have a chance of actually winning with my crappy units I still pay the same points for as MA/Stealthy IH successors do.
I started off as a badly painted successor but as I had mostly BA characters and jump units I decided to go more red(they were red and black before) and paint them as BA now with my increased skill after a decade. My newly painted models are way way way better looking than my old ones but if I had to be locked I wouldnt even bother with anything more than absolute minimum like I used to. No way Im painting better for me and my opponents if I get punished for it now. Likely not even continue playing 40k and just play better and cheaper games like KoW which my friends are now getting in to. That game is so much more relaxed in almost every way that it is a joy. So many more models available for each army and if I dont like the mantic models I can just use GW models and paint them in any color scheme.
Nazrak wrote: Ork Clans had different rules in 1st-ed
IIRC back in the day it was typical for clans to be mixed within a single army; eg your Shoota Boyz would be Bad Moons, your Stormboyz would be Goffs, etc. So if your army was built and painted then as a hodge-podge of different clans, then if you take 'paint scheme = rules' literally your army would be unplayable under 8th.
Which highlights the overall point- that how paint schemes have interacted with rules has changed over time, and it's not fun to be locked into a particular set of rules because the colors you chose have suddenly been given rules.
I enjoy WYSIWYG and I magnetize my models so that I can give them appropriate weapons, but I can't magnetize paint schemes.
To give another example, I know a guy who built a Nidzilla army using the Space Hulk color scheme back in 4th, which is now defined as Hive Fleet Hydra. Hydra's specialty is swarming, with a trait that only applies when you outnumber the enemy. If he used the Hydra rules, because that's the color scheme he chose back in 4th, he would literally never get to use his trait. Is that how it ought to be?
Nazrak wrote: Ork Clans had different rules in 1st-ed
IIRC back in the day it was typical for clans to be mixed within a single army; eg your Shoota Boyz would be Bad Moons, your Stormboyz would be Goffs, etc. So if your army was built and painted then as a hodge-podge of different clans, then if you take 'paint scheme = rules' literally your army would be unplayable under 8th.
That would be me. I have bad moons shoota boyz, evil suns trukk boyz, trukks and battlewagons, blood axe boyz and battlewagon, koptas are bad moons, deff skulls and snakebites, lootas are deff skulls, my warbiker unit has bloodaxe, evil suns, bad moons and deff skull bikers in just one unit, every single nob has a different clan, depending on which one I felt he fits best, my naut is deff skulls, and so forth. Note that the fluff used to state that certain units like warbikers, stormboyz or lootas were basically dedicated clan units, similar to how khorne berzerkers and plague marines were always World Eaters and Death Guard, even if they travel with renegades.
And I'm not about to drop a paint scheme I started ten years ago, so all my buggies are painted in the clan colors shown on their box - SJD is bad moons, KBB is evil suns, boom-dakka snazzwagon is deff skulls, scrapjet is bloodaxes and the wartrike is goff.
Ishagu wrote: I remember when taking certain units required the permission of your opponent in advance? Should we go back to that because it was a thing in the past?
Making people paint models in a specific way is a very gate keeping thing to do, specialy when a lot of people aren't even interested in painting their models in the first place . What is next not allowing people to play with old models? GW could be changing base sizes, or paint scheems just to force people to buy new armies. Just because someone bought an IH army, and now a DA army fits them better, they shouldn't be stoped from using the models they bought, specially when the only thing that changes are the rules, which they pay for while buying a codex.
As much as I'll unashamedly state which side of the fence I am on (obviously it's the 'painting minis makes ALL games cooler' stance), it's threads like this make me thank god I only play casually, where idiotic arguments and problems like these don't exist. In my kind of casual games, everyone wants to show off their personal style as a way to nerd-brag about something they are proud of, even if they are crappy painters.
My kind of games are where players want to show off their cool "Doom Marine" paintjobs (as in the ancient video game, not any particular GW approved faction paintjob), etc.
Funny about how almost all the "paintscheme for advantage" arguments almost solely involve Space Marines. No one is accusing people of painting or not-painting say, Tyranids.
Stop with the hyperbole. No one is being punished ...
...The only people being "punished" are lazy meta chasers looking to squeeze any advantage they can at the expense of everything else.
"Oh no, I can't use my Novamarines as Iron Hands, how can I go on?"
I found that funny ...
Because of the fact that painting is important to me personally, I dislike your suggestions for this. The problem is that this does punish people. People like me. While the "lazy meta-chasers" will just do an even sloppier paint-job over top of the already sloppy paint job they have (or just outright buy a new painted army), people like me will be shot in the foot. When Forgeworld introduced the Red Hunters, I instantly fell in love and converted my Blood Angels to Red Hunters. I have a FULL BATTLE COMPANY of Red Hunters and they are very well painted. Hundreds of hours sunk into lovingly painting each and every model. Names on sergeant models and even squad leader models, kill markings, weathering, the whole 9. Since Red Hunters don't technically exist in this edition (unless I missed an update - in which case let me know), I typically play them as Sons of Orar because that's a fairly close match to the color scheme, and the chapter traits match up close enough to what I envision for them. Your rule would have me unable to play my marines at all, while not having the slightest effect on the people you're trying to target with it. Because I'm no paint snob and will play against anyone (long as your stuff's assembled), but if you're going to get so strict that red marines with some white helmets from Chapter "A" can't be used as red marines w/white helmets from chapter "B", then I'll just stay home and paint. The actual "gaming" isn't for me at that point.
I think it's important in these discussions to try and keep the hobby aspect as flexible and welcoming as possible, and we can't do that by introducing rules of exclusion in this manner. OT - Painting is important to me, but not to the point that I want it to drive people away from playing games. Not trying to toot my own horn here, but you want people like me coming to games and tourneys. I don't have Golden Demon level skill or anything crazy, but I'm a very good painter and sculptor (my career began with practical special effects and making medical prosthetics), so my armies tend to be the type of armies that attract people to the game in the first place.
I started my eldar army in my own scheme and own made up fluff long before custom traits, or before I knew which craftworlds were good.
I guess it does give me flexibility and some decorum of advantage. But it also gives me great joy to see my army slowly being completed according to my vision and not designs by GW.
I could, but they had specific rules, etc under 6th/7th ed. Nothing crazy as you likely know, but they haven't been updated to 8, and I think Sons of Orar suits them well. WHat you're suggesting wouldn't allow for that. There are IH successors that also have a similar paint scheme. I could have gone that route but I didn't. Mine is clearly NOT a case of lazy meta-chasing, but you'd punish me just the same as the guy next to me who, last week sprayed everything yellow plus two other shades, and this week sprayed over that in three different shades of grey. There's a vast gulf between me and that person in terms of hobby effort, but you would penalize me just the same. That's the point everyone's making.
Ishagu wrote: It applies to all factions. Alaitoc Eldar are another prime culprit.
So can you tell me what colour Poisoned Tongue are? Or Jormugandr, or Pauper Princes? I couldn't even tell you what the Dark Eldar colour schemes for each sub-faction are and I play them. Additionally, non-SM armies don't have the "choose your own traits" caveat so for Xenos armies you're free to use a custom paint job and enjoy the benefits of meta chasing with Ad Mech or Dark Eldar, but not Space Marines because...reasons. But screw you if you painted your Necrons in the traditional silver and green because now you're locked into Sautekh.
Your approach is unworkable for any number of reasons, all of which you simply refuse to acknowledge. A few practical examples:
I have Blood Angels. I've played them since 2nd edition when they were just red marines with some angry black-armoured dudes. I played them in 3rd when they were broken as all feth and I played them all the way through each edition afterwards when they were various different types of terrible. At some point in 5th edition I decided to repaint my models since they were literally the first things I painted. I decided to go for a reverse colour scheme of black armour and red trim, with red Death Company. They're easily identifiable as whatever unit they're supposed to represent, including various special characters painted in the same colours. According to your approach I can't play them as the chapter I have used for literally decades because of a decision taken more than 10 years ago when it didn't matter. And why? Because Iron Hands are broken.
Similarly, I've seen a fantastic Emperor's Children army, built and painted as a pre-Heresy force and using Ultramarines rules, including a Guilliman conversion into Fulgrim and an Eidolon using the rules for Calgar. It looks great and the use of UM rules even makes sense in the circumstances given both forces tend towards the pursuit of martial perfection and the UM rules reflect that quite nicely. Nobody has even been confused by what anything represents and it's clearly a labour of love for the guy who owns it. Again, you're saying this player can't use his army in the way he wants because Iron Hands are broken.
You're proposing a solution that doesn't solve the core problem, has huge holes in it even if enforced fully and punishes people for creativity and decisions taken potentially years ago when they had no consequence. All because GW can't balance their game properly.
Even for marines from established chapters/legions their are problems. Each chapter has multiple companies, do we have paint schemes for all of them? For every chapter? I paint my Night Lords with silver trim darkened with nuln oil because I find the gold trim garish and impractical for a legion that likes to hide in the darkness. It's also how they're depicted in much of the hh artwork and fw models. Does that make them illegal for 40k but legal for hh? This approach would restrict artistic license among players and punish creativity.
Oh, it is pretty easy to "chase the meta" and just put on a 3 colour paint scheme.
Do a three colour progressive Zenithal paint job (airbrush) and then spray the base of the model and you are done painting an entire army in the span of an hour or two.
A steady couple hours of large brush dry brushing could achieve something similar.
There really is no excuse play bare plastic, though some people insist on playing when assembly is not quite complete.
But most of what we are talking about is more than a passing attempt to pick out the details of the model and paint them accordingly.
I got a bit of an expectation adjustment looking at our local 40k group playing at the FLGS:
- Heads were missing from some of the troops.
- Arms missing from dreadnaughts and bare plastic.
- A bright silver base-coat was put all over some marines.
- Tanks with their turrets missing.
- Basilisks all painted with one colour, the whole thing.
- Daemon princes painted to an amazing standard from Forgeworld.
- I saw one guy drop some well block-painted grots at least 3 times on the floor because he carried them on a baking sheet with a tea-towel laid over them.
It was an insane mixed bag of players (which is a good thing all the same...), the hobby shop provides fully painted terrain pieces with "FAT Mats" to play on so the "incomplete" armies kinda stood out.
I dunno, I just find the game looks like utter garbage when I see the army of "Misfit Toys" assemble for war (you would bother to put the heads on at least right???).
I would assemble "classic" model kits and they never were put out on display till the painting was done...
I genuinely would like to hear from those who play with bare plastic models: why do you stop there? Chomping at the bit to play and really have zero interest in the look of it so long as you can get to the game at hand?
Talizvar wrote: There really is no excuse play bare plastic, though some people insist on playing when assembly is not quite complete.
The one reason for me to ever play half-assembled models is when I didn't finish painting models in time for a game, and it's impossible to paint them assembled. The ork buggies and warbikers are such models, for example.
People like different aspects of the hobby.
The objective of a hobby is entertainment. Doing things you don't like due to peer pressure isn't the best entertainment the hobby can offer.
I know people who only care about the game and grudlingly build the model first, but won't make any effort in painting. That seems to be your modus operadi as well.
Since most people make some effort to paint their army, making none is unusual and should probably be disclosed if you are setting up a game with someone you don't know, since it will detract from their enjoyment.
Besides that, more power to you. If you are having fun (and you are not the only one having fun) you are doing it right!
Talizvar wrote: Oh, it is pretty easy to "chase the meta" and just put on a 3 colour paint scheme.
Do a three colour progressive Zenithal paint job (airbrush) and then spray the base of the model and you are done painting an entire army in the span of an hour or two.
A steady couple hours of large brush dry brushing could achieve something similar.
There really is no excuse play bare plastic, though some people insist on playing when assembly is not quite complete.
But most of what we are talking about is more than a passing attempt to pick out the details of the model and paint them accordingly.
I got a bit of an expectation adjustment looking at our local 40k group playing at the FLGS:
- Heads were missing from some of the troops.
- Arms missing from dreadnaughts and bare plastic.
- A bright silver base-coat was put all over some marines.
- Tanks with their turrets missing.
- Basilisks all painted with one colour, the whole thing.
- Daemon princes painted to an amazing standard from Forgeworld.
- I saw one guy drop some well block-painted grots at least 3 times on the floor because he carried them on a baking sheet with a tea-towel laid over them.
It was an insane mixed bag of players (which is a good thing all the same...), the hobby shop provides fully painted terrain pieces with "FAT Mats" to play on so the "incomplete" armies kinda stood out.
I dunno, I just find the game looks like utter garbage when I see the army of "Misfit Toys" assemble for war (you would bother to put the heads on at least right???).
I would assemble "classic" model kits and they never were put out on display till the painting was done...
I genuinely would like to hear from those who play with bare plastic models: why do you stop there? Chomping at the bit to play and really have zero interest in the look of it so long as you can get to the game at hand?
I could see the waiting to add weapons If a squad has some options and you want to do a few test games before committing to one of the builds, but I see a lot of -woolens with bare plastic and no weapons that stay that way forever.
I genuinely would like to hear from those who play with bare plastic models: why do you stop there? Chomping at the bit to play and really have zero interest in the look of it so long as you can get to the game at hand?
My army isn't plastic aside for two rhinos. But as they came pre painted I have not painted a single model, and the rhinos are the way I bought them. I have strong doubts I would paint the army, if it was not painted.
I don't play big events or store events that require a painted army, so that entice is gone. The army being painted adds nothing to how the army feels or plays. I don't care if my opponents army is or isn't painted, as this again has no impact on the game. I also don't think that painting the army vs the cost both in time, space and money warents painting for me. If I had the money to buy enough paints to paint stuff, I would buy something else, like the new PA or maybe a new unit, if my army gets a new unit in PA4.
making none is unusual and should probably be disclosed if you are setting up a game with someone you don't know, since it will detract from their enjoyment.
Besides that, more power to you. If you are having fun (and you are not the only one having fun) you are doing it right!
Or since you're the one that has the problem with unpainted models, you should be the one to declare that you won't play against them.
I don't play big events or store events that require a painted army, so that entice is gone. The army being painted adds nothing to how the army feels or plays. I don't care if my opponents army is or isn't painted, as this again has no impact on the game. I also don't think that painting the army vs the cost both in time, space and money warents painting for me. If I had the money to buy enough paints to paint stuff, I would buy something else, like the new PA or maybe a new unit, if my army gets a new unit in PA4.
Why do you play 40k? Why get into a hobby where 90% of the content is irrelevant or obnoxious to you?
I really don't understand the people who do not care about the visuals, but such attitudes certainly shed new light into common complaints about GW prices. Yes, the models are expensive, but to me they're art pieces and hobby projects. I will spend untold hours building converting and painting them, and once I am done, them sitting in cabinet and looking pretty pleases me greatly. But if I only viewed them as gaming pieces, things I need to play the game, I would never ever pay the prices GW is asking for them. Think what two 2000 point armies cost. If a chess set would cost that much, would you buy it, even if you liked the game? Because I sure as hell wouldn't.
Karol wrote: I also don't think that painting the army vs the cost both in time, space and money warents painting for me. If I had the money to buy enough paints to paint stuff, I would buy something else, like the new PA or maybe a new unit, if my army gets a new unit in PA4.
A fair response.
So the cost for paint supplies and effort does not provide sufficient payback: it does not add to the game play in a meaningful way to you.
40k, game-play is reminiscent of a collectible card game so it seems to have an element of "pay to win" and a TON of mitigating the buckets of dice rolls so I tend to select other games for more of a challenge in the strategy/tactics end of things. Looking at the models merely as playing pieces, printed cardboard punch out chits were sufficient for me for war games in the past, so I see your point.
I am drawn to 40k for the look/spectacle of it, a glorified 40k universe "simulator" so I put a bit more effort into that.
I love spaghetti, I will make it from scratch over an entire day and roll my own noodles and in a pinch I will eat Chef-Boy-R-Dee from a can. That demonstrates that "it is all good" in the end.
I genuinely would like to hear from those who play with bare plastic models: why do you stop there? Chomping at the bit to play and really have zero interest in the look of it so long as you can get to the game at hand?
My army isn't plastic aside for two rhinos. But as they came pre painted I have not painted a single model, and the rhinos are the way I bought them. I have strong doubts I would paint the army, if it was not painted.
I don't play big events or store events that require a painted army, so that entice is gone. The army being painted adds nothing to how the army feels or plays. I don't care if my opponents army is or isn't painted, as this again has no impact on the game. I also don't think that painting the army vs the cost both in time, space and money warents painting for me. If I had the money to buy enough paints to paint stuff, I would buy something else, like the new PA or maybe a new unit, if my army gets a new unit in PA4.
you'd proably find painting to be a relaxing part of the hobby TBH, I know I do.
I like painting and seeing my skills improve so it's an important aspect of the hobby to me. But I don't care if others don't paint. People are into the hobby for different reasons. I actually don't really play much of the game at all but I like putting together and painting the minis. I don't frown upon anyone who doesn't paint, because maybe they're just not good at it, don't have time, or are solely interested in playing the game.
I get the whole "immersion" argument against having grey plastic on the battlefield but it doesn't bother me as long as everyone is having fun.
Karol wrote: I also don't think that painting the army vs the cost both in time, space and money warents painting for me. If I had the money to buy enough paints to paint stuff, I would buy something else, like the new PA or maybe a new unit, if my army gets a new unit in PA4.
A fair response.
So the cost for paint supplies and effort does not provide sufficient payback: it does not add to the game play in a meaningful way to you.
40k, game-play is reminiscent of a collectible card game so it seems to have an element of "pay to win" and a TON of mitigating the buckets of dice rolls so I tend to select other games for more of a challenge in the strategy/tactics end of things. Looking at the models merely as playing pieces, printed cardboard punch out chits were sufficient for me for war games in the past, so I see your point.
I am drawn to 40k for the look/spectacle of it, a glorified 40k universe "simulator" so I put a bit more effort into that.
I love spaghetti, I will make it from scratch over an entire day and roll my own noodles and in a pinch I will eat Chef-Boy-R-Dee from a can. That demonstrates that "it is all good" in the end.
Well I never tried it to be honest, even if I tried and had the money for paint etc, the main problem would be space. At my store there are 2 spots for painting, both are always taken by the same 3 people. At home, I don't have enough space. I would like to point out , that I don't think that lack of space is the main thing stoping everyone from painting. It is more a personal thing.
The pay to win part I do understand and accept. I did play drafts for a few years. Maybe it is the cost of whole thing, spending 700$ spread over 3 years is not little, but it is not little either. Winning or losing doesn't matter as much in such a situation, specialy as you get to win from time to time. spending the same money, and then slowly more, and losing all the time, is not very fun. And when something is not fun, it is hard to convince oneself to invest more in to side activities. If your getting beaten up on the mat, every day, your not going to buy new gym gear, if the old still works.
you'd proably find painting to be a relaxing part of the hobby TBH, I know I do.
Hard for me to have an opinion. Never was in to art stuff in my life, and at school at I was always horrible at painting and drawing. But again it is kind of a hard for me to decide, if I would like it or not. Could be a thing for sure.
Yes, the models are expensive, but to me they're art pieces and hobby projects.
That is an acceptable view on things. But can you imagine that for others the models may not be art projects, but more like protectors or head gear for gym. Only vain or those that want to show off buy flashy versions of those.
Karol wrote: But can you imagine that for others the models may not be art projects, but more like protectors or head gear for gym.
I can't understand why anyone who viewed the models that way would be willing to pay the GW prices.
Fortunately, you don't have to understand. They're not you, you're not them. People pay ridiculous prices every day for things I don't want, need, or like. That in no way invalidates their decisions, or the prices of those things. Look to yourself, spend what you want to spend on what you want to own, and let other people enjoy their things without criticism.
I can't understand why anyone who viewed the models that way would be willing to pay the GW prices.
I bought a GK second hand army, at probably 1/3 its store price. Ton of people here buy recast models. Am not saying it is 100% of people, but I don't think many people think buying GW models at GW prices is a smart thing to do. Now when the avarge monthly salary is close to half what a 2000pts army costs. Also a lot of players are people who bought their armies when I was not even in school. the majority of players in my area as old as my dad.
Karol wrote: But can you imagine that for others the models may not be art projects, but more like protectors or head gear for gym.
I can't understand why anyone who viewed the models that way would be willing to pay the GW prices.
Often they dont. Ebay and other sources can get you anything at well below gw prices. I picked up several FW hive tyrants in FW bags with instructions for 30.00 a piece a year and a half ago. 20.00 cheaper then gws plastic for a oop better model. Nobody needs to pay gw prices.
Yeah, but if looks don't matter for you and just need gaming tokes you can just saw appropriately sized bits of plastic tube or something, glue them on the base and write 'space marine' on the side...
Crimson wrote: Yeah, but if looks don't matter for you and just need gaming tokes you can just saw appropriately sized bits of plastic tube or something, glue them on the base and write 'space marine' on the side...
And some people do so. And [Warning: Unpopular Opinion Inbound] that's fine. Maybe people want to have the proper toys, maybe they don't. Maybe they want them painted but don't have the time, money, skill, etc. Maybe it's none of my business what someone else does.
Would I play against someone who just uses plastic tube? Maybe! Would you? Maybe not! That's your prerogative, play with whomever you want or don't. But I take it kind of personally (apparently) when people come on the internet and tell other people that they're Having Fun WRONG.
Octopoid wrote: But I take it kind of personally (apparently) when people come on the internet and tell other people that they're Having Fun WRONG.
As long as everybody is consenting and no one gets seriously hurt, no one is having fun wrong! They might be still doing miniature wargaming wrong though! Like once as kid I put four chess boards together and used several sets of chess pieces and played some weird made up game game this way with my friend. We had fun, but it still was objectively doing the chess wrong!
Octopoid wrote: But I take it kind of personally (apparently) when people come on the internet and tell other people that they're Having Fun WRONG.
As long as everybody is consenting and no one gets seriously hurt, no one is having fun wrong! They might be still doing miniature wargaming wrong though! Like once as kid I put four chess boards together and used several sets of chess pieces and played some weird made up game game this way with my friend. We had fun, but it still was objectively doing the chess wrong!
But were you even trying to do The Chess though? Fundamentally changing the rules of a game may be doing THAT GAME wrong, but playing a game with unpainted miniatures (or even with sticks and coins) isn't necessarily playing that game wrong, and even if it is, who cares? Let people have fun! Imagine if someone had come along to your "chess" game and said, "Hey, kid, you're doing chess wrong! You have to follow these rules!" Would you have really wanted to play chess more, or would that have just made you more inclined to play your game, and to hell with that guy?
I can't understand why anyone who viewed the models that way would be willing to pay the GW prices.
I bought a GK second hand army, at probably 1/3 its store price. Ton of people here buy recast models. Am not saying it is 100% of people, but I don't think many people think buying GW models at GW prices is a smart thing to do. Now when the avarge monthly salary is close to half what a 2000pts army costs. Also a lot of players are people who bought their armies when I was not even in school. the majority of players in my area as old as my dad.
So Karol, I'm just trying to figure something out, your only army is a used GK army you've purchased sometime after 6th edition launched, and you've not added anything to it?
i'll never understand why people buy into this game if they hate painting.
Its more than half of the hobby to me, and its quite literally my passtime. I spend on average 2-3 hours a day assembling/painting, longer when i dont work that day, just because its what i have to do i enjoy doing that i can keep doing to pass the time.
Had it not been for the endless hours of contentment with a paintbrush i would not have felt fine paying thousands of dollars to plastic soldiers.
If you enjoy yourself w/o the painting aspect, by all means you do you. I just cant understand it, but my opinion is moot except for my own fun.
Crimson wrote: Yeah, but if looks don't matter for you and just need gaming tokes you can just saw appropriately sized bits of plastic tube or something, glue them on the base and write 'space marine' on the side...
But were you even trying to do The Chess though? Fundamentally changing the rules of a game may be doing THAT GAME wrong, but playing a game with unpainted miniatures (or even with sticks and coins) isn't necessarily playing that game wrong, and even if it is, who cares? Let people have fun! Imagine if someone had come along to your "chess" game and said, "Hey, kid, you're doing chess wrong! You have to follow these rules!" Would you have really wanted to play chess more, or would that have just made you more inclined to play your game, and to hell with that guy?
I knew how to play properly and if someone had pointed out that this is not how chess is played I'd have merely told them that I know instead of arguing with them how there actually can be many ways to play chess and who can really even say what chess is? And of course usually we played completely normally.
But were you even trying to do The Chess though? Fundamentally changing the rules of a game may be doing THAT GAME wrong, but playing a game with unpainted miniatures (or even with sticks and coins) isn't necessarily playing that game wrong, and even if it is, who cares? Let people have fun! Imagine if someone had come along to your "chess" game and said, "Hey, kid, you're doing chess wrong! You have to follow these rules!" Would you have really wanted to play chess more, or would that have just made you more inclined to play your game, and to hell with that guy?
I knew how to play properly and if someone had pointed out that this is not how chess is played I'd have merely told them that I know instead of arguing with them how there actually can be many ways to play chess and who can really even say what chess is? And of course usually we played completely normally.
Which is what is being pointed out to you. I know how Warhammer 40K is played, usually I play it completely "normally," and there can actually be many ways to play Warhammer 40K, including with or without painted miniatures.
Which is what is being pointed out to you. I know how Warhammer 40K is played, usually I play it completely "normally," and there can actually be many ways to play Warhammer 40K, including with or without painted miniatures.
Well, I have to consider playing with unpainted models 'wrong' way to play it, in the sense that is not how the manufacturer intended it to be played nor it is how long tradition of tabletop miniature wargames imply it should be played. How much one cares about his being a 'wrong' way to do it is another matter.
Which is what is being pointed out to you. I know how Warhammer 40K is played, usually I play it completely "normally," and there can actually be many ways to play Warhammer 40K, including with or without painted miniatures.
Well, I have to consider playing with unpainted models 'wrong' way to play it, in the sense that is not how the manufacturer intended it to be played nor it is how long tradition of tabletop miniature wargames imply it should be played. How much one cares about his being a 'wrong' way to do it is another matter.
But you don't have to. There's nothing in the rules of the game that suggest painted miniatures are required, right, or wrong. You can choose not to consider playing with unpainted miniatures "wrong" if you want. The fact that you are choosing to consider it wrong is a choice, and one I find intolerant.
(Almost) No one really gives a feth if you play with unpainted models on your kitchen table and proxy the salt shaker as Abaddon.
Likewise, events and venues are free to establish standards such as "All models must be assembled, wysiwyg, painted to a minimum of 3 colours, coherent and based." and those rules are just as valid as the rules saying "All armies must be 2000 or less points, use the current version of Codexes and be Battleforged." DQ'ing a player at an event for using unpainted models is no more elitist than DQ'ing them for bringing a random assortment of Tau, Orks and Raven Guard.
If you don't like the rules, you don't have to play at the event or venue. If someone tells you how to play at home on your own table, you can tell them to screw off.
But you don't have to. There's nothing in the rules of the game that suggest painted miniatures are required, right, or wrong. You can choose not to consider playing with unpainted miniatures "wrong" if you want. The fact that you are choosing to consider it wrong is a choice, and one I find intolerant.
I consider the larger context of tradition and convention, not merely the rules. Rules are only a part of wargaming. And BTW, it literally is part of AOS Player's Code, printed in the General's Handbook that you need to ask your opponents permission for using unpainted models. So intent is pretty clear and I agree with that intent. I wish they'd spell out it as plainly for 40K too. If you have problem with me thinking this... well, that really is not my problem.
Which is what is being pointed out to you. I know how Warhammer 40K is played, usually I play it completely "normally," and there can actually be many ways to play Warhammer 40K, including with or without painted miniatures.
Well, I have to consider playing with unpainted models 'wrong' way to play it, in the sense that is not how the manufacturer intended it to be played nor it is how long tradition of tabletop miniature wargames imply it should be played. How much one cares about his being a 'wrong' way to do it is another matter.
the fact that GW puts out starter sets such as Know no Fear in coloured plastic to allow one to Identify the sides easily without a paint job indicates that GW aaknowledges that not everyone plays with painted mini's (although it indicates they tend to assume the bulk of people who don't paint their minis are younger entry level players)
But you don't have to. There's nothing in the rules of the game that suggest painted miniatures are required, right, or wrong. You can choose not to consider playing with unpainted miniatures "wrong" if you want. The fact that you are choosing to consider it wrong is a choice, and one I find intolerant.
I consider the larger context of tradition and convention, not merely the rules. Rules are only a part of wargaming. And BTW, it literally is part of AOS Player's Code, printed in the General's Handbook that you need to ask your opponents permission for using unpainted models. So intent is pretty clear and I agree with that intent. I wish they'd spell out it as plainly for 40K too. If you have problem with me thinking this... well, that really is not my problem.
Correct me if I am wrong but
1) No rule in AoS has any bearing on the rules for 40k and vice versa
2) The General Handbook is full of all kinds of ridiculous joke rules about wearing tee shirts and doing other goofy gak impacting the game.
If so. The fact that the Generals handbook has a rule about asking permission about unpainted says what it is. A fething joke even to GW.
1) No rule in AoS has any bearing on the rules for 40k and vice versa
It is really not a rule, it is more of a proper conduct and gaming etiquette thing. There is not such thing spelled out for 40K at all, but there is really not reason to think that it wouldn't generally reflect how GW intends their games to be approached. Also matches the larger wargaming tradition.
2) The General Handbook is full of all kinds of ridiculous joke rules about wearing tee shirts and doing other goofy gak impacting the game.
No.
If so. The fact that the Generals handbook has a rule about asking permission about unpainted rules says what it is. A fething joke even to GW.
Braying Warcry: Red-hot rage festers in
the savage minds of Wargors, their only
desire to rend and destroy. You can add 1
to all hit rolls made for a Wargor if, before
rolling the dice, you let loose a primal
warcry. Your warcry must use no actual
words, but angry grunts and raging snorts
are encouraged.
Ancient Dignity: Dragons are ancient and prideful creatures, and the Elves that
ride them are no less haughty, but from such nobility and dignity stems an inner
strength. If, during your entire hero phase, you can maintain a dignified (even
arrogant) composure and not smile, smirk or laugh regardless of your opponent's
antics, you may re-roll all hit rolls of 1 made for models in a Dragon Host until
your next hero phase.
The Grail Vow: You can re-roll all failed
hit rolls for this unit if, before rolling the
dice, you hold aloft a grail or goblet and
shout 'For the Lady' in a heroic voice.
Pride of the Reiksguard: Helborg's
skill is as legendary as his moustache is
magnificent. You can re-roll any failed hit
rolls when attacking with the Runefang
so long as you have a bigger and more
impressive moustache than your opponent.
Old Grumblers: In your hero phase,
you can complain about something in a
suitably Dwarfish manner. For example,
the hardships you endured when you were
younger, how the youth of today don't
respect their elders, how expensive beer
is etc. If you do, this unit of Longbeards
will join in and you can pick one of the
grumblings listed below. The effects last
until your next hero phase.
'I thought Dwarfs were made of
sterner stuff!': Roll a dice each time a
Dispossessed model from your army
flees whilst within 8" of this unit; on a 5
or more that model stands firm under the
Longbeards' stern gaze and does not flee.
'Who does this beardling think he is?':
Dispossessed Heroes from your army
within 8" of this unit in the hero phase can
use their command abilities even if they
are not your general.
'Goblins are weedier these days!': You can
re-roll wound rolls of 1 for Dispossessed
models from your army that are within
8" of this unit when they attack in the
combat phase.
The Mad Count: Marius Leitdorf is an
exceptional swordsman, even if he is totally
insane. If, during your hero phase, you
pretend to ride an imaginary horse, you
can re-roll failed hit rolls for the Averland
Runefang until your next hero phase. If
you actually talk to your imaginary horse
you can re-roll failed wound rolls as well.
Underground Scuttlers: Instead of setting
up a Tomb Swarm on the battlefield, you
can place them to one side and say that
they are set up beneath the ground. In any
of your movement phases, you can set the
unit up on the battlefield more than 9"
from any enemy models. This is the unit's
move for that movement phase. The
unit can burrow back underground in
any of your future movement phases.
If it does, remove the unit from the
battlefield - it can return in a later turn as
described above.
If you have many fewer units in your army than an opponent, you can choose to instantly win the game if your army survives for six turns. As your army, take a a couple of tomb swarms and burrow them forever. Wait six turns... win.
Bloodwrack Stare: When making a
Bloodwrack Stare attack, pick a visible
unit within range and roll a dice for each
model in that unit; for each roll of 6 or
more that unit suffers a mortal wound as
they foolishly meet the Medusa's deadly
gaze. You can add 1 to these dice rolls if,
between the time you declare the target of
the attack and time you roll the dice, your
opponent looks you directly in the eye.
Those are ancient rules from the first edition legacy PDFs, current rules do not have those, nor do these rules have anything to do with General's Handbook, or the topic in any way. Please, stop embarrassing yourself, your argument is more crazy than the Mad Count.
Crimson wrote: Those are ancient rules from the first edition legacy PDFs, current rules do not have those, nor do these rules have anything to do with General's Handbook, or the topic in any way. Please, stop embarrassing yourself, your argument is more crazy than the Mad Count.
No, trying to reference a "rule" from a game we are not talking about has nothing to do with the topic in any way.
Crimson wrote: Those are ancient rules from the first edition legacy PDFs, current rules do not have those, nor do these rules have anything to do with General's Handbook, or the topic in any way. Please, stop embarrassing yourself, your argument is more crazy than the Mad Count.
No, trying to reference a "rule" from a game we are not talking about has nothing to do with the topic in any way.
It has if you can understand context, convention, intent, gaming etiquette and tradition.
Crimson wrote: Those are ancient rules from the first edition legacy PDFs, current rules do not have those, nor do these rules have anything to do with General's Handbook, or the topic in any way. Please, stop embarrassing yourself, your argument is more crazy than the Mad Count.
No, trying to reference a "rule" from a game we are not talking about has nothing to do with the topic in any way.
It has if you can understand context, convention, intent, gaming etiquette and tradition.
Tradition is meaningless. It's the worst reason to do anything. Up until the last 100 years women traditionally had less rights then men.
Gaming Etiquette has to do with being a good opponent. Which involves following the rules. Of which there are none for painting.
Intent is debatable at best and meaningless at worst.
Who's conventions?
I get the context you are TRYING to build between what a AoS book says and what 40k is but again there is no actual connection and so your "context" is meaningless.
Of course there is a connection. And the gaming etiquette GW expects for AOS is clearly spelled out and it would be crazy to think that this would not reflect their attitude at large. Or do you also think it is OK to use offensive language when playing 40K, because unlike for AOS they didn't explicitly specify that it is not cool?
Crimson wrote: Of course there is a connection. And the gaming etiquette GW expects for AOS is clearly spelled out and it would be crazy to think that this would not reflect their attitude at large. Or do you also think it is OK to use offensive language when playing 40K, because unlike for AOS they didn't explicitly specify that it is not cool?
Depends on the language and company. If I'm with friends and I drop an f-bomb, no one cares. If I'm playing an eight year old kid, though, that's inappropriate.
Likewise, if I'm playing with my friends, I'm free to do so with unpainted models, because they're not exacting gatekeepers who refuse to play grey plastic. If I go to a tournament, though, I should expect to be disqualified from it, assuming it's like most and has a painting requirement.
Crimson wrote: Of course there is connection. And the gaming etiquette GW expects for AOS is clearly spelled out and it would be crazy to think that this would not reflect their attitude at large. Or do you also think it is OK to use offensive language when playing 40K, because unlike for AOS they explicitly didn't specify that it is not cool?
No. There is no connection. You just WANT there to be a connection because you rely on things like "tradition" as an argument for why people should do things. GWs Etiquette is spelled out clearly in "The Most Important Rule"
THE MOST IMPORTANT RULE
In a game as detailed and wide ranging as Warhammer 40,000, there may be times when you are not sure exactly how to resolve a situation that has come up during play. When this happens, have a quick chat with your opponent and apply the solution that makes the most sense to both of you (or seems the most fun!). If no single solution presents itself, you and your opponent should roll off, and whoever rolls highest gets to choose what happens. Then you can get on with the fighting
Which can be summarized as have fun playing and be fair.
What would be crazy is to assume that anything in any document related to Arkham Horror impacts a game of Twilight Imperium because they are both made by Fantasy Flights.
As an adult I use whatever language I feel like whenever I feel like it.
I remember as a kid, my brother and I didn't have all the fancy toys our friends had. Heck, sometimes we didn't have ANY of the toys of a world we wanted to play in.
So we took what we had and made stuff up.
We played with guys from GI Joe, Transformers, MASC, Visionaries, and Captain Power. Sometimes I would take some of their gear and mix them up with my model planes to pretend a variant of spaceships ala BSG, Star Wars or Star Trek.
And we had fun.
It is more important to have a good time than having toys set up properly.
Crimson wrote: TMIR has nothing to do with etiquette, it is about resolving unclear situations.
So, we should apply rules from ANOTHER GAME to 40k, but we shouldn't apply a big part of TMIR...
apply the solution that makes the most sense to both of you (or seems the most fun!).
To the system it's a part of?
Right...
The AOS thing really isn't a rule, TMIR is. They're not comparable, they're not about same thing. I only mentioned the AOS etiquette in attempt to illustrate the mindset, attitude and intent of the GW writers, but as people seem to be unable to grasp that things other than rules can exist, this has devolved into some sort of bizarre BCBish rules lawyering.
Crimson wrote: TMIR has nothing to do with etiquette, it is about resolving unclear situations.
So, we should apply rules from ANOTHER GAME to 40k, but we shouldn't apply a big part of TMIR...
apply the solution that makes the most sense to both of you (or seems the most fun!).
To the system it's a part of?
Right...
The AOS thing really isn't a rule, TMIR is. They're not comparable
You are right. They are not comparable. Because one clearly outlines etiquette for the game we are actually talking about and the other is entirely irrelevant example of a "not a rule" you are trying to use to establish a "guideline" laid down by GW for all their products as a code of conduct. The first has actual weight behind it and matters. The second is just you grasping at straws.
Nothing but excuses to avoid having any standards. Unpainted models look awful, it doesn't matter how you "feel" about the hobby. It also broadcasts to people that you're lazy and might be a bad opponent. The metaphysical waac player in my mind has an unpainted army.
Irkjoe wrote: Nothing but excuses to avoid having any standards. Unpainted models look awful, it doesn't matter how you "feel" about the hobby. It also broadcasts to people that you're lazy and might be a bad opponent. The metaphysical waac player in my mind has an unpainted army.
I have had more bad opponents with fully painted armies then entirely unpainted. I have seen more WAAC players at events where paint was required then in casual environments where everyone was welcome with "no standards". The amount of paint on a model means nothing. When competitive events require it all it does is get WAAC players to spray 3 colors on their models so they can play.
Irkjoe wrote: Nothing but excuses to avoid having any standards. Unpainted models look awful, it doesn't matter how you "feel" about the hobby. It also broadcasts to people that you're lazy and might be a bad opponent. The metaphysical waac player in my mind has an unpainted army.
So a person tries to paint. It ends up horrible, like a 5-year-old that got a hold of their mom's nail polish. It gets mocked and derided, or they are afraid that is how people would react if they ever saw it. Because of that failure, they choose never to paint again.
That's not a case of laziness, just a bad reaction to an event.
Next case, person wants to learn how to play the game, but only has had time to build. Most of the games around them are the standard tournament level, so they concentrate on building and never get around to painting or learning to paint. They show up with all their hard work in collecting and building, then some punk derides them on the grey plastic and calling them a WAAC bandwagoner.
Not a case of laziness, except the punk who never bothers to take the time to find out the situation the non-painter is in and proceeds to demonstrate how assinine they are.
Irkjoe wrote: Nothing but excuses to avoid having any standards. Unpainted models look awful, it doesn't matter how you "feel" about the hobby. It also broadcasts to people that you're lazy and might be a bad opponent. The metaphysical waac player in my mind has an unpainted army.
You think they look awful. To someone who doesn't care about painted minies they could feel infifferent about it, or that it looks fine.
Stop pushing your personal views onto other people.
And before you say you aren't, just remember, I got this from the quote above:
that you're lazy and might be a bad opponent. The metaphysical waac player in my mind has an unpainted army.
Irkjoe wrote: Nothing but excuses to avoid having any standards. Unpainted models look awful, it doesn't matter how you "feel" about the hobby. It also broadcasts to people that you're lazy and might be a bad opponent. The metaphysical waac player in my mind has an unpainted army.
I have had more bad opponents with fully painted armies then entirely unpainted. I have seen more WAAC players at events where paint was required then in casual environments where everyone was welcome with "no standards". The amount of paint on a model means nothing. When competitive events require it all it does is get WAAC players to spray 3 colors on their models so they can play.
even if the general's handbook says you need your opponents permission it's irrelevant and the general's handbook is NOT considered part of the CORE rules. rather it's more "rules for higher level compeitive play" which yeah in 40k most tournies have requirements for minis to be painted.
Vineheart01 wrote: i'll never understand why people buy into this game if they hate painting.
Well, I'm here to play the games. Always have been. That's where my fun comes from.
Vineheart01 wrote: Its more than half of the hobby to me, and its quite literally my passtime. I spend on average 2-3 hours a day assembling/painting, longer when i dont work that day, just because its what i have to do i enjoy doing that i can keep doing to pass the time.
Good for you! My hobby though, & how I spend most of the time associated with it, is playing the games. I'd say 80% play/10% thinking, reading, discussing,/9%build/1%painting.
Painting for me is not something I particularly enjoy doing. It's something I simply do on occasion, in the down time cracks between playing & real life stuff. Or when stressed/upset/depressed. Odds are that if my painting output increases beyond the occasional mini or two a month then there's something wrong....
My glacial progress = Life is good.
It is a fact that they look bad, nobody admires bare plastic/metal. And why spend hundreds or thousands on miniatures that end up as nothing more than grey chess pieces for a game where the rules, by any comparison are shallow and uninvolved.
This opinion you bandy around as "fact" is irrelevant. Looking better or not the paint isn't needed to play the game and has no relevance to playing the game. It similarly has no connection to how good or bad an opponent is. Despite you trying to make that crap argument in your last post.
nobody admires bare plastic/metal.
Others admiration is likewise irrelevant. You let me know where in the rule book it encourages the persuit of outsider admiration as a goal of the game and then we might circle back to this pointless point you are making.
And why spend hundreds or thousands on miniatures that end up as nothing more than grey chess pieces for a game where the rules, by any comparison are shallow and uninvolved.
It doesn't matter why. Lots of people spend their money in ways I never would. Their motivations don't need to be understood by me and they have no relevance to the activity I chose to invest my time in. If you like to paint, paint. If you don't, don't. And if your playing the game, then play the game.
Irkjoe wrote: It is a fact that they look bad, nobody admires bare plastic/metal. And why spend hundreds or thousands on miniatures that end up as nothing more than grey chess pieces for a game where the rules, by any comparison are shallow and uninvolved.
I've seen paint jobs that were worse than bare plastic/metal/green stuff. Paint is slathered on so think that major detail is lost, to say nothing of minor detail. Colors chosen are not complimentary to each other and are painful to observe.
Still no measure on the skill level as a player or the level of sociability of the owner.
Irkjoe wrote: It is a fact that they look bad, nobody admires bare plastic/metal. And why spend hundreds or thousands on miniatures that end up as nothing more than grey chess pieces for a game where the rules, by any comparison are shallow and uninvolved.
Please don't dress your opinion up as fact.
And if you dislike the rules so much, why not play one of the many other games that have rules you like more, and nice models. Or convert 40K models to those rules.
the circle came back around! whenever someone brings up the rules are bad as an arguement in favor of painting, i just feel like asking "so do you play, or do you just buy these models to paint them"?
if you buy them only to paint then i still question spending this much, but if it has the quality or aesthetics you want, then alright.
however, if a larger percentage of your interest is still in playing a game, but the rules are bad, then... what keeps you buying and painting these models instead of some other one? an awesome paint job can be done on a LOT of things...
it just sounds like the painting is making the game more tolerable to you, and just seems really odd to me.
And your unpainted armies still look bad, it looks bad for your store and the hobby. In my case, I'm in it for the aesthetic, setting, modeling/painting so the rules are secondary and played as a way to reflect the story/narrative as well as a "beer and pretzels" game with friends. It seems that many of you don't care for the hobby aspect and recognize that the rules are poor so whats left? Guess just the fluff. You would be much more at home in mtg, prepainted games, something with smaller investments in time and effort.
Also bad paint jobs do not excuse no paint. Anyone can achieve an acceptable level of paint with little effort considering airbrushs, washes, dips, etc available. Again, if you don't have the time, $, or inclination your stuff still looks like crap.
Irkjoe wrote: And your unpainted armies still look bad, it looks bad for your store and the hobby. In my case, I'm in it for the aesthetic, setting, modeling/painting so the rules are secondary and played as a way to reflect the story/narrative as well as a "beer and pretzels" game with friends. It seems that many of you don't care for the hobby aspect and recognize that the rules are poor so whats left? Guess just the fluff. You would be much more at home in mtg, prepainted games, something with smaller investments in time and effort.
Also bad paint jobs do not excuse no paint. Anyone can achieve an acceptable level of paint with little effort considering airbrushs, washes, dips, etc available. Again, if you don't have the time, $, or inclination your stuff still looks like crap.
I'm glad I don't have to deal with you in my local GW. You sound really rude.
Irkjoe wrote: And your unpainted armies still look bad, it looks bad for your store and the hobby. In my case, I'm in it for the aesthetic, setting, modeling/painting so the rules are secondary and played as a way to reflect the story/narrative as well as a "beer and pretzels" game with friends. It seems that many of you don't care for the hobby aspect and recognize that the rules are poor so whats left? Guess just the fluff. You would be much more at home in mtg, prepainted games, something with smaller investments in time and effort.
Also bad paint jobs do not excuse no paint. Anyone can achieve an acceptable level of paint with little effort considering airbrushs, washes, dips, etc available. Again, if you don't have the time, $, or inclination your stuff still looks like crap.
What a load of crap. First, don't say what someone elses interests are. My interests havent even been expressed in this thread. I am just opposed to you pushing YOUR interests onto others. What any individual cares for the hobby aspects, the fluff aspects, or the game aspects doesnt matter. Nobody gets to push their preferences for liesure onto others.
Hear this and try to understand it. No paint job does not require excusing. Bare plastic has no inherent value and painted models have no inherent value. The value you asign to your own work is great for you and applies to nobody else. Each person will value others work differently, but, and most importantly, how someone else feels about your work has no actual value. You trying to push your percieved values onto others is gross. It makes you a toxic, gatekeeping, aspect of the hobby. You do more damage then bare plastic ever could.
Oh boy, I'm not pushing anything by stating that your unpainted miniatures look horrible. Also making assumptions about me being toxic and "damaging" based on this discussion has nothing to do with the importance of painting, nice ad hominem though. Explain to me why painted models don't look better than unpainted without saying that the paint job could be bad or that you just don't care. Why does gw and every manufacturer I know advertise/photograph painted models? Why do tournaments, leagues, narratives require painting at all? Why are prepainted minis prepainted and not bare? Why do playing cards have art? The visual aspect is huge. Because painted looks better than unpainted.
Wrong questions. I refuse to state a blanket opinion about something that has a wide range of effect. Painted does not, universally, have any impact. Companies show models that have been PROFESSIONALLY painted and staged. Or do you think those pictures at the beginning of the brb are actually images of games in progress?
You also called it people being lazy and a sign that they were a bad opponent. That is you pushing your opinion and being toxic.
Irkjoe wrote: And why spend hundreds or thousands on miniatures that end up as nothing more than grey chess pieces for a game where the rules, by any comparison are shallow and uninvolved.
Because it's fun? I don't understand your question.
Of course painting has impact. I’m sure you’ll call this ‘my opinion’, but it’s an opinion shared amongst almost everybody, that painted models on a table look better than bare plastic. As long an you’ve done a better job than 8 year old me did, then the models look better. The amount of impact depends on the person, but I can’t imagine people saying “your paint job isn’t good enough, i’m not playing you!” And if they did, then you’ve just dodged a bullet anyway.
I admit, I'd rather see poorly painted miniatures than non-painted miniatures. I've mentioned this numerous times before, even in this thread; my opinion is that you should "do your part" to make an attractive game. If I see a poorly painted miniature, that at least tells me my opponent is at least trying to partake in the cooperative even that is a good looking wargame. It shows that my opponent has some respect for their opponents and is willing to put in the effort.
I'm curious for the people who refuse to even try to paint; do you not care about lowering the tone of a game? If six people agreed to a larger team game, and five people showed up with painted armies (of any skill level) and you show up with grey plastic, do you not care that you're lowering the visual of the game?
Irkjoe wrote: And your unpainted armies still look bad, it looks bad for your store and the hobby. In my case, I'm in it for the aesthetic, setting, modeling/painting so the rules are secondary and played as a way to reflect the story/narrative as well as a "beer and pretzels" game with friends. It seems that many of you don't care for the hobby aspect and recognize that the rules are poor so whats left? Guess just the fluff. You would be much more at home in mtg, prepainted games, something with smaller investments in time and effort.
Also bad paint jobs do not excuse no paint. Anyone can achieve an acceptable level of paint with little effort considering airbrushs, washes, dips, etc available. Again, if you don't have the time, $, or inclination your stuff still looks like crap.
You're really wrong on this.
What's embarrassing for a store is not unpainted plastic. It's incompetent painters.
Bad painters are worse than no paint jobs. Looking at $2000 worth of models covered in high gloss Testors dipped in furniture stain makes me want to tear out my eyes. Watching someone sit at a store doing "freehand" with a fat tipped Sharpie says these ain't my people better than anything else.
Slate grey Eldar are better than an entire army with inconsistent 3 color schemes caked over every model. Not to judge, but games against a really bad painter are miserable for us perfectionists. We always know what that model could have been and making me look at it for 2.5 hours is actual harm.
Keep the paint off the model or take the time to get it right. If you can't do that, forfeit your models and walk away.
Elbows wrote: I admit, I'd rather see poorly painted miniatures than non-painted miniatures. I've mentioned this numerous times before, even in this thread; my opinion is that you should "do your part" to make an attractive game. If I see a poorly painted miniature, that at least tells me my opponent is at least trying to partake in the cooperative even that is a good looking wargame. It shows that my opponent has some respect for their opponents and is willing to put in the effort.
I'm curious for the people who refuse to even try to paint; do you not care about lowering the tone of a game? If six people agreed to a larger team game, and five people showed up with painted armies (of any skill level) and you show up with grey plastic, do you not care that you're lowering the visual of the game?
I care as much as they care. If they are the kind of people who are in it for the visual spectacle, then yeah, I'd apologize to them for worsening the display.
But, if it's a game at my local shop where we compliment each other on paint jobs but really just care about having a fun time with friends, I wouldn't care in the slightest-because they don't either.
Again, it's 100% acceptable to only play painted models and only play against the same. It's just when you try to force your standards on others, or as some have done here, insult people for not enjoying the hobby in the same way that I have an issue.
Irkjoe wrote: Also making assumptions about me being toxic and "damaging" based on this discussion has nothing to do with the importance of painting, nice ad hominem though.
It's no assumption. It's based entirely on the evidence you've presented thus far.
Several things to unpack here, first if painting didn't have impact gw wouldn't bother painting or showing painted models. What does it being studio painted and photographed have to do with this? It's the intended way to play as stated on their site and the brb. Those marines look hilariously bad, you would have to try to paint them like that. If you're such a bad painter that you can't hit your models with wash/contrast/spray whatever and the only possible end result is that thick mess then get your nervous system examined. It's a really bad outlier and not what the average person can do. And from several feet away the poorly painted stuff looks better than plastic.
This idea that saying painted looks better means you swoop into the store upon leathery black wings to ruin someone's game is just silly. You can keep calling me mean but it's not above discussion. Fine if you don't want to paint but your stuff still looks bad.
actually.. you'd be wrong here, when I game with someone I'm happy to let them look at my minis a bit before the game started, my minis I try to use are painted etc. awhile back I showed up with a unpainted mini to a kill team game (it just hadn't gotten painted yet) the guy actually was admiring it because I did some tweeks with it that he thought looked neat.
So after asking my question several times, the best ive got is painted, don't care or even non painted preferred, we're basically all silly and there's little point. is that about correct?
Also, if i want to pick nits, i do like some bare metal models. specifically if i can find any out of print that were deviated with modern designs. even if later it means i could customize them easier should i care to paint them.
Irkjoe wrote: Several things to unpack here, first if painting didn't have impact gw wouldn't bother painting or showing painted models. What does it being studio painted and photographed have to do with this? It's the intended way to play as stated on their site and the brb. Those marines look hilariously bad, you would have to try to paint them like that. If you're such a bad painter that you can't hit your models with wash/contrast/spray whatever and the only possible end result is that thick mess then get your nervous system examined. It's a really bad outlier and not what the average person can do. And from several feet away the poorly painted stuff looks better than plastic.
This idea that saying painted looks better means you swoop into the store upon leathery black wings to ruin someone's game is just silly. You can keep calling me mean but it's not above discussion. Fine if you don't want to paint but your stuff still looks bad.
The impact of gws ad artwork is based on the same thing as a image of 2 scoops of raisons on the front of a box of raisen bran. Professional painters paint models and they are staged for photography not because gw gives a single feth what you do with them but because they want your money. THAT is the impact.
Its not stated intent ANYWHERE. The models themselves are ads for brushes and paints. Its product placement. NOT rules. NOT intent for etiquette. Its dollars. Because GW is a buisiness.
I prefer to use and play against painted armies as for me, it looks great to see 2 fully painted armies lined up on a good table.
There are 3 aspects of this hobby though and painting is only 1 of them.
Converting and gaming being the other 2.
I don’t mind playing against unpainted armies though as people have their reasons.
I’m a fairly slow painter, but that’s due to time constraints.
I work early shifts until late, so it’s generally dark before and after work for me.
This means I can only spray models during the weekend, which also happens to be the only real time I get to go and see family etc.
At the end of the day, I’m more than happy to let others enjoy the hobby their own way.
If someone is striving for congratulatory comments and putting forth paintjobs that are their eager best, it's not the place of some alpha-nerd to judge whether that's better or worse than bare plastic, even if they are the crappiest things you have seen in years.
I don't give a damn if the figures look like the Space Marines a few posts above. The correct adult response is a smile and saying "Well, I definitely see what you were going for. Is there anything you'd like my opinion on improving"? And if they don't take the initiative to state anything specific in response.....then you shut the hell up, don't bug them any further (even if you think their paintjob sucks), and have fun playing.
Irkjoe wrote: Several things to unpack here, first if painting didn't have impact gw wouldn't bother painting or showing painted models. What does it being studio painted and photographed have to do with this? It's the intended way to play as stated on their site and the brb. Those marines look hilariously bad, you would have to try to paint them like that. If you're such a bad painter that you can't hit your models with wash/contrast/spray whatever and the only possible end result is that thick mess then get your nervous system examined. It's a really bad outlier and not what the average person can do. And from several feet away the poorly painted stuff looks better than plastic.
This idea that saying painted looks better means you swoop into the store upon leathery black wings to ruin someone's game is just silly. You can keep calling me mean but it's not above discussion. Fine if you don't want to paint but your stuff still looks bad.
The impact of gws ad artwork is based on the same thing as a image of 2 scoops of raisons on the front of a box of raisen bran. Professional painters paint models and they are staged for photography not because gw gives a single feth what you do with them but because they want your money. THAT is the impact.
Its not stated intent ANYWHERE. The models themselves are ads for brushes and paints. Its product placement. NOT rules. NOT intent for etiquette. Its dollars. Because GW is a buisiness.
Your missing the final step. It's easily argued that it's GWs intent that you paint your models well, since it makes any persons army a better advertisement for the game. Because GW is a business.
Which if true is irrelevent because irkjoes point is that GW has a hard and fast etiquette that you are being a good player of the game by having painted models and not a good player if you don't. Which isnt true. Not painting doesnt hurt the guy across the table. Its just a sale of paint that that person was never going to make to begin with that only impacts gws sales figures. There is no etiquette involved. There is just marketing.
Lance845 wrote: Which if true is irrelevent because irkjoes point is that GW has a hard and fast etiquette that you are being a good player of the game by having painted models and not a good player if you don't. Which isnt true. Not painting doesnt hurt the guy across the table. Its just a sale of paint that that person was never going to make to begin with that only impacts gws sales figures. There is no etiquette involved. There is just marketing.
Debateable. A good paint job can make an army easier to read, visually. Imo its good etiquette to make sure things are clearly represented as viewed from across the table.
Lance845 wrote: Which if true is irrelevent because irkjoes point is that GW has a hard and fast etiquette that you are being a good player of the game by having painted models and not a good player if you don't. Which isnt true. Not painting doesnt hurt the guy across the table. Its just a sale of paint that that person was never going to make to begin with that only impacts gws sales figures. There is no etiquette involved. There is just marketing.
Debateable. A good paint job can make an army easier to read, visually. Imo its good etiquette to make sure things are clearly represented as viewed from across the table.
And a bad paint job doesnt. Or sometimes a GREAT paint job has so much weathering and detail that individual elements like weapons get lost at the distances where the game is being played. So paint does not equal visibility inherently and nobody is asking for the models to be painted FOR visibility only that they ARE painted as though it equals a inherent fix to these "problems".
Lance845 wrote: Which if true is irrelevent because irkjoes point is that GW has a hard and fast etiquette that you are being a good player of the game by having painted models and not a good player if you don't. Which isnt true. Not painting doesnt hurt the guy across the table. Its just a sale of paint that that person was never going to make to begin with that only impacts gws sales figures. There is no etiquette involved. There is just marketing.
Debateable. A good paint job can make an army easier to read, visually. Imo its good etiquette to make sure things are clearly represented as viewed from across the table.
And a bad paint job doesnt. Or sometimes a GREAT paint job has so much weathering and detail that individual elements like weapons get lost at the distances where the game is being played. So paint does not equal visibility inherently and nobody is asking for the models to be painted FOR visibility only that they ARE painted as though it equals a inherent fix to these "problems".
So try again?
Just saying it's not as cut and dry as you claim. Unclear presentation can hurt the other player, and is at least a nuisance. And since most people enjoy painted models vs. unpainted, it's not "just marketing". It's not a stretch to say army presentation can be considered part game of etiquette.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Karol wrote: This maybe a strange question, but people actually see the detail on other people models from the other side of the table?
Not fine detail maybe, but those blue plasma coils, sure.
Irkjoe wrote: Several things to unpack here, first if painting didn't have impact gw wouldn't bother painting or showing painted models. What does it being studio painted and photographed have to do with this? It's the intended way to play as stated on their site and the brb. Those marines look hilariously bad, you would have to try to paint them like that. If you're such a bad painter that you can't hit your models with wash/contrast/spray whatever and the only possible end result is that thick mess then get your nervous system examined. It's a really bad outlier and not what the average person can do. And from several feet away the poorly painted stuff looks better than plastic.
This idea that saying painted looks better means you swoop into the store upon leathery black wings to ruin someone's game is just silly. You can keep calling me mean but it's not above discussion. Fine if you don't want to paint but your stuff still looks bad.
The impact of gws ad artwork is based on the same thing as a image of 2 scoops of raisons on the front of a box of raisen bran. Professional painters paint models and they are staged for photography not because gw gives a single feth what you do with them but because they want your money. THAT is the impact.
Its not stated intent ANYWHERE. The models themselves are ads for brushes and paints. Its product placement. NOT rules. NOT intent for etiquette. Its dollars. Because GW is a buisiness.
Your missing the final step. It's easily argued that it's GWs intent that you paint your models well, since it makes any persons army a better advertisement for the game. Because GW is a business.
Right, and we should all just go along with marketing because... We're a business?
Irkjoe wrote: Several things to unpack here, first if painting didn't have impact gw wouldn't bother painting or showing painted models. What does it being studio painted and photographed have to do with this? It's the intended way to play as stated on their site and the brb. Those marines look hilariously bad, you would have to try to paint them like that. If you're such a bad painter that you can't hit your models with wash/contrast/spray whatever and the only possible end result is that thick mess then get your nervous system examined. It's a really bad outlier and not what the average person can do. And from several feet away the poorly painted stuff looks better than plastic.
This idea that saying painted looks better means you swoop into the store upon leathery black wings to ruin someone's game is just silly. You can keep calling me mean but it's not above discussion. Fine if you don't want to paint but your stuff still looks bad.
The impact of gws ad artwork is based on the same thing as a image of 2 scoops of raisons on the front of a box of raisen bran. Professional painters paint models and they are staged for photography not because gw gives a single feth what you do with them but because they want your money. THAT is the impact.
Its not stated intent ANYWHERE. The models themselves are ads for brushes and paints. Its product placement. NOT rules. NOT intent for etiquette. Its dollars. Because GW is a buisiness.
Your missing the final step. It's easily argued that it's GWs intent that you paint your models well, since it makes any persons army a better advertisement for the game. Because GW is a business.
Yet again, explain the blue plastic space marines and green plastic death guard in Know no Fear if GW thinks we should ALL paint our minis. Does GW think painted minis are ideal? sure, GW;s ideal is mini's assmbled using Citidel brand hobby tools, citidel brand glue, painted with citidel brand paint, using citidel brand brushes. which.. yeah is stuff that makes GW more money. that said they reckongize not everyone does that.
Lance845 wrote: Which if true is irrelevent because irkjoes point is that GW has a hard and fast etiquette that you are being a good player of the game by having painted models and not a good player if you don't. Which isnt true. Not painting doesnt hurt the guy across the table. Its just a sale of paint that that person was never going to make to begin with that only impacts gws sales figures. There is no etiquette involved. There is just marketing.
Debateable. A good paint job can make an army easier to read, visually. Imo its good etiquette to make sure things are clearly represented as viewed from across the table.
And a bad paint job doesnt. Or sometimes a GREAT paint job has so much weathering and detail that individual elements like weapons get lost at the distances where the game is being played. So paint does not equal visibility inherently and nobody is asking for the models to be painted FOR visibility only that they ARE painted as though it equals a inherent fix to these "problems".
So try again?
Just saying it's not as cut and dry as you claim. Unclear presentation can hurt the other player, and is at least a nuisance. And since most people enjoy painted models vs. unpainted, it's not "just marketing". It's not a stretch to say army presentation can be considered part game of etiquette.
And I am just saying that the regurgitated argument that is being presented is not an accurate representation of the claims of people who want others to paint their models. For 1) I have no idea what every armies rules are let alone their bits let alone the bits that don't even actually exist. Which is why WYSIWYG is not a rule and "presentation" doesn't actually mater. Consider it what it is, a fault in the disconnect between the way GW writes it's rules and manufactures it's models. 2) Adding paint is no guarantee that it would help the issue and can in fact make it worse. 3) "Table Top Standard" is not about clearing up issues in model presentation to rule representation and is instead about a minimum number of colors and some basing material (because we all know basing material makes models rules more clear for the opponent).
In conclusion, it's a bull crap argument. And any lack of clarity is not because of the inclusion or lack of paint. It's because GW sucks at it's job. Switching that burden onto your opponent doesn't address the actual root cause and the "proposed" solution doesn't actually address the offending issue. I think that makes it pretty cut and dry.
Irkjoe wrote: And your unpainted armies still look bad, it looks bad for your store and the hobby. In my case, I'm in it for the aesthetic, setting, modeling/painting so the rules are secondary and played as a way to reflect the story/narrative as well as a "beer and pretzels" game with friends. It seems that many of you don't care for the hobby aspect and recognize that the rules are poor so whats left? Guess just the fluff. You would be much more at home in mtg, prepainted games, something with smaller investments in time and effort.
Also bad paint jobs do not excuse no paint. Anyone can achieve an acceptable level of paint with little effort considering airbrushs, washes, dips, etc available. Again, if you don't have the time, $, or inclination your stuff still looks like crap.
Since apparently you think this is fact, provide your evidence.
Irkjoe wrote: And your unpainted armies still look bad, it looks bad for your store and the hobby. In my case, I'm in it for the aesthetic, setting, modeling/painting so the rules are secondary and played as a way to reflect the story/narrative as well as a "beer and pretzels" game with friends. It seems that many of you don't care for the hobby aspect and recognize that the rules are poor so whats left? Guess just the fluff. You would be much more at home in mtg, prepainted games, something with smaller investments in time and effort.
Also bad paint jobs do not excuse no paint. Anyone can achieve an acceptable level of paint with little effort considering airbrushs, washes, dips, etc available. Again, if you don't have the time, $, or inclination your stuff still looks like crap.
What a load of crap. First, don't say what someone elses interests are. My interests havent even been expressed in this thread. I am just opposed to you pushing YOUR interests onto others. What any individual cares for the hobby aspects, the fluff aspects, or the game aspects doesnt matter. Nobody gets to push their preferences for liesure onto others.
Hear this and try to understand it. No paint job does not require excusing. Bare plastic has no inherent value and painted models have no inherent value. The value you asign to your own work is great for you and applies to nobody else. Each person will value others work differently, but, and most importantly, how someone else feels about your work has no actual value. You trying to push your percieved values onto others is gross. It makes you a toxic, gatekeeping, aspect of the hobby. You do more damage then bare plastic ever could.
depends on the detail and paint job, some models? absolutely, others less so, that said it's why even GW makes a distinction between "table top ready" and "display ready"
ultimately table top grade is basicly "take a space marine, slap some blue contrast paint, rim the shoulders in yellow, paint the eagle yellow, colour the gun a grey, and put red dots on the eyes. boom done!"
and THAT level of detail, yes you can see pretty easily
Irkjoe wrote: Oh boy, I'm not pushing anything by stating that your unpainted miniatures look horrible. Also making assumptions about me being toxic and "damaging" based on this discussion has nothing to do with the importance of painting, nice ad hominem though. Explain to me why painted models don't look better than unpainted without saying that the paint job could be bad or that you just don't care. Why does gw and every manufacturer I know advertise/photograph painted models? Why do tournaments, leagues, narratives require painting at all? Why are prepainted minis prepainted and not bare? Why do playing cards have art? The visual aspect is huge. Because painted looks better than unpainted.
The fact that you don't see that you're pushing is worrisome.
We're not making assumptions. We can read what you posted thank you very much.
Explain to me why they look better without using your opinion. Just straight up fact.
GW and company do it to sell more models. I however am not in the business of selling models, so whether I paint or not is up to me. Not you, and not some marketing division of a company I don't work for.
Tournaments do it because they want to.
Prepainted minis are prepainted because they think people want painted minis, but don't nessisarily have the time or skill to do it well.
Playing cards have art because it's traditional. Many playing cards don't have art though. Even the ones that do, don't put that art on every cart. Look at the 2-10 for instance.
Prove that it's better factually. Waiting for your sources.
Irkjoe wrote: Several things to unpack here, first if painting didn't have impact gw wouldn't bother painting or showing painted models. What does it being studio painted and photographed have to do with this? It's the intended way to play as stated on their site and the brb. Those marines look hilariously bad, you would have to try to paint them like that. If you're such a bad painter that you can't hit your models with wash/contrast/spray whatever and the only possible end result is that thick mess then get your nervous system examined. It's a really bad outlier and not what the average person can do. And from several feet away the poorly painted stuff looks better than plastic.
This idea that saying painted looks better means you swoop into the store upon leathery black wings to ruin someone's game is just silly. You can keep calling me mean but it's not above discussion. Fine if you don't want to paint but your stuff still looks bad.
The impact of gws ad artwork is based on the same thing as a image of 2 scoops of raisons on the front of a box of raisen bran. Professional painters paint models and they are staged for photography not because gw gives a single feth what you do with them but because they want your money. THAT is the impact.
Its not stated intent ANYWHERE. The models themselves are ads for brushes and paints. Its product placement. NOT rules. NOT intent for etiquette. Its dollars. Because GW is a buisiness.
Your missing the final step. It's easily argued that it's GWs intent that you paint your models well, since it makes any persons army a better advertisement for the game. Because GW is a business.
It's easy to do a lot of things. Doesn't mean that you're right about GW's 'intent'.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Karol wrote: This maybe a strange question, but people actually see the detail on other people models from the other side of the table?
It's easier when the models are primed, or primed and inked than just bare plastic at times, but easier is far different from 'can't be done without'.
A bolter doesn't look like a plasma gun, even if it isn't painted.
Talizvar wrote:I genuinely would like to hear from those who play with bare plastic models: why do you stop there? Chomping at the bit to play and really have zero interest in the look of it so long as you can get to the game at hand?
I find painting to be absolutely miserable and actually ( no hyperbole) believe that people who say they enjoy painting are just lying to themselves. Me and my friends enjoy the games we play, many have been intense and we still talk about some, and many models were unpainted in them. I have played games against opponents in our area with fully painted armies that were not fun because they were using fotm fully painted for a tourney.
Elbows wrote:I'm curious for the people who refuse to even try to paint; do you not care about lowering the tone of a game? If six people agreed to a larger team game, and five people showed up with painted armies (of any skill level) and you show up with grey plastic, do you not care that you're lowering the visual of the game?
No, no I don’t, if they don’t want an unpainted army in their games then they shouldn’t invite me to play.
UncleJetMints wrote:
I find painting to be absolutely miserable and actually ( no hyperbole) believe that people who say they enjoy painting are just lying to themselves.
You might see it that way but I disagree. I find painting to be satisfying because I see myself getting better and better with each model. My early stuff isn't too great but I don't beat myself up over it because I was learning. Seeing yourself get more skilled at something is great.
UncleJetMints wrote:
I find painting to be absolutely miserable and actually ( no hyperbole) believe that people who say they enjoy painting are just lying to themselves.
You might see it that way but I disagree. I find painting to be satisfying because I see myself getting better and better with each model. My early stuff isn't too great but I don't beat myself up over it because I was learning. Seeing yourself get more skilled at something is great.
painting's a bit like any project that involves doing work with your hands to make something, once your done and can step back and see what you've done?
It feels REAAAALLY good. and yeah seeing those tiny marked improvements is pretty awesome
There's a reason most FLGS want painted models on display, and a quite a few ask for painted models for store events. There's a lot of benefit to having something that strikes the eyes and draws in attention, and colors do that more effectively than grey plastic. So, while it is his 'opinion' that it looks like crap, and not a fact... there's certainly a measure of it having an advantage.
If you want to argue that unpainted models aren't factually more appealing than painted ones... well, you could also argue that dirt tastes better than vanilla and chocolate. I mean, maybe it does for you... so it's not an objective fact, but let's be honest... I've yet to see a dirt flavor at Baskin Robbins. I mean, maybe it exists.
Also, if this guy's opinion on an internet forum is 'damaging a hobby' that the overwhelming majority of 40k players either aren't aware of, ignore, or snicker at... well, then the hobby is weak and needs to be damaged. But he's not, so don't get hyperbolic. It makes us seem like poorly adjusted juveniles, and that's actually what repulses people about most geek hobbies.
It's your opinion that it's irrelevant. However, for me, there's a line.
I ask that people make an attempt. If you've had this army for months and haven't done anything to it... it's not exciting for me to play against it. In a skirmish game, you'd better try to get a few dudes painted up- especially if you're running 7 miniatures or something. Put a little effort, please. If not, fine- you do you, but I have more fun looking at a table with some colors on it rather than GW's "dead possum grey" plastic.
I think well painted models look nicer (poorly painted ones on the other hand..), anyone who tries to deny this is just being silly. BUT at the same time, I don't think it's essential to play 40k.
I dont see why the cheaper starting boxes intended for new players having colored plastic means that they arent intended to be painted before more regular use.
Of course no one expects a new person to play their first game with a fully painted 2000pts army. Having colored plastic helps a bit with immersion compared to being gray and also makes it very easy for 2 new players who dont know anything about the game before see what model goes with which force.
Them being colored is a clear indication that GW expects it to not be gray armies vs gray armies in the long run. Not the reverse.
I have also heard from TOs in some areas that having no painting requirements leads to less attendance since even though most people want to play a game they do value their time as well and if they have to travel out of town and maybe even book a hotel room and spend a whole weekend in time and money they want good looking games and value for their money. Playing against bare plastic is for many players not that.
I wouldnt attend an event without painting requirements or that used only 2d terrain and definetly not both. I would rather get a single game in at my club and use up half my day instead of all of it. A few friends stopped playing warmachine when the events turned to more and more 2d terrain.
The looks definetly matter a lot for the majority of players around here. If not cardgames, board games or computer games would be playee instead. Especially true for rather badly written GW games.
There's a reason most FLGS want painted models on display, and a quite a few ask for painted models for store events. There's a lot of benefit to having something that strikes the eyes and draws in attention, and colors do that more effectively than grey plastic. So, while it is his 'opinion' that it looks like crap, and not a fact... there's certainly a measure of it having an advantage.
And the answer starts and ends at sales.
If you want to argue that unpainted models aren't factually more appealing than painted ones... well, you could also argue that dirt tastes better than vanilla and chocolate. I mean, maybe it does for you... so it's not an objective fact, but let's be honest... I've yet to see a dirt flavor at Baskin Robbins. I mean, maybe it exists.
We could argue that about dirt and vanilla. Just like we could argue about electric lights and swimming pool. Neither are fair comparisons to "Everyone likes painted models vs don't force your opinion on people".
Also, if this guy's opinion on an internet forum is 'damaging a hobby' that the overwhelming majority of 40k players either aren't aware of, ignore, or snicker at... well, then the hobby is weak and needs to be damaged. But he's not, so don't get hyperbolic. It makes us seem like poorly adjusted juveniles, and that's actually what repulses people about most geek hobbies.
It's your opinion that it's irrelevant. However, for me, there's a line.
I ask that people make an attempt. If you've had this army for months and haven't done anything to it... it's not exciting for me to play against it. In a skirmish game, you'd better try to get a few dudes painted up- especially if you're running 7 miniatures or something. Put a little effort, please. If not, fine- you do you, but I have more fun looking at a table with some colors on it rather than GW's "dead possum grey" plastic.
And if someone's reply to 'make an attempt' is "No" what will you do? Just shrug and go on with life, or will you become a 'that guy' and call them names?
If someone wants to push their opinion as fact, expect to get told to back it up.
You'll notice no one who says "I like painted models" and leaves it at that isn't getting asked to prove anything.
I don’t like to paint and I don’t have the time, plus I don’t want to shell out money for someone else to paint it. I have plenty of fun playing and building. I also don’t care for people who get snobby about me not painting.
Might just be my bias here in this thread but to me it looks like its more common in certain countries to not paint their miniatures than others.
I have played in a few different places a few different games and never met someone who didnt paint their models or pay someone else to do it. Even those who hated painting thought the game looked better and was nicer to play with painted models and either payed for commision or learned how to do quick and easy speedpainting. With a good choice of basecoat you do not need many minutes per model, no more than 10m for most models, to look ok to good 1m away on the table top if using washes, drybrush, dipping or airbrush. Then paint on one of the already colored basing paints with or without an effect and you can do a whole army in a single day.
I had a friend who were colorblind for real and saw everything in shades of grey from light to dark. He still painted all his models even though he had to ask others for the right colors and if he did a good job and at the same time trying to see if people were pulling his leg or not. Someone changed the label on I think it was tentacle pink to something equally light in color but light green or orange in his paint collection once. His trust in people fell a bit after that incident. It didnt feel right for him to use unpainted models since it would affect other peoples enjoyment and he always strived to make both players have a good time.
People with bad eyesight that cant focus long at all on small objects or people with damaged nerves and motorpatterns in their arms still do their very best to put some paint on their models. It perhaps might take a few years to get a fully painted army but even those that dislike painting the most do some progress most of the time between me seeing their armies.
I have helped quite a few people with tips and tricks to make painting faster and usually they dont have as much of a hatred toward painting when they realise they dont actually have to spend hours painting each miniature unless they actually want to but can use minutes instead. Usually ends up with them spending extra time on models they like like a certain character or monster they think look cool and now that they know how to speedpaint if needed they dont feel pressure only when painting but also some enjoyment. Not everyone, but most.
Helps if you make painting a social event as well. Either at a store, club or at someones home. Sit around chatting and working on your miniatures at the same time while having a good time and perhaps get a game in after some time. You dont have to make painting a requirement to sit there and have a nice time but if you are already sitting there discussing your favorite game and have grey models in your bag beside you and a bunch of paint on the table infront of you the step to put some paint on them isnt far. You arent there to paint but to talk and painting is just a way to keep your hands busy. Perfect place to learn and you can usually get a bunch of tips and tricks that works for you because even those people who love to paint also just want to finish some projects quick and have good advice for that as well usually.
There's a reason most FLGS want painted models on display, and a quite a few ask for painted models for store events. There's a lot of benefit to having something that strikes the eyes and draws in attention, and colors do that more effectively than grey plastic. So, while it is his 'opinion' that it looks like crap, and not a fact... there's certainly a measure of it having an advantage.
If you want to argue that unpainted models aren't factually more appealing than painted ones... well, you could also argue that dirt tastes better than vanilla and chocolate. I mean, maybe it does for you... so it's not an objective fact, but let's be honest... I've yet to see a dirt flavor at Baskin Robbins. I mean, maybe it exists.
Also, if this guy's opinion on an internet forum is 'damaging a hobby' that the overwhelming majority of 40k players either aren't aware of, ignore, or snicker at... well, then the hobby is weak and needs to be damaged. But he's not, so don't get hyperbolic. It makes us seem like poorly adjusted juveniles, and that's actually what repulses people about most geek hobbies.
It's your opinion that it's irrelevant. However, for me, there's a line.
I ask that people make an attempt. If you've had this army for months and haven't done anything to it... it's not exciting for me to play against it. In a skirmish game, you'd better try to get a few dudes painted up- especially if you're running 7 miniatures or something. Put a little effort, please. If not, fine- you do you, but I have more fun looking at a table with some colors on it rather than GW's "dead possum grey" plastic.
The only thing that can really ruplse people from the hobby is a store closing or the games costs. As the store wanting painted models on display. Don't they want those because they have paints on sell. Of course if a store would put a don't need painted models or don't need real rulebooks to play, few people would buy them. So comparing painted stuff to good food, and unpainted stuff to unedible stuff seems like a big stretch.
also since when spending hours on painting, and a ton of money on paints and brushs is considered a little effort. Basic 5-6 colours plus 2 brushs is more then a box of models for an army.
There's a reason most FLGS want painted models on display, and a quite a few ask for painted models for store events. There's a lot of benefit to having something that strikes the eyes and draws in attention, and colors do that more effectively than grey plastic. So, while it is his 'opinion' that it looks like crap, and not a fact... there's certainly a measure of it having an advantage.
If you want to argue that unpainted models aren't factually more appealing than painted ones... well, you could also argue that dirt tastes better than vanilla and chocolate. I mean, maybe it does for you... so it's not an objective fact, but let's be honest... I've yet to see a dirt flavor at Baskin Robbins. I mean, maybe it exists.
Also, if this guy's opinion on an internet forum is 'damaging a hobby' that the overwhelming majority of 40k players either aren't aware of, ignore, or snicker at... well, then the hobby is weak and needs to be damaged. But he's not, so don't get hyperbolic. It makes us seem like poorly adjusted juveniles, and that's actually what repulses people about most geek hobbies.
It's your opinion that it's irrelevant. However, for me, there's a line.
I ask that people make an attempt. If you've had this army for months and haven't done anything to it... it's not exciting for me to play against it. In a skirmish game, you'd better try to get a few dudes painted up- especially if you're running 7 miniatures or something. Put a little effort, please. If not, fine- you do you, but I have more fun looking at a table with some colors on it rather than GW's "dead possum grey" plastic.
The only thing that can really ruplse people from the hobby is a store closing or the games costs. As the store wanting painted models on display. Don't they want those because they have paints on sell. Of course if a store would put a don't need painted models or don't need real rulebooks to play, few people would buy them. So comparing painted stuff to good food, and unpainted stuff to unedible stuff seems like a big stretch.
also since when spending hours on painting, and a ton of money on paints and brushs is considered a little effort. Basic 5-6 colours plus 2 brushs is more then a box of models for an army.
5-6 pots plus those brushes will do multiple boxes of models. If you're playing a low model count army and aren't constantly buying new stuff those 5-6 pots will likely last you a whole year depending on how much you use each colour. No one's asking you to paint to golden daemon standards, just getting to 3 colours is easily achievable and can even look good provided you're willing to spend a little extra time, I say this as someone who plays guard who's done the better part of 100 guardsmen to that standard and has another 30 or so to go. It's not like you need to go hard at getting stuff painted either, just an hour or two every week or so will see a surprising amount of progress done.
The local GW doesnt want my painted models in the store because i dont use gw paints (and its obvious when my nid shells are a color shift paint) in the same way that restraunts have "no outside food or drink" signs.
They want painted models on display because it helps sell paints and models. And they get their staff or some suckers in their local community to do it for them. Often for free. And often only if they meet minimum, marketable, standards.
A store wanting painted models isnt promoting etiquette. Its promoting sales.
I enjoy painting and I enjoy looking at painted models from other Armies. I would never gate keep or tell someone I won't play with them because their models aren't painted. I have had painting parties with buddies to help them get their models painted and show them how easy it is.
Lance845 wrote: Which if true is irrelevent because irkjoes point is that GW has a hard and fast etiquette that you are being a good player of the game by having painted models and not a good player if you don't. Which isnt true. Not painting doesnt hurt the guy across the table. Its just a sale of paint that that person was never going to make to begin with that only impacts gws sales figures. There is no etiquette involved. There is just marketing.
Debateable. A good paint job can make an army easier to read, visually. Imo its good etiquette to make sure things are clearly represented as viewed from across the table.
And a bad paint job doesnt. Or sometimes a GREAT paint job has so much weathering and detail that individual elements like weapons get lost at the distances where the game is being played. So paint does not equal visibility inherently and nobody is asking for the models to be painted FOR visibility only that they ARE painted as though it equals a inherent fix to these "problems".
So try again?
Just saying it's not as cut and dry as you claim. Unclear presentation can hurt the other player, and is at least a nuisance. And since most people enjoy painted models vs. unpainted, it's not "just marketing". It's not a stretch to say army presentation can be considered part game of etiquette.
And I am just saying that the regurgitated argument that is being presented is not an accurate representation of the claims of people who want others to paint their models. For 1) I have no idea what every armies rules are let alone their bits let alone the bits that don't even actually exist. Which is why WYSIWYG is not a rule and "presentation" doesn't actually mater. Consider it what it is, a fault in the disconnect between the way GW writes it's rules and manufactures it's models. 2) Adding paint is no guarantee that it would help the issue and can in fact make it worse. 3) "Table Top Standard" is not about clearing up issues in model presentation to rule representation and is instead about a minimum number of colors and some basing material (because we all know basing material makes models rules more clear for the opponent).
In conclusion, it's a bull crap argument. And any lack of clarity is not because of the inclusion or lack of paint. It's because GW sucks at it's job. Switching that burden onto your opponent doesn't address the actual root cause and the "proposed" solution doesn't actually address the offending issue. I think that makes it pretty cut and dry.
Of course presentation matters. Not only is clarity as to what is what important, but it makes the game more attractive to the players and onlookers. Painted armies add to the shared experience of the game. Don't believe me? Run a poll asking some variation of the question "Do you prefer your armies painted or unpainted?" Oh we have one in this thread? Look at that! 90+% of participants say that painting "matters" at least a little bit.
You can argue till you're blue in tha face that painting isn't necessary, and I'll agree. But presentation certainly matters, and a (not-s***) paint job is part of that.
It's easy to do a lot of things. Doesn't mean that you're right about GW's 'intent'.
GW portrays painted models on the kit boxes
GW provides paint color suggestions on the boxes
GW advertises the game with painted models
GW holds painting competitions
GW sells supplies to paint your models
GW provides video tutorials on how to paint your models
GW requires painted models for its tournaments
Now it may be that one can never truly know "intent", but I think the evidence provided is pretty compelling.
I would agree it's pretty reasonable to say that people prefer well-painted models to bare plastic.
That being said, Insectum, do you agree that for people who don't care about painting as much as you do, they're not wrong to play with grey plastic minis?
Karol wrote: also since when spending hours on painting, and a ton of money on paints and brushs is considered a little effort. Basic 5-6 colours plus 2 brushs is more then a box of models for an army.
What the hell are you painting with, Unicorn blood and sasquatch snot?
Lance845 wrote: The local GW doesnt want my painted models in the store because i dont use gw paints (and its obvious when my nid shells are a color shift paint) in the same way that restraunts have "no outside food or drink" signs.
IMHO, if you're living in the United States and playing at the local GW, you're kind of a masochist. I can probably count on one hand the positive experiences I've had at GW stores. It's so universally awful for me, I don't even purchase from their stores to go play elsewhere.
I don't know who trains their brick & mortar staff in the US, but I'm almost convinced it's one of GW's competitors. If these guys wrote advice for charming women, I'm pretty sure they'd suggest making armpit noises and talking about your ex.
Karol wrote: also since when spending hours on painting, and a ton of money on paints and brushs is considered a little effort. Basic 5-6 colours plus 2 brushs is more then a box of models for an army.
What the hell are you painting with, Unicorn blood and sasquatch snot?
Lance845 wrote: The local GW doesnt want my painted models in the store because i dont use gw paints (and its obvious when my nid shells are a color shift paint) in the same way that restraunts have "no outside food or drink" signs.
IMHO, if you're living in the United States and playing at the local GW, you're kind of a masochist. I can probably count on one hand the positive experiences I've had at GW stores. It's so universally awful for me, I don't even purchase from their stores to go play elsewhere.
I don't know who trains their brick & mortar staff in the US, but I'm almost convinced it's one of GW's competitors. If these guys wrote advice for charming women, I'm pretty sure they'd suggest making armpit noises and talking about your ex.
I agree. I do not go to or play at gw stores. I have gone in to see what was up and give the individual locations their fair shake. They are all as you describe. Some of the staff i found to be decent enough people shackled by terrible corporate policy. The people who actually go there to play though.... The worst.
Karol wrote: also since when spending hours on painting, and a ton of money on paints and brushs is considered a little effort. Basic 5-6 colours plus 2 brushs is more then a box of models for an army.
What the hell are you painting with, Unicorn blood and sasquatch snot?
Lance845 wrote: The local GW doesnt want my painted models in the store because i dont use gw paints (and its obvious when my nid shells are a color shift paint) in the same way that restraunts have "no outside food or drink" signs.
IMHO, if you're living in the United States and playing at the local GW, you're kind of a masochist. I can probably count on one hand the positive experiences I've had at GW stores. It's so universally awful for me, I don't even purchase from their stores to go play elsewhere.
I don't know who trains their brick & mortar staff in the US, but I'm almost convinced it's one of GW's competitors. If these guys wrote advice for charming women, I'm pretty sure they'd suggest making armpit noises and talking about your ex.
I agree. I do not go to or play at gw stores. I have gone in to see what was up and give the individual locations their fair shake. They are all as you describe. Some of the staff i found to be decent enough people shackled by terrible corporate policy. The people who actually go there to play though.... The worst.
my local GW seems fine, and the staff in canada are trained the same place (it's all GW NA) so if it's a people problem, eaither I've been fortunate, you've been unlucky, or it's a.... cultural issue?
JNAProductions wrote: I would agree it's pretty reasonable to say that people prefer well-painted models to bare plastic.
That being said, Insectum, do you agree that for people who don't care about painting as much as you do, they're not wrong to play with grey plastic minis?
"Wrong" is both too binary and contextual. It's wrong to play grey plastic at a tourney that requires you to paint your models. It's not wrong to play grey plastic with your brother on the day you get the box. It's not necessarily wrong to play grey plastic at the FLGS where everyone else has painted armies, but it might feel weird.
Imo it's not "wrong" in a broad sense, but I think in the PUG scenario, especially against strangers, a nicely painted army can go a long way. It's a whole gamut. I think of it more as a painted army is a lot of positive, while a grey army is only a slight negative. A poorly painted army with missing parts is more negative. Adding proxies lowers your score even more. A grey army with one squad painted scores higher than just grey, as I can see some effort is going into it. Local metas might care less about presentation, but if I were a travelling gamer I would make my army fully painted and free of proxies for a good impression. That's why I think "etiquette" is a useful word. Etiquette isn't necessary, but it's. . . Respectful?
Lance845 wrote: I agree. I do not go to or play at gw stores. I have gone in to see what was up and give the individual locations their fair shake. They are all as you describe. Some of the staff i found to be decent enough people shackled by terrible corporate policy. The people who actually go there to play though.... The worst.
I don't enjoy having merch shoved into my face while I'm trying to play. And this is after I've done the courtesy of making a purchase before I use the table. The one exception to this that I've found is a Warhammer store where the guy asked what I played and then began to rattle off related events the store was having- and sadly this guy no longer works there. He earned my business when his pitch was "this is the fun stuff we do here" and not waving a box at me.
BrianDavion wrote: my local GW seems fine, and the staff in canada are trained the same place (it's all GW NA) so if it's a people problem, eaither I've been fortunate, you've been unlucky, or it's a.... cultural issue?
It's Tim Horton's.
Plus we all know you Canucks get the trolling out of your system when you mix your stupid moose money in our proper USA coins.
Paint matters in the same way that using miniatures matter, they both add flavor. If you can say that you don't paint for whatever reason then whats stopping you from saying that you just won't use models? I'm just going to play the game with clearly marked tokens because the models add nothing for me, I'm so terrible at building that tokens look better, I can't afford them, etc. If anyone says that models matter then they're forcing opinions on me! You're a jerk if you don't play my tokens.
That's ridiculous, anyone with eyeballs would take one look and immediately know.
Irkjoe wrote: Paint matters in the same way that using miniatures matter, they both add flavor. If you can say that you don't paint for whatever reason then whats stopping you from saying that you just won't use models? I'm just going to play the game with clearly marked tokens because the models add nothing for me, I'm so terrible at building that tokens look better, I can't afford them, etc. If anyone says that models matter then they're forcing opinions on me! You're a jerk if you don't play my tokens. That's ridiculous, anyone with eyeballs would take one look and immediately know.
Know... What? That you're an accommodating fellow who's willing to help teach people even when they can't afford the minis? That you're the kind of person who likes to expand the hobby, and are trying to get someone not at all artistically inclined to join in?
Now, I do like the look of the minis, plus I play at a GW (so I can't play with just markers or tokens) but if someone wanted to play a game of 40k using nothing but tokens, proxies, action figures of the appropriate size, or whatever, I'd be fine with that.
I understand it's a bit silly to play 40k for the game part of it (since it's not a great game by any means) but I have fun with it. If you only have fun with well-painted, fully built minis, that's fine, you do you. But don't insult me for having different standards than you.
Edit: Also, it's easier to build minis than it is to paint them. Boxes of minis from GW include instructions on how to build them. They do NOT include painting instructions-they do include a paint list for the colors you'd need to recreate the box art, but that's pretty insufficient.
Irkjoe wrote: Paint matters in the same way that using miniatures matter, they both add flavor. If you can say that you don't paint for whatever reason then whats stopping you from saying that you just won't use models? I'm just going to play the game with clearly marked tokens because the models add nothing for me, I'm so terrible at building that tokens look better, I can't afford them, etc. If anyone says that models matter then they're forcing opinions on me! You're a jerk if you don't play my tokens.
That's ridiculous, anyone with eyeballs would take one look and immediately know.
Another fallacy from Irkjoe. The rules tell you to use the miniatures. They don't tell you to use paint. It's not the same. This argument is dumb.
Irkjoe wrote: Paint matters in the same way that using miniatures matter, they both add flavor. If you can say that you don't paint for whatever reason then whats stopping you from saying that you just won't use models? I'm just going to play the game with clearly marked tokens because the models add nothing for me, I'm so terrible at building that tokens look better, I can't afford them, etc. If anyone says that models matter then they're forcing opinions on me! You're a jerk if you don't play my tokens.
That's ridiculous, anyone with eyeballs would take one look and immediately know.
Another fallacy from Irkjoe. The rules tell you to use the miniatures. They don't tell you to use paint. It's not the same. This argument is dumb.
Eh, I see his logic. A similarly-sized token wouldn't really have any GAME issues with replacing a model. And I'm sure there's lots of people who don't care about painting that wouldn't play against a token army.
The line is, ultimately, arbitrary, but that doesn't mean it doesn't matter. Some people will have fun just gaming with friendly folk, no matter the pieces. Others won't have fun if they're tokens. Others won't have fun unless the minis are fully painted. And none of them are wrong to have their preferences-they're only wrong if they try to force their preferences on others, or insult/belittle others for having different standards.
Irkjoe wrote: Paint matters in the same way that using miniatures matter, they both add flavor. If you can say that you don't paint for whatever reason then whats stopping you from saying that you just won't use models? I'm just going to play the game with clearly marked tokens because the models add nothing for me, I'm so terrible at building that tokens look better, I can't afford them, etc. If anyone says that models matter then they're forcing opinions on me! You're a jerk if you don't play my tokens.
That's ridiculous, anyone with eyeballs would take one look and immediately know.
Know... What? That you're an accommodating fellow who's willing to help teach people even when they can't afford the minis? That you're the kind of person who likes to expand the hobby, and are trying to get someone not at all artistically inclined to join in?
Now, I do like the look of the minis, plus I play at a GW (so I can't play with just markers or tokens) but if someone wanted to play a game of 40k using nothing but tokens, proxies, action figures of the appropriate size, or whatever, I'd be fine with that.
I understand it's a bit silly to play 40k for the game part of it (since it's not a great game by any means) but I have fun with it. If you only have fun with well-painted, fully built minis, that's fine, you do you. But don't insult me for having different standards than you.
Edit: Also, it's easier to build minis than it is to paint them. Boxes of minis from GW include instructions on how to build them. They do NOT include painting instructions-they do include a paint list for the colors you'd need to recreate the box art, but that's pretty insufficient.
I never said anything about openly telling people that they're doing anything wrong in whatever setting we're playing. Discussion here is entirely different than an actual social setting, stating that unpainted miniatures look worse than painted ones is not an insult. You won't paint? it looks bad. Explain to me whats insulting. Is it all the negative implications? That comes from within you, not me because you know that unpainted stuff does look worse.
As for building I'll agree that it's mostly easier, I agonize over things like vehicles when building and find the paint a lot more relaxed but you're right that paint matters to a lesser extent than having actual models. The point was that the same reasons can be applied to basically anything.
BrianDavion wrote: my local GW seems fine, and the staff in canada are trained the same place (it's all GW NA) so if it's a people problem, eaither I've been fortunate, you've been unlucky, or it's a.... cultural issue?
It's Tim Horton's.
Plus we all know you Canucks get the trolling out of your system when you mix your stupid moose money in our proper USA coins.
well I DOOO find I'm more pleasent for the rest of the day if I start if off with a coffee and doughnut
Irkjoe wrote: Paint matters in the same way that using miniatures matter, they both add flavor. If you can say that you don't paint for whatever reason then whats stopping you from saying that you just won't use models? I'm just going to play the game with clearly marked tokens because the models add nothing for me, I'm so terrible at building that tokens look better, I can't afford them, etc. If anyone says that models matter then they're forcing opinions on me! You're a jerk if you don't play my tokens.
That's ridiculous, anyone with eyeballs would take one look and immediately know.
Know... What? That you're an accommodating fellow who's willing to help teach people even when they can't afford the minis? That you're the kind of person who likes to expand the hobby, and are trying to get someone not at all artistically inclined to join in?
Now, I do like the look of the minis, plus I play at a GW (so I can't play with just markers or tokens) but if someone wanted to play a game of 40k using nothing but tokens, proxies, action figures of the appropriate size, or whatever, I'd be fine with that.
I understand it's a bit silly to play 40k for the game part of it (since it's not a great game by any means) but I have fun with it. If you only have fun with well-painted, fully built minis, that's fine, you do you. But don't insult me for having different standards than you.
Edit: Also, it's easier to build minis than it is to paint them. Boxes of minis from GW include instructions on how to build them. They do NOT include painting instructions-they do include a paint list for the colors you'd need to recreate the box art, but that's pretty insufficient.
I never said anything about openly telling people that they're doing anything wrong in whatever setting we're playing. Discussion here is entirely different than an actual social setting, stating that unpainted miniatures look worse than painted ones is not an insult. You won't paint? it looks bad. Explain to me whats insulting. Is it all the negative implications? That comes from within you, not me because you know that unpainted stuff does look worse.
As for building I'll agree that it's mostly easier, I agonize over things like vehicles when building and find the paint a lot more relaxed but you're right that paint matters to a lesser extent than having actual models. The point was that the same reasons can be applied to basically anything.
Irkjoe wrote: Nothing but excuses to avoid having any standards. Unpainted models look awful, it doesn't matter how you "feel" about the hobby. It also broadcasts to people that you're lazy and might be a bad opponent. The metaphysical waac player in my mind has an unpainted army.
This is you not just talking about whether a paint job looks worse in your opinion, but what unpainted says about the quality of the character of the person who brings it to the table. You called them lazy and probably a bad opponent. You dropped this line after several people pointed out that the opposite is actually true and/or there is no correlation between paint and personality but you did do it and saying now that you didn't when we can just quote you is ridiculous.
96% of people in this poll have said paint matters to some degree with only 4% saying it does not matter at all.
I think it is therefore safe to infer that the general concensus is that painted armies are the status quo and the "convention" expected of the hobby.
Anectodal story time: My GF who knows nothing about the hobby, nor cares for the most part as her view is: "toy soldiers are a silly waste of time and money and I will never understand this..." So I show her a photo from my game of me playing VS a bunch of Gray plastic marines.
The response?
"Why is those not painted? You put so much time effort and care into your army! And this guys doesn't even bother to do anything!? Dick move... I wouldn't want to play him" It is what it is. Own it but don't try to spin a narrative how painting doesn't matter because it does.
nobody cares if you going to play using cuts, out salt shakers and beer cans on your living room carpet (I know I did). Nobody will care if you have no time due to family commitements etc. But lets not pretend there is no convention in the hobby. Everyone has own standard and people do and will judge you every day in and out of war gaming. Welcome to reality of the human condition.
I could just as easily say only 19% value it more than gaming-I don't think EITHER of those statements accurately reflect general opinion.
Just going off the poll, I'd argue that 0-2/5 are probably all people who do not mind at all if the opponent's army is not painted, and that there's likely plenty of 3/5 people who are similar.
My own anecdote is that virtually no one has a fully painted army, especially not those who play a lot, and yet we've all been having a fun time.
Why are you trying to spin the "Ohh its misleading" narrative?
I'm not picking numbers out of the air or making up narrative Just saying it how it is... Or am I blind and the poll I read are incorrect ?
At no points have I inferred that 96% will refuse playing vs unpainted armies which is what you are trying to shoe horn the post into to fit YOUR narrative...
People are welcome to go against the convention and status quo. As I said nobody really cares what you do with your plastic men at the end of the day. Nobody will break your arm if you do. But pretending there is no convention or status quo and therefore all the various nuances that go along with this fact is a bit.. Illogical?
You seemed to indicate that 96% of the respondents, including the 1/5 and 2/5, would constitute a status quo of painted models.
While the results would, even if just 4/5 and 5/5 people have fully painted armies, still indicate the majority of folk DO paint and have painted armies... That's not 96%.
I'm well aware that the poll indicates most people care about painting, and it's quite possible that a majority of folk here care MORE about painting than gaming. Which I'm a little surprised at, but not bothered by.
JNAProductions wrote: You seemed to indicate that 96% of the respondents, including the 1/5 and 2/5, would constitute a status quo of painted models.
While the results would, even if just 4/5 and 5/5 people have fully painted armies, still indicate the majority of folk DO paint and have painted armies... That's not 96%.
I'm well aware that the poll indicates most people care about painting, and it's quite possible that a majority of folk here care MORE about painting than gaming. Which I'm a little surprised at, but not bothered by.
It seems I'm writing in ancient Greek.. Can you just stop making stuff up as you go? I didn't say any of these things. I have literally just stated that the fact Only 4% said painting is not at all important(therefore 96% saying it is important to some degree greater than 0) in any way shape or form it is therefore safe to assume there is some sort of "paint on minis" convention in this hobby. And this is in my opinion undeniable...
And this can mean anything from one model's leg painted in your whole army with the rest being Gray plastic, to the entire army being painted to display standard and anything in between.
I would be interested to see another poll:
You get to pick an army of your choice for free containing everything you could ever want.
1. You get all gray/,metal/resin models
2. You get a display level painted army to your specification.
Which one would you truly pick?
Weirdly enough I think all the "paint matters most" crowd would want the gray models because they want to paint it all themselves greedy sausages that they are.
The fact is DakkaDakka has 124,958 registered users. Of which 509 have voted in this thread. Both of which are not an accurate representation of the majority of players who play 40k.
What we can tell from this poll is that of the 509 forum users who gave enough of a gak about the subject to read and vote on this thread the vast majority give a gak about painting in some capacity.
Or to summarize, 509 accounts on dakkadakka that gave enough of a gak about a thread titled "How Important Is Painting To You?" roughly 95% said it was at least slightly important.
However, I think in reality if you go to any location that does not require paint the chances of you finding more than 40-60% of models being played with being painted is incredibly unlikely. I think there is a good chance that in some places more than 50% are painted and in others it's for sure gunna be less than 50%.
If 90% of all models being played with were painted we would never be having these discussions. But here we are. Like all Dakka polls, the data was gathered in less than ideal circumstances with a crap sample to gather it from.
Lance845 wrote: The fact is DakkaDakka has 124,958 registered users. Of which 509 have voted in this thread. Both of which are not an accurate representation of the majority of players who play 40k.
What we can tell from this poll is that of the 509 forum users who gave enough of a gak about the subject to read and vote on this thread the vast majority give a gak about painting in some capacity.
Or to summarize, 509 accounts on dakkadakka that gave enough of a gak about a thread titled "How Important Is Painting To You?" roughly 95% said it was at least slightly important.
However, I think in reality if you go to any location that does not require paint the chances of you finding more than 40-60% of models being played with being painted is incredibly unlikely. I think there is a good chance that in some places more than 50% are painted and in others it's for sure gunna be less than 50%.
If 90% of all models being played with were painted we would never be having these discussions. But here we are. Like all Dakka polls, the data was gathered in less than ideal circumstances with a crap sample to gather it from.
Of the GW published images of 40k models, what percentage of those are painted?
Lance845 wrote: The fact is DakkaDakka has 124,958 registered users. Of which 509 have voted in this thread. Both of which are not an accurate representation of the majority of players who play 40k.
What we can tell from this poll is that of the 509 forum users who gave enough of a gak about the subject to read and vote on this thread the vast majority give a gak about painting in some capacity.
Or to summarize, 509 accounts on dakkadakka that gave enough of a gak about a thread titled "How Important Is Painting To You?" roughly 95% said it was at least slightly important.
However, I think in reality if you go to any location that does not require paint the chances of you finding more than 40-60% of models being played with being painted is incredibly unlikely. I think there is a good chance that in some places more than 50% are painted and in others it's for sure gunna be less than 50%.
If 90% of all models being played with were painted we would never be having these discussions. But here we are. Like all Dakka polls, the data was gathered in less than ideal circumstances with a crap sample to gather it from.
Of the GW published images of 40k models, what percentage of those are painted?
Of the Kellogs published images of a complete breakfast, what percentage of those have perfectly browned toast?
Lance845 wrote: The fact is DakkaDakka has 124,958 registered users. Of which 509 have voted in this thread. Both of which are not an accurate representation of the majority of players who play 40k.
What we can tell from this poll is that of the 509 forum users who gave enough of a gak about the subject to read and vote on this thread the vast majority give a gak about painting in some capacity.
Or to summarize, 509 accounts on dakkadakka that gave enough of a gak about a thread titled "How Important Is Painting To You?" roughly 95% said it was at least slightly important.
However, I think in reality if you go to any location that does not require paint the chances of you finding more than 40-60% of models being played with being painted is incredibly unlikely. I think there is a good chance that in some places more than 50% are painted and in others it's for sure gunna be less than 50%.
If 90% of all models being played with were painted we would never be having these discussions. But here we are. Like all Dakka polls, the data was gathered in less than ideal circumstances with a crap sample to gather it from.
Of the GW published images of 40k models, what percentage of those are painted?
Almost all of them which is what I'd expect from the game publisher whom is expected to take the game's presentation aspects up to the highest level.
As the publisher they're held to a higher standard.
Spoiler:
these are some of my chaos space marines. I'm pretty happy at how they turned out. they're looking nice. And most people think they're "pretty good"
but if this was the standard GW painted their display minis to? I'd think they weren't good eneugh, nor would the rest of us.
GW, as the publisher is held to a higher standard then "Brian the Gamer" irregardless as to weather he paints his models, or just plays grey plastic.
More importantly, any image GW publishes is not just an ad for models, it's an ad for rule books, paint, brushes, War-Ter cups, measuring tapes, dice etc etc etc...
It's an ad. It's artificial as feth and not representative of reality.
Lance845 wrote: More importantly, any image GW publishes is not just an ad for models, it's an ad for rule books, paint, brushes, War-Ter cups, measuring tapes, dice etc etc etc...
It's an ad. It's artificial as feth and not representative of reality.
Lance845 wrote: More importantly, any image GW publishes is not just an ad for models, it's an ad for rule books, paint, brushes, War-Ter cups, measuring tapes, dice etc etc etc...
It's an ad. It's artificial as feth and not representative of reality.
There are at least 3 colors on that burger, and it is done. That's all I ask.
Lance845 wrote: The fact is DakkaDakka has 124,958 registered users. Of which 509 have voted in this thread. Both of which are not an accurate representation of the majority of players who play 40k.
Also an interesting factoid, Family Feud uses only 100 people to survey their answers for.
As a truly scary fact, the number of people who answer telephone political polls are usually of both a lower ratio and lower number than what you have stated here.
And not all who have posted have put input on the poll. I honestly do not know what my numerical answer is.
Agreed. But presumably family feud selects their 100 at random from a huge populace that don't have any particular demographic to unify them besides being americans.
Political polls however are entirely biased as you register your political party with your voting registration and they access that information to contact the people they want to contact to get the numbers they like to make their point. Its why 9 out of 10 dentists recommend crest or what the feth ever.
Lance845 wrote: as you register your political party with your voting registration .
Only in America
Yeah, it's a incredibly broken system from top to bottom. But hey, lets steer clear of any actual political talk. That gak gets threads locked and people banned on Dakka.
The POINT is that this poll has no broader value about the social conventions of 40k players and what GW does in their ads means even less. The arguments that players should paint as some kind of "respect for their opponent" or whatever is a message spouted by those who drank GWs kool aid.
Lance845 wrote: as you register your political party with your voting registration .
Only in America
Yeah, it's a incredibly broken system from top to bottom. But hey, lets steer clear of any actual political talk. That gak gets threads locked and people banned on Dakka.
The POINT is that this poll has no broader value about the social conventions of 40k players and what GW does in their ads means even less. The arguments that players should paint as some kind of "respect for their opponent" or whatever is a message spouted by those who drank GWs kool aid.
Lance845 wrote: as you register your political party with your voting registration .
Only in America
Yeah, it's a incredibly broken system from top to bottom. But hey, lets steer clear of any actual political talk. That gak gets threads locked and people banned on Dakka.
The POINT is that this poll has no broader value about the social conventions of 40k players and what GW does in their ads means even less. The arguments that players should paint as some kind of "respect for their opponent" or whatever is a message spouted by those who drank GWs kool aid.
Also if you hang out on dakkadakka you're a pretty dedicated player, people less prone to painting are more likely to be the younger garage players who don't hang out on internet forums (as it is internet forums are more a "old person's thing" I suspect)
Lance845 wrote: as you register your political party with your voting registration .
Only in America
Yeah, it's a incredibly broken system from top to bottom. But hey, lets steer clear of any actual political talk. That gak gets threads locked and people banned on Dakka.
The POINT is that this poll has no broader value about the social conventions of 40k players and what GW does in their ads means even less. The arguments that players should paint as some kind of "respect for their opponent" or whatever is a message spouted by those who drank GWs kool aid.
Painted armies are more appealing than non-painted armies. No kool aid involved.
Lance845 wrote: as you register your political party with your voting registration .
Only in America
Yeah, it's a incredibly broken system from top to bottom. But hey, lets steer clear of any actual political talk. That gak gets threads locked and people banned on Dakka.
The POINT is that this poll has no broader value about the social conventions of 40k players and what GW does in their ads means even less. The arguments that players should paint as some kind of "respect for their opponent" or whatever is a message spouted by those who drank GWs kool aid.
Painted armies are more appealing than non-painted armies. No kool aid involved.
Well painted armies are more appealing than non-painted armies. Paint does not equal better. Someone taking an airbrush to blob 3 colors onto some models so they can play in a tourney doesn't look better than the grey plastic. The examples I posted earlier do not look better. A blanket statement about what paint is capable of is foolish.
JNAProductions wrote: A Contrast paint is $7.80.
A Shade is also $7.80.
A Layer is $4.55 or $6.10.
A Medium Base Brush is $7.75.
A Small Layer Brush is $7.25.
All prices are US.
If you get two Contrast, one Shade, and two Layers (one of each price) plus the brushes, that's $49.05.
Well, before Tax, here in the USA that's more than a Tac Squad & less than a basic Primaris squad. So your point is??
Though you could save up to about 50% on the brushes depending upon where you shop/brand/quality. I mean, painting GW stuff to basic quality doesn't require expensive brushes.
Lance845 wrote: as you register your political party with your voting registration .
Only in America
Yeah, it's a incredibly broken system from top to bottom. But hey, lets steer clear of any actual political talk. That gak gets threads locked and people banned on Dakka.
The POINT is that this poll has no broader value about the social conventions of 40k players and what GW does in their ads means even less. The arguments that players should paint as some kind of "respect for their opponent" or whatever is a message spouted by those who drank GWs kool aid.
Painted armies are more appealing than non-painted armies. No kool aid involved.
Well painted armies are more appealing than non-painted armies. Paint does not equal better. Someone taking an airbrush to blob 3 colors onto some models so they can play in a tourney doesn't look better than the grey plastic. The examples I posted earlier do not look better. A blanket statement about what paint is capable of is foolish.
By now you should know what I mean, I've provided enough qualifiers in previous posts. So yes, well painted armies are more appealing than non-painted ones. We agree
Lance845 wrote: as you register your political party with your voting registration .
Only in America
Yeah, it's a incredibly broken system from top to bottom. But hey, lets steer clear of any actual political talk. That gak gets threads locked and people banned on Dakka.
The POINT is that this poll has no broader value about the social conventions of 40k players and what GW does in their ads means even less. The arguments that players should paint as some kind of "respect for their opponent" or whatever is a message spouted by those who drank GWs kool aid.
Painted armies are more appealing than non-painted armies. No kool aid involved.
Well painted armies are more appealing than non-painted armies. Paint does not equal better. Someone taking an airbrush to blob 3 colors onto some models so they can play in a tourney doesn't look better than the grey plastic. The examples I posted earlier do not look better. A blanket statement about what paint is capable of is foolish.
By now you should know what I mean, I've provided enough qualifiers in previous posts. So yes, well painted armies are more appealing than non-painted ones. We agree
And I have stated enough things to disprove all your bad arguments. By now you should stop making blanket statements that don't actually represent what I have been saying. Good looking things look good. And bad looking things look worse. And paint can make things look worse then no paint just as well as it can make it look better. Paint does not = improvement inherently or automatically. Regardless of which, requiring paint from opponents is dumb.
You almost have to go out of your way to make paint look worse than no paint at a half meter away or more distance. Havent seen any models so far that have been painted that would look better in bare gray so far. Up close sure but not on the tabletop.
Karol wrote: also since when spending hours on painting, and a ton of money on paints and brushs is considered a little effort. Basic 5-6 colours plus 2 brushs is more then a box of models for an army.
What the hell are you painting with, Unicorn blood and sasquatch snot?
.
Am not sure what or who a sasquatch could be, but unicorns aren't a real thing. And I said before, that I have not painted a single model in my life.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Klickor wrote: You almost have to go out of your way to make paint look worse than no paint at a half meter away or more distance. Havent seen any models so far that have been painted that would look better in bare gray so far. Up close sure but not on the tabletop.
So another words one has to paint models for other to enjoy the games, and the others enjoy the painting because they spend ton of hours painting themselfs and now they link painted models with value, because if they didn't this would mean they wasted time and money on something unimportant ? This is the tier of your aren't a real fan if you don't have the official merch . Not saying it doesn't work, because people will make fun of you till not end for having the wrong huawai. But we are step away from people with painted armies to claim a moral high ground, or something crazy like that.
Karol wrote: also since when spending hours on painting, and a ton of money on paints and brushs is considered a little effort. Basic 5-6 colours plus 2 brushs is more then a box of models for an army.
What the hell are you painting with, Unicorn blood and sasquatch snot?
.
Am not sure what or who a sasquatch could be, but unicorns aren't a real thing. And I said before, that I have not painted a single model in my life.
Sasquatch is another name for Big foot, a mythalogical man ape said to roam the woods of north america.
Karol wrote: also since when spending hours on painting, and a ton of money on paints and brushs is considered a little effort. Basic 5-6 colours plus 2 brushs is more then a box of models for an army.
What the hell are you painting with, Unicorn blood and sasquatch snot?
.
Am not sure what or who a sasquatch could be, but unicorns aren't a real thing. And I said before, that I have not painted a single model in my life.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Klickor wrote: You almost have to go out of your way to make paint look worse than no paint at a half meter away or more distance. Havent seen any models so far that have been painted that would look better in bare gray so far. Up close sure but not on the tabletop.
So another words one has to paint models for other to enjoy the games, and the others enjoy the painting because they spend ton of hours painting themselfs and now they link painted models with value, because if they didn't this would mean they wasted time and money on something unimportant ? This is the tier of your aren't a real fan if you don't have the official merch . Not saying it doesn't work, because people will make fun of you till not end for having the wrong huawai. But we are step away from people with painted armies to claim a moral high ground, or something crazy like that.
You sure you quoted the right person? I havent put any value at all in that text you posted about non painted being worth less as a player. Last game I played my opponent had a recently 3d printed avenger gatling cannon in resin not even primed lying on his knights base, 2 of his knights had all the weapons lying on the base and no shields attached at all. It was a great game and i dont mind playing against unfinished and unpainted models.
But what I did say in the post you quoted was as too encourage people to paint since even if they arent good it wont look bad. Its weird seeing people mentioning really bad paint jobs like its a 50/50 shot if you paint that it will look worse than bare plastic, I have yet to see such an army even from 10 year old kids painting their first models. They might look horrendous from 20cm but on a table 1m away with 30 other similarly painted models they look quite ok. Much better than grey plastic. Its not like those who prefer painted armies demand Golden Demon level of painting or thinking their opponent should just quit the hobby. Its the non painting people gatekeeping themselves saying they have to have a high standard or it isnt worth it.
Lance845 wrote: as you register your political party with your voting registration .
Only in America
Yeah, it's a incredibly broken system from top to bottom. But hey, lets steer clear of any actual political talk. That gak gets threads locked and people banned on Dakka.
The POINT is that this poll has no broader value about the social conventions of 40k players and what GW does in their ads means even less. The arguments that players should paint as some kind of "respect for their opponent" or whatever is a message spouted by those who drank GWs kool aid.
Painted armies are more appealing than non-painted armies. No kool aid involved.
Lance845 wrote: as you register your political party with your voting registration .
Only in America
Yeah, it's a incredibly broken system from top to bottom. But hey, lets steer clear of any actual political talk. That gak gets threads locked and people banned on Dakka.
The POINT is that this poll has no broader value about the social conventions of 40k players and what GW does in their ads means even less. The arguments that players should paint as some kind of "respect for their opponent" or whatever is a message spouted by those who drank GWs kool aid.
Painted armies are more appealing than non-painted armies. No kool aid involved.
To most people.
"Most" is enough. Most potential employers appreciate it if you dress nicely, so that's what you do.
Lance845 wrote: as you register your political party with your voting registration .
Only in America
Yeah, it's a incredibly broken system from top to bottom. But hey, lets steer clear of any actual political talk. That gak gets threads locked and people banned on Dakka.
The POINT is that this poll has no broader value about the social conventions of 40k players and what GW does in their ads means even less. The arguments that players should paint as some kind of "respect for their opponent" or whatever is a message spouted by those who drank GWs kool aid.
Painted armies are more appealing than non-painted armies. No kool aid involved.
To most people.
"Most" is enough. Most potential employers appreciate it if you dress nicely, so that's what you do.
Dressing nicely is a job requirement.
Liking or disliking something isn't against 40K's rules.
"most" is definitely not enough, at least if you're going to continue to claim that it's actually "all".
Lance845 wrote: as you register your political party with your voting registration .
Only in America
Yeah, it's a incredibly broken system from top to bottom. But hey, lets steer clear of any actual political talk. That gak gets threads locked and people banned on Dakka.
The POINT is that this poll has no broader value about the social conventions of 40k players and what GW does in their ads means even less. The arguments that players should paint as some kind of "respect for their opponent" or whatever is a message spouted by those who drank GWs kool aid.
Painted armies are more appealing than non-painted armies. No kool aid involved.
To most people.
"Most" is enough. Most potential employers appreciate it if you dress nicely, so that's what you do.
Dressing nicely is a job requirement.
Liking or disliking something isn't against 40K's rules.
[img]
"most" is definitely not enough, at least if you're going to continue to claim that it's actually "all".
Dressing nicely for a interview is not a requirement. It is a good idea to game the system and increase your chances of winning. Are you insinuating that there is a correlation between painting your models well and your opponent deciding to throw the match in your favor because you dressed your models up?
(Not you mmmpi, whoever made the bad co.parison. responded on my phone)
Poor hygiene is frowned upon. Not painting your models isn't. At least not with sane people.
I guess most of the poll respondents are insane then!
That's one way to interpret the data. Another is that painting is important to THEM, but not a requirement on others. Most of this discussion hasn't been about a person's preference for their models, but people's preferences for other people's models.
After reading through this thread, my conclusion is that it is an equally unwelcome to insist that a person paints their miniatures or plays against unpainted miniatures if they don't want to -- either way someone's enjoyment is being compromised. Having said that it's been thoroughly depressing to see what is ostensibly a major aspect of 40k as a hobby, though not necessarily 40k as a game, being broadly dismissed as advertising.
As an aside, in response to a post made earlier: the miniature packages may not contain any kind of useful painting guide, but there are plenty of painting guides and related hobby material on GW's youtube and community website.
Just to throw more fuel on the fire, I own and play Black Reach, and if I had run into it first, I may very well not have 40K minis at all.
Likewise, if it hadn’t been significantly cheaper to buy the raw kits and build/paint them myself, I would have happily bought the minis for this game already done (as I sometimes do now) and skipped painting and assembly entirely.
nurgle5 wrote: After reading through this thread, my conclusion is that it is an equally unwelcome to insist that a person paints their miniatures or plays against unpainted miniatures if they don't want to -- either way someone's enjoyment is being compromised
As perspective on this point, if I have unpainted minis, and you (not you, specifically, nurgle5, but the editorial "you") find playing against unpainted minis to be completely unbearable, you're welcome to paint my minis for me.
nurgle5 wrote: After reading through this thread, my conclusion is that it is an equally unwelcome to insist that a person paints their miniatures or plays against unpainted miniatures if they don't want to -- either way someone's enjoyment is being compromised
As perspective on this point, if I have unpainted minis, and you (not you, specifically, nurgle5, but the editorial "you") find playing against unpainted minis to be completely unbearable, you're welcome to paint my minis for me.
"Most" is enough. Most potential employers appreciate it if you dress nicely, so that's what you do.
Not it isn't, because it is like asking people if they would like to be rich, with a ton of money to the stuff they want. Ask how many people are willing to pay for paints and invest the hours to paint the army, and your going to get less people happy about painted armies.
phillv85 wrote: I think most people accept the cost and time of painting as part of the hobby. I’m actually surprised at how many people consider it otherwise.
I don't think I claimed it wasn't a part of the hobby. I claimed it wasn't part of the game which is a whole other can of worms. Painting is a great and intricate and rewarding part of the hobby. It should not be mandatory for people to be able to play the game.
phillv85 wrote: I was responding to Karol. I also didn’t mention anything about the game in that post, so not sure what you’re getting at?
I'm saying, and if I'm out of line someone correct me, that I don't think people in general on this forum are making the argument you were refuting. I think the claim "Painting is not a part of the hobby" has not been made, though if I overlooked that argument, please let me know. People have been saying "Painting should not be a mandatory part of playing Warhammer 40K."
It does, but I was responding to Karol in the post that is right before my original one. Karol said:
Ask how many people are willing to pay for paints and invest the hours to paint the army, and your going to get less people happy about painted armies.
To which I said “I think most people accept..... etc.”
phillv85 wrote: It does, but I was responding to Karol in the post that is right before my original one. Karol said:
Ask how many people are willing to pay for paints and invest the hours to paint the army, and your going to get less people happy about painted armies.
To which I said “I think most people accept..... etc.”
Right, but even then, Karol (and Karol is free to correct me) is not specifically talking about only the hobby aspect, but about the price/time/energy/skill/resources barrier to playing the game aspect if painted armies were mandatory.
phillv85 wrote: It does, but I was responding to Karol in the post that is right before my original one. Karol said:
Ask how many people are willing to pay for paints and invest the hours to paint the army, and your going to get less people happy about painted armies.
To which I said “I think most people accept..... etc.”
Right, but even then, Karol (and Karol is free to correct me) is not specifically talking about only the hobby aspect, but about the price/time/energy/skill/resources barrier to playing the game aspect if painted armies were mandatory.
I’d have to go digging back through the thread, but some comments Karol made earlier made me read it as if the hobby as a broader thing shouldn’t require the cost of paints etc. I guess it comes down to what people view as ‘the hobby’. In the traditional sense it encompasses all aspects, but every person has their own view and opinion.
phillv85 wrote: In the traditional sense it encompasses all aspects
Hmmm, I'd have to see a citation for this claim. I think traditionally, Warhammer 40K has always been somewhat divided between the "hobby" meaning painting, building, cleaning, modeling, etc. and playing the game. Now, there's a lot of people who do both, and that's great! But I don't think either one is specifically required to enjoy Warhammer 40K (or any minis game). Nor should they be. I mean, there are people who just buy minis to assemble and paint them. Why aren't they called out for "missing out" on half the hobby?
Because the hobby is separate from the game, and should be.
I’d disagree with your view on what ‘the hobby’ is. To me it’s the whole get your models, build them, paint them, pay through the nose for some rules, build your list and play with them. Like I say, everyone has different views and opinions. Perhaps it’s even a cultural thing and us Brits see it as all encompassing where others don’t.
phillv85 wrote: I’d disagree with your view on what ‘the hobby’ is. To me it’s the whole get your models, build them, paint them, pay through the nose for some rules, build your list and play with them.
So, you'd be just as unhappy with someone who played using unpainted models as you would with someone who just bought and painted the models, but never played the game?
phillv85 wrote:I’d disagree with your view on what ‘the hobby’ is. To me it’s the whole get your models, build them, paint them, pay through the nose for some rules, build your list and play with them. Like I say, everyone has different views and opinions. Perhaps it’s even a cultural thing and us Brits see it as all encompassing where others don’t.
Building and painting can be two different hobbies on their own, or they can be part of a hobby all together. A lot depends on what the desires of the individual are.
Because the hobby is separate from the game, and should be.
I don't think that is the case. The game is part of the hobby and you cannot separate it from it nor you should.
I know of many people who hate the game because the rules are trash. But they enjoy the lore, the building, and the painting. They'll buy Characters just to build them and paint them. Some build and paint models just to sell them without ever playing with them, having received all the joy from it they desire.
The individual is the one who defines their hobby, not someone else.
Because the hobby is separate from the game, and should be.
I don't think that is the case. The game is part of the hobby and you cannot separate it from it nor you should.
So, let me pose you the same question I asked above. If you sat down to play against someone and they pulled out an all-grey-plastic army, would you be EXACTLY as upset as if you saw someone painting a BEAUTIFUL masterpiece miniature, and then found out they don't play the game?
phillv85 wrote: I’d disagree with your view on what ‘the hobby’ is. To me it’s the whole get your models, build them, paint them, pay through the nose for some rules, build your list and play with them.
So, you'd be just as unhappy with someone who played using unpainted models as you would with someone who just bought and painted the models, but never played the game?
That’s quite an assumption to jump to. I just stated my view of the hobby because you have a different view. I’m equally zen about whatever anyone wants to do with their models, they can smear them in faeces if that’s their schtick. I hobby how I hobby, and everyone else can hobby how they hobby. As a personal preference I would play against someone with painted models, but i’m not going to kick off if people don’t.
phillv85 wrote:I’d disagree with your view on what ‘the hobby’ is. To me it’s the whole get your models, build them, paint them, pay through the nose for some rules, build your list and play with them. Like I say, everyone has different views and opinions. Perhaps it’s even a cultural thing and us Brits see it as all encompassing where others don’t.
Building and painting can be two different hobbies on their own, or they can be part of a hobby all together. A lot depends on what the desires of the individual are.
phillv85 wrote: I’d disagree with your view on what ‘the hobby’ is. To me it’s the whole get your models, build them, paint them, pay through the nose for some rules, build your list and play with them.
So, you'd be just as unhappy with someone who played using unpainted models as you would with someone who just bought and painted the models, but never played the game?
That’s quite an assumption to jump to. I just stated my view of the hobby because you have a different view. I’m equally zen about whatever anyone wants to do with their models, they can smear them in faeces if that’s their schtick. I hobby how I hobby, and everyone else can hobby how they hobby. As a personal preference I would play against someone with painted models, but i’m not going to kick off if people don’t.
So, yes, you WOULD be equally upset, and that amount of upset is "none or next to none." That's fine. I personally agree with your opinion, regarding what people do with their models. I just think that people's opinions regarding model painting being mandatory are elitist, gate-keeping, and hurt the community.
Because the hobby is separate from the game, and should be.
I don't think that is the case. The game is part of the hobby and you cannot separate it from it nor you should.
So, let me pose you the same question I asked above. If you sat down to play against someone and they pulled out an all-grey-plastic army, would you be EXACTLY as upset as if you saw someone painting a BEAUTIFUL masterpiece miniature, and then found out they don't play the game?
No, I wouldn't, because the latter doesn't involve other people.
Because the hobby is separate from the game, and should be.
I don't think that is the case. The game is part of the hobby and you cannot separate it from it nor you should.
So, let me pose you the same question I asked above. If you sat down to play against someone and they pulled out an all-grey-plastic army, would you be EXACTLY as upset as if you saw someone painting a BEAUTIFUL masterpiece miniature, and then found out they don't play the game?
No, I wouldn't, because the latter doesn't involve other people.
Ah, that's the hill you want to die on; let me reiterate my previous point, then. If you're so all-fired upset about me using bare plastic minis, you paint them. In other words, you refusing to play me because I don't have the time, resources, etc. to paint (including willingness!) - that's on you, not me. If you want to gate-keep and prevent people from having fun playing the game just because they don't hobby the same way you do, and then claim it's because THEY'RE ruining YOUR fun, you should do some soul-searching and see which one of the two of you is really preventing you from having fun.
Personally i see the "hobby" as built on 4 pillars.
The fluff
The models
The painting
The game.
Each individual is free to participate or not to whatever extent they see fit in each of the pillars. I dont need to read the novels to paint my models. And i dont need to paint the models to play the game. And i dont need to play the game to make some awesome kit bash conversions to submit to golden deamon.
The issue, the ONLY issue, i see is that some painters like to push their pillar onto the others.
Also, sure it does involve other people! Other people are either enjoying (or not enjoying) the painted miniatures, and other people are being deprived (or not) of a potential opponent, one whose miniatures enhance the play experience! By all rights, you should be just as upset at them.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Lance845 wrote: Personally i see the "hobby" as built on 4 pillars.
The fluff
The models
The painting
The game.
Each individual is free to participate or not to whatever extent they see fit in each of the pillars. I dont need to read the novels to paint my models. And i dont need to paint the models to play the game. And i dont need to play the game to make some awesome kit bash conversions to submit to golden deamon.
The issue, the ONLY issue i see is that some painters like to push their pillar onto the others.
Ah, that's the hill you want to die on; let me reiterate my previous point, then. If you're so all-fired upset about me using bare plastic minis, you paint them. In other words, you refusing to play me because I don't have the time, resources, etc. to paint (including willingness!) - that's on you, not me. If you want to gate-keep and prevent people from having fun playing the game just because they don't hobby the same way you do, and then claim it's because THEY'RE ruining YOUR fun, you should do some soul-searching and see which one of the two of you is really preventing you from having fun.
I am not upset, I just don't want to look at your unpainted models, as it ruins the visual spectacle, and possibly indicates to me that you're not taking the hobby seriously and you have no intention of respecting the wargaming traditions or your opponents. Fortunately at least here in Europe most people tend to paint their models, so it is not difficult to find an opponent with a proper army.
What you're talking about is like showing up to a LARP without an appropriate costume. It is not how it is supposed to be done and it is disrespectful towards your fellow players who put in effort to do the thing properly.
Ah, that's the hill you want to die on; let me reiterate my previous point, then. If you're so all-fired upset about me using bare plastic minis, you paint them. In other words, you refusing to play me because I don't have the time, resources, etc. to paint (including willingness!) - that's on you, not me. If you want to gate-keep and prevent people from having fun playing the game just because they don't hobby the same way you do, and then claim it's because THEY'RE ruining YOUR fun, you should do some soul-searching and see which one of the two of you is really preventing you from having fun.
I am not upset, I just don't want to look at your unpainted models, as it ruins the visual spectacle, and possibly indicates to me that you're not taking the hobby seriously and you have no intention of respecting the wargaming traditions or your opponents. Fortunately at least here in Europe most people tend to paint their models, so it is not difficult to find an opponent with a proper army.
What you're talking about is like showing up to a LARP without an appropriate costume. It is not how it is supposed to be done and it is disrespectful towards your fellow players who put in effort to do the thing properly.
Sounds like you're a little upset. It's not disrespectful for a person to enjoy part of a hobby but not "traditionally" all of it. It IS disrespectful for you to say things like, "I don't want to look at your unpainted models," because you don't know why they're unpainted, and frankly, it doesn't matter why.
As I said elsewhere, I'd rather play a game against someone using nuts, bolts, and coins to represent their models than someone who says, "I won't play against unpainted models." At the end of the day, by choosing not to play against me, you're doing me a solid. So... thanks?
EDIT: As for your LARP comment, I have NEVER been to a LARP where costumes were required, or even looked at as a positive thing. Rather, the LARPs I have attended have welcomed new players with open arms, made them feel like a part of the group, and so have grown and had more fun. It sounds like the LARPs you've been to would be more... elitist.
Sounds like you're a little upset. It's not disrespectful for a person to enjoy part of a hobby but not "traditionally" all of it.
It is disrespectful in a social situation to not at least attempt to follow the mores commonly associated with said a situation. This is literally how etiquette works in all human interaction.
It IS disrespectful for you to say things like, "I don't want to look at your unpainted models," because you don't know why they're unpainted, and frankly, it doesn't matter why.
Yes, I understand that you find having standards offensive. Also, I obviously wouldn't say it that way, and probably at all, to someone in real life. But this is a thread specifically for expressing out opinion on this topic, so it would be counterproductive for me to not do so candidly.
As I said elsewhere, I'd rather play a game against someone using nuts, bolts, and coins to represent their models than someone who says, "I won't play against unpainted models." At the end of the day, by choosing not to play against me, you're doing me a solid. So... thanks?
At least that is sorted then!
EDIT: As for your LARP comment, I have NEVER been to a LARP where costumes were required, or even looked at as a positive thing. Rather, the LARPs I have attended have welcomed new players with open arms, made them feel like a part of the group, and so have grown and had more fun. It sounds like the LARPs you've been to would be more... elitist.
It obviously depends on the type of LARP what level of costuming is required. Fantasy/medieval naturally need much more than modern/near-modern ones. And the thing to do with new players is to run workshops and lend them items and help them otherwise with their costuming (and any other aspect they might require help with.) It is a group effort to make the game as amazing as it can be.
Because the hobby is separate from the game, and should be.
I don't think that is the case. The game is part of the hobby and you cannot separate it from it nor you should.
So, let me pose you the same question I asked above. If you sat down to play against someone and they pulled out an all-grey-plastic army, would you be EXACTLY as upset as if you saw someone painting a BEAUTIFUL masterpiece miniature, and then found out they don't play the game?
Is this a fair comparison at all? Playing is a shared experience, when I paint a masterpiece you don't have to look at or even know. When you bring your unpainted stuff it lessens the game for for the other player and people who watch if you're in such a setting. Nothing here is mandatory, your army just looks bad when you do it. It's not unreasonable to decline games with somebody who doesn't paint the same way it is for someone who proxies or anything else undesirable. Feel free to play whoever for whatever reason and have a crappy looking army while doing it.
Because the hobby is separate from the game, and should be.
I don't think that is the case. The game is part of the hobby and you cannot separate it from it nor you should.
So, let me pose you the same question I asked above. If you sat down to play against someone and they pulled out an all-grey-plastic army, would you be EXACTLY as upset as if you saw someone painting a BEAUTIFUL masterpiece miniature, and then found out they don't play the game?
Is this a fair comparison at all? Playing is a shared experience, when I paint a masterpiece you don't have to look at or even know. When you bring your unpainted stuff it lessens the game for for the other player and people who watch if you're in such a setting. Nothing here is mandatory, your army just looks bad when you do it. It's not unreasonable to decline games with somebody who doesn't paint the same way it is for someone who proxies or anything else undesirable. Feel free to play whoever for whatever reason and have a crappy looking army while doing it.
See, NOW you're being elitist. YOU think it's crappy-looking. I think it looks fine. Which of our opinions is more likely to bridge gaps and welcome new players into a healthy community?
Because the hobby is separate from the game, and should be.
I don't think that is the case. The game is part of the hobby and you cannot separate it from it nor you should.
So, let me pose you the same question I asked above. If you sat down to play against someone and they pulled out an all-grey-plastic army, would you be EXACTLY as upset as if you saw someone painting a BEAUTIFUL masterpiece miniature, and then found out they don't play the game?
Is this a fair comparison at all? Playing is a shared experience, when I paint a masterpiece you don't have to look at or even know. When you bring your unpainted stuff it lessens the game for for the other player and people who watch if you're in such a setting. Nothing here is mandatory, your army just looks bad when you do it. It's not unreasonable to decline games with somebody who doesn't paint the same way it is for someone who proxies or anything else undesirable. Feel free to play whoever for whatever reason and have a crappy looking army while doing it.
See, NOW you're being elitist. YOU think it's crappy-looking. I think it looks fine. Which of our opinions is more likely to bridge gaps and welcome new players into a healthy community?
There is a significant difference between a hypothetical new player and you, who has been playing for the last decade and a half and still hasn't made any painting progress on said army.
So now you're only being elitist to me? Great, thanks!
EDIT: To post a more useful and productive comment, how do you determine when someone is no longer a "new" player? How long can I go without painting my minis before I'm not worthy of playing the game? In fact, who are you to decide who is and isn't worthy? Do you have some magical, omniscient paint-o-meter that can look at two players, both with the same unpainted army, and say, "Huh, that one's been playing Too Long for me to approve of that"?
Your position is elitist gate-keeping, and I will rail against it to my dying day.
Not everyone has time/will/resources etc. etc. to paint.
Everyone sane understands that everyone has their own shtick.. And at the end of the day nobody really gives a damn..
But...
Lets imagine we have an infinity gauntlet and we snap our fingers and puff! Every grey plastic horde out there turns into solid table top standard army painted to users imagining…
Lets not kid ourselves, who would not want that to happen ?
I am not sure if it is elitist gate keeping. It could be that thing I don't know the name for in english, you know the state when someone who spend a lot of money on something finds out you can do the same thing for a lot less, and now he has to explain to himself and the rest of the world that his spending was not wrong, and it the person who did the stuff for cheap that is in the wrong.
So many words in english for something we just have one word for. I am actually suprised.
Argive wrote: Not everyone has time/will/resources etc. etc. to paint.
Everyone sane understands that everyone has their own shtick.. And at the end of the day nobody really gives a damn..
But...
Lets imagine we have an infinity gauntlet and we snap our fingers and puff! Every grey plastic horde out there turns into solid table top standard army painted to users imagining…
Lets not kid ourselves, who would not want that to happen ?
I would NOT do that.
Some people LIKE to paint, and this would deprive them of that. That’s not fair to them.
Argive wrote: Not everyone has time/will/resources etc. etc. to paint. Everyone sane understands that everyone has their own shtick.. And at the end of the day nobody really gives a damn..
But...
Lets imagine we have an infinity gauntlet and we snap our fingers and puff! Every grey plastic horde out there turns into solid table top standard army painted to users imagining…
Lets not kid ourselves, who would not want that to happen ?
I would NOT do that.
Some people LIKE to paint, and this would deprive them of that. That’s not fair to them.
ok..... Because the point I was making was not obvious(somehow) lets caveat that anyone that is a walking breathing contradiction that has grey hordes yet apparently really enjoys painting in this hypothetical world would not have their army magically painted...
Poor hygiene is frowned upon. Not painting your models isn't. At least not with sane people.
I guess most of the poll respondents are insane then!
Nice! You completely missed the point again! As usual.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
nurgle5 wrote: After reading through this thread, my conclusion is that it is an equally unwelcome to insist that a person paints their miniatures or plays against unpainted miniatures if they don't want to -- either way someone's enjoyment is being compromised. Having said that it's been thoroughly depressing to see what is ostensibly a major aspect of 40k as a hobby, though not necessarily 40k as a game, being broadly dismissed as advertising.
As an aside, in response to a post made earlier: the miniature packages may not contain any kind of useful painting guide, but there are plenty of painting guides and related hobby material on GW's youtube and community website.
Yeah, the idea is that if you don't want to play against unpainted models, don't. No one should force you. But by the same token, calling people lazy, WAAC, or any other perjorative because they don't have time/money/inclination to paint is even worse.
Just as no one should force their preference on you, you shouldn't force your preference on others.
To add to the poll debate, I voted 3/5. I've also clearly said several times that I only apply that to myself.
Poor hygiene is frowned upon. Not painting your models isn't. At least not with sane people.
I guess most of the poll respondents are insane then!
Nice! You completely missed the point again! As usual.
You did not have a point to miss. You were 'but it's not in the rules' and when I pointed out that there are conventions besides the rules, you didn't have an intelligible response and then started to imply that people who disagree with you are insane.
Weren't you the one who took offence when someone characterised non-painters as 'lazy?' Because, that's pretty polite compared to what you said...
Lance845 wrote: as you register your political party with your voting registration .
Only in America
Yeah, it's a incredibly broken system from top to bottom. But hey, lets steer clear of any actual political talk. That gak gets threads locked and people banned on Dakka.
The POINT is that this poll has no broader value about the social conventions of 40k players and what GW does in their ads means even less. The arguments that players should paint as some kind of "respect for their opponent" or whatever is a message spouted by those who drank GWs kool aid.
Painted armies are more appealing than non-painted armies. No kool aid involved.
To most people.
"Most" is enough. Most potential employers appreciate it if you dress nicely, so that's what you do.
Dressing nicely is a job requirement.
Liking or disliking something isn't against 40K's rules.
"most" is definitely not enough, at least if you're going to continue to claim that it's actually "all".
Dressing nicely for a interview is not a requirement. It is a good idea to game the system and increase your chances of winning. Are you insinuating that there is a correlation between painting your models well and your opponent deciding to throw the match in your favor because you dressed your models up?
You dress well to make a good impression. Likewise, painted models will help you make a good impression.
Lance845 wrote: The only standard that matters in the game is good sportsmanship.
I'd say knowing your rules and not constantly tabbing through your e-dex is pretty high up there. An incompetent "great sportsman" can really try the patience sometimes.
Because the hobby is separate from the game, and should be.
I don't think that is the case. The game is part of the hobby and you cannot separate it from it nor you should.
Other way around. The game, painting, and building/converting are all separate, and people can buy into which ever aspect they find appealing. I don't see you criticizing people who only collect and paint as 'ruining the hobby'.
Because the hobby is separate from the game, and should be.
I don't think that is the case. The game is part of the hobby and you cannot separate it from it nor you should.
So, let me pose you the same question I asked above. If you sat down to play against someone and they pulled out an all-grey-plastic army, would you be EXACTLY as upset as if you saw someone painting a BEAUTIFUL masterpiece miniature, and then found out they don't play the game?
Is this a fair comparison at all? Playing is a shared experience, when I paint a masterpiece you don't have to look at or even know. When you bring your unpainted stuff it lessens the game for for the other player and people who watch if you're in such a setting. Nothing here is mandatory, your army just looks bad when you do it. It's not unreasonable to decline games with somebody who doesn't paint the same way it is for someone who proxies or anything else undesirable. Feel free to play whoever for whatever reason and have a crappy looking army while doing it.
If you don't like playing against unpainted models, no one is forcing you. But you're being a jerk when you irrationally push your personal issues flaws onto other people and insist they follow a standard they haven't been following for a variety of reasons, including the fact that it is not a requirement of the game.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Argive wrote: Not everyone has time/will/resources etc. etc. to paint.
Everyone sane understands that everyone has their own shtick.. And at the end of the day nobody really gives a damn..
But...
Lets imagine we have an infinity gauntlet and we snap our fingers and puff! Every grey plastic horde out there turns into solid table top standard army painted to users imagining…
Lets not kid ourselves, who would not want that to happen ?
I actually know a few people who would say no to that.
Mmmpi wrote: But you're being a jerk when you irrationally push your personal issues flaws onto other people and insist they follow a standard they haven't been following for a variety of reasons, including the fact that it is not a requirement of the game.
It is a requirement for the proper tabletop wargame experience and has been far longer than either of us has been alive. If you're insulted by me saying that, then so be it.
Poor hygiene is frowned upon. Not painting your models isn't. At least not with sane people.
I guess most of the poll respondents are insane then!
Nice! You completely missed the point again! As usual.
You did not have a point to miss. You were 'but it's not in the rules' and when I pointed out that there are conventions besides the rules, you didn't have an intelligible response and then started to imply that people who disagree with you are insane.
Weren't you the one who took offence when someone characterised non-painters as 'lazy?' Because, that's pretty polite compared to what you said...
You can just say you didn't get it. I can reword it to be easier for you to understand.
The difference between what you've done and what I've done is that you don't know the people you're talking to, while I have direct evidence that my claim is probably true.
Mmmpi wrote: But you're being a jerk when you irrationally push your personal issues flaws onto other people and insist they follow a standard they haven't been following for a variety of reasons, including the fact that it is not a requirement of the game.
It is a requirement for the proper tabletop wargame experience and has been far longer than either of us has been alive. If you're insulted by me saying that, then so be it.
Not insulted, though you seem to be by other people not magically following your standards. Then you go and call them lazy/WAAC/ect.
It's up to them to decide what their proper wargame experience is, not you. You don't have to play them. You're more then welcome to go do something else.
So, can we all agree then that, if someone comes up to play against you with a grey tide, you aren't obligated to play against them, and you're not being impolite/rude to do so?
Sgt_Smudge wrote: So, can we all agree then that, if someone comes up to play against you with a grey tide, you aren't obligated to play against them, and you're not being impolite/rude to do so?
Depends on how you do it, but in general terms, yeah it's not impolite to refuse games for personal reasons. Telling someone who's already in a game with someone else that they're 'ruining the hobby', 'lazy', or 'WAAC', just because you don't like the state of their paint jobs however is.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: So, can we all agree then that, if someone comes up to play against you with a grey tide, you aren't obligated to play against them, and you're not being impolite/rude to do so?
As long as you are not yourself impolite or rude in turning down a game anyone can always turn down a game. If you express that your reasons for turning down the game is their unpainted models you are being impolite/rude and bringing negativity into a inclusive game space where everyone should be welcome to have a good time and introducing gatekeeping to your community.
Because the hobby is separate from the game, and should be.
I don't think that is the case. The game is part of the hobby and you cannot separate it from it nor you should.
So, let me pose you the same question I asked above. If you sat down to play against someone and they pulled out an all-grey-plastic army, would you be EXACTLY as upset as if you saw someone painting a BEAUTIFUL masterpiece miniature, and then found out they don't play the game?
Is this a fair comparison at all? Playing is a shared experience, when I paint a masterpiece you don't have to look at or even know. When you bring your unpainted stuff it lessens the game for for the other player and people who watch if you're in such a setting. Nothing here is mandatory, your army just looks bad when you do it. It's not unreasonable to decline games with somebody who doesn't paint the same way it is for someone who proxies or anything else undesirable. Feel free to play whoever for whatever reason and have a crappy looking army while doing it.
If you don't like playing against unpainted models, no one is forcing you. But you're being a jerk when you irrationally push your personal issues flaws onto other people and insist they follow a standard they haven't been following for a variety of reasons, including the fact that it is not a requirement of the game.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Argive wrote: Not everyone has time/will/resources etc. etc. to paint. Everyone sane understands that everyone has their own shtick.. And at the end of the day nobody really gives a damn..
But...
Lets imagine we have an infinity gauntlet and we snap our fingers and puff! Every grey plastic horde out there turns into solid table top standard army painted to users imagining…
Lets not kid ourselves, who would not want that to happen ?
I actually know a few people who would say no to that.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: So, can we all agree then that, if someone comes up to play against you with a grey tide, you aren't obligated to play against them, and you're not being impolite/rude to do so?
As long as you are not yourself impolite or rude in turning down a game anyone can always turn down a game. If you express that your reasons for turning down the game is their unpainted models you are being impolite/rude and bringing negativity into a inclusive game space where everyone should be welcome to have a good time and introducing gatekeeping to your community.
How about "sorry, I'm just not keen on playing against unpainted models. That's only my stance on it, so feel free to play against other people who don't mind, but I'm not comfortable doing that." Why should I have to withhold that? Surely it would be better to tell the truth, if I felt so strongly on the matter?
It's not gatekeeping - that's just making your own standards clear. If I made it clear that I'm only happy playing narrative games/non-comp games, am I gatekeeping if I turn people away because of my preference? I'm not insulting them or making any comments against them (like Mmmpi says would be rude - which I agree with could be) - I'm just stating my personal boundaries in advance.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: So, can we all agree then that, if someone comes up to play against you with a grey tide, you aren't obligated to play against them, and you're not being impolite/rude to do so?
As long as you are not yourself impolite or rude in turning down a game anyone can always turn down a game. If you express that your reasons for turning down the game is their unpainted models you are being impolite/rude and bringing negativity into a inclusive game space where everyone should be welcome to have a good time and introducing gatekeeping to your community.
Im confused....
If they asked why he is turning down a game, what then ??
Should he lie to them?
Sgt_Smudge wrote: So, can we all agree then that, if someone comes up to play against you with a grey tide, you aren't obligated to play against them, and you're not being impolite/rude to do so?
As long as you are not yourself impolite or rude in turning down a game anyone can always turn down a game. If you express that your reasons for turning down the game is their unpainted models you are being impolite/rude and bringing negativity into a inclusive game space where everyone should be welcome to have a good time and introducing gatekeeping to your community.
How about "sorry, I'm just not keen on playing against unpainted models. That's only my stance on it, so feel free to play against other people who don't mind, but I'm not comfortable doing that." Why should I have to withhold that? Surely it would be better to tell the truth, if I felt so strongly on the matter?
It's not gatekeeping - that's just making your own standards clear. If I made it clear that I'm only happy playing narrative games/non-comp games, am I gatekeeping if I turn people away because of my preference? I'm not insulting them or making any comments against them (like Mmmpi says would be rude - which I agree with could be) - I'm just stating my personal boundaries in advance.
YOU doing that could encourage OTHERS to do that. An elitist attitude breeds elitism. You are introducing gatekeeping into your community, as I said. If thats your line, keep it to yourself. Help them find another opponent. Be a good neighbor and encourage the perpetuation of playing and having a good time in your community. And if you can't/don't want to. Then don't show up. You're bad for the community.
And before anyone decides to call THAT gatekeeping, your talking about the paradox of intolerance. It is not intolerant to be intolerant of intolerance. Every community has a right if not a responsibility to protect itself from those kinds of practices.
...you can call it "elitist" and "gatekeeping" all you want. But if I decide I want to play a fully painted army against a fully painted army, you are NOT entitled to my time at the table. You are NOT in any position at all to dictate that I am wrong for being selective with what I do with my time and choosing my opponent. You can dislike it. You can question it. You can scream about it. You can sit in the floor and cry. You have ZERO claim to anything I do in my recreational time, it does not belong to you.
Now, that being said I've never turned down an unpainted army from a new player or a person with a new army. I've got friends that will buy an army, and before they paint it they'll test out a few things and then decide on a subfaction. And sometimes it takes a while to figure out what you want to do. I get that. However, when I see veteran players that have had an army for a while... it makes me question their motivations for playing, that perhaps it's more 'competitive game' to them and less 'hobby game'. And many times, I have been proven correct- so, I tend to watch for a while before making any judgement, but I certainly am hesitant to play against a Grey Horde.
But sometimes I also want to take pictures of a game for the store, or for my personal collection, or for a friend's social media. Grey models don't draw in the same as painted models. And also, I'm not a complete knob about it- if someone needs help painting, chances are I've got something that also needs some paint and we can divide and conquer together on both of our projects. I push for 'terrain upkeep' at my shop, so if someone needs help painting... they can come in and help with the terrain and I'll help with their models.
Octopoid wrote: In fact, who are you to decide who is and isn't worthy? Do you have some magical, omniscient paint-o-meter that can look at two players, both with the same unpainted army, and say, "Huh, that one's been playing Too Long for me to approve of that"?
I can answer that for him:
He's a person that also wants to play the game. And he has every right to refuse to play against something. It's his recreation time, not a public service. You weren't invited to play with him, and he did not request to play with you. Why his personal standards would upset you is baffling.
Look, you can have whatever standards you want. Everyone's got an opinion, after all. But not everyone who collects and plays 40k is capable of much in the way of painting, and saying "I refuse to play with anyone who doesn't paint their miniatures to my standards" is textbook gatekeeping even if you don't like to think about it that way. That said, there's nothing exactly stopping you from saying that this form of gatekeeping is something you refuse to back down from, particularly if they're still able to find games without you. And hey, fair enough if so.
The game by default always has some levels of gatekeeping. Games Workshop tournaments gatekeep by saying use their miniatures, which hurt poorer players a lot, for example.
No clue about the others, but I'm not judging you for it. I'm just wanting you to be aware of what you're doing.
Lance845 wrote: YOU doing that could encourage OTHERS to do that. An elitist attitude breeds elitism. You are introducing gatekeeping into your community, as I said. If thats your line, keep it to yourself. Help them find another opponent. Be a good neighbor and encourage the perpetuation of playing and having a good time in your community. And if you can't/don't want to. Then don't show up. Your bad for the community.
We are NOT a community. We are individuals from multiple communities. Not all gaming groups are the same and should never be assumed as such, because we all have our own little cliques and there's different communities for different kinds of people.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Melissia wrote: Look, you can have whatever standards you want. Everyone's got an opinion, after all. But not everyone who collects and plays 40k is capable of much in the way of painting, and saying "I refuse to play with anyone who doesn't paint their miniatures to my standards" is textbook gatekeeping even if you don't like to think about it that way. That said, there's nothing exactly stopping you from saying that this form of gatekeeping is something you refuse to back down from, particularly if they're still able to find games without you. And hey, fair enough if so.
Why is gatekeeping my personal recreation time a bad thing? My gaming time is not a public service.
Look, all I'm doing is telling you to stop being in denial of what you're doing. Own up to it.
Whether or not it is "bad" depends on a thousand different variables and essentially comes down to "it depends entirely on the individual situation and how you choose to act in each one". Your free time is valuable and it belongs to you, not other people. But the same could be said for all those other people, and it's not as simple as "[x] is bad always and forever".
Mmmpi wrote: Not insulted, though you seem to be by other people not magically following your standards.
Not just my standard. Like I said in the post you just quoted, it it the standard that has existed in the miniature wargames for longer than either of us has been alive. Ultimately I feel that eroding that standard will in the long run be very harmful to the health of this hobby. The visual spectacle is a big part of what makes this game appealing to many people, and attracts new players, and if that vanished from the gaming tables in the stores the game itself will eventually follow.
Games are, by their nature, an inclusive activity. Games are more or less little engines designed to produce good times. Communities that crop up around games are breeding grounds for one of the purest best things in the world. People just having a good time with each other.
Gatekeeping that is antithesis to everything games are. It's bad in the purest sense of the word.
Melissia wrote: Look, all I'm doing is telling you to stop being in denial of what you're doing. Own up to it.
I openly and happily gatekeep my private time, my gaming groups, and pretty much every aspect of my life that is a matter of personal choice unless I am inable to do so or it is not my right to do so.
I have absolutely zero regrets doing so. Strict gatekeeping, especially with my recreational activities, has made all of my hobbies much more interesting and pleasant.
Mmmpi wrote: Not insulted, though you seem to be by other people not magically following your standards.
Not just my standard. Like I said in the post you just quoted, it it the standard that has existed in the miniature wargames for longer than either of us has been alive. Ultimately I feel that eroding that standard will in the long run be very harmful to the health of this hobby. The visual spectacle is a big part of what makes this game appealing to many people, and attracts new players, and if that vanished from the gaming tables in the stores the game itself will eventually follow.
Then you go and call them lazy/WAAC/ect.
Have I done that?
Your standard. You claim it is, but that hasn't been true for the last almost 20 years. What standard is being eroded? Your magical standards, or the real world ones that people only follow when they want to?
The visual spectacle is important to you. I like having my models painted, but whether or not my opponent has his painted is something I could care less about. It doesn't effect my immersion in any way, and even if it did, it's not my place to tell my opponent how he should treat his minis.
Your prediction of doom and gloom hasn't been true for two decades. So, when is this game death apocalypse supposed to happen?
Lance845 wrote: Gatekeeping that is antithesis to everything games are. It's bad in the purest sense of the word.
No, it isn't.
Do you allow bigots? Hostile troublemakers? Drama-queens (male or female)? People who neglect hygiene? Cheaters? Thieves? Perverts?
If the answer to any of these is 'no', then you understand the purpose of gatekeeping and that unrestricted entitlement to an activity is what ruins communities.
Melissia wrote: Look, all I'm doing is telling you to stop being in denial of what you're doing. Own up to it.
I openly and happily gatekeep my private time, my gaming groups, and pretty much every aspect of my life that is a matter of personal choice unless I am inable to do so or it is not my right to do so.
I have absolutely zero regrets doing so. Strict gatekeeping, especially with my recreational activities, has made all of my hobbies much more interesting and pleasant.
There will be plenty of people out there that will disagree with this statement but ultimately you're not wrong and it's your hobby. Outside of tournaments no one should ever feel forced to play against someone or allocate an afternoon to something that will not be enjoyable.
I've got a young family and I've found my free hobby time become increasingly smaller as time passes, whilst I'm sure this will improve later down the track but for now I find myself being more selective myself over who I play and what I'm looking for out of a game.
In my opinion, someone who doesn't know his army well, needs to look at the codex all the time and doesn't know basic tactics of his army is just as bad as someone with a half-painted army.
Someone who is not fully invested in playing WH40k should not buy and paint any models. All four columns of the hobby are equally important.
Funny how it sounds like hyperbole when you just switch gaming and painting, right?
Lance845 wrote: Games are, by their nature, an inclusive activity. Games are more or less little engines designed to produce good times. Communities that crop up around games are breeding grounds for one of the purest best things in the world. People just having a good time with each other.
Are you saying that you think if there's a standard for something optional and someone wants to be included, that standard of a majority should be dropped to include that one person rather than that person rise to the standard required?
Mmmpi wrote: So, when is this game death apocalypse supposed to happen?
Most people still paint their models, there is spectacle to be had and it attracts the new players. So it is not happening now.
You can of course go into your reality denial mode, but seriously, try actually observing it. If in a game store there are two tables, on one people play with their grey hordes that are missing bits, using cardboard boxes as terrain and on another there are painted models fighting over a carefully crafted and painted terrain, which game will attract more spectators? Which will attract more people asking about the game? We all know the answer.
Ah, a political cartoon. Basically, a "I can't argue my point" card. Declined.
Answer the question- do you allow all of the things I mentioned? Not all of them, or even half of them are 'Nazis' so don't be lazy, do the thinking. Speak like a grownup and use your words.
You cannot prevent anyone from purchasing a product and using it. You cannot restrict their constitutionally protected rights to be somewhere. You cannot override the owner or proprietor of a private establishment and determine who is allowed there. Even if they are a Nazi, you can do nothing.
You know what you can do?
You can prevent someone from playing with you. You can prevent yourself from being involved in activities they are a part of. All you have to do is say 'no'. Go somewhere else. Tell others why you are doing so, and let them make their own decisions.
This is called 'gatekeeping' and it's why your D&D group doesn't have Johnny Rapejoke.
Crimson wrote: You can of course go into your reality denial mode, but seriously, try actually observing it. If in a game store there are two tables, on one people play with their grey hordes that are missing bits, using cardboard boxes as terrain and on another there are painted models fighting over a carefully crafted and painted terrain, which game will attract more spectators? Which will attract more people asking about the game? We all know the answer.
There will be plenty of people out there that will disagree with this statement but ultimately you're not wrong and it's your hobby. Outside of tournaments no one should ever feel forced to play against someone or allocate an afternoon to something that will not be enjoyable.
I've got a young family and I've found my free hobby time become increasingly smaller as time passes, whilst I'm sure this will improve later down the track but for now I find myself being more selective myself over who I play and what I'm looking for out of a game.
You've got children it seems, and I can tell you- if you intend to involve your children in your hobbies it is very, very wise to be selective of where you play and who you play with. Kudos to you, I hope you get more free time to enjoy your hobby.
Ah, a political cartoon. Basically, a "I can't argue my point" card. Declined.
I started with posting the wiki article on the subject, but I thought you might grasp it better with pictures.
Answer the question- do you allow all of the things I mentioned? Not all of them, or even half of them are 'Nazis' so don't be lazy, do the thinking. Speak like a grownup and use your words.
You cannot prevent anyone from purchasing a product and using it. You cannot restrict their constitutionally protected rights to be somewhere. You cannot override the owner or proprietor of a private establishment and determine who is allowed there. Even if they are a Nazi, you can do nothing.
You know what you can do?
You can prevent someone from playing with you. You can prevent yourself from being involved in activities they are a part of. All you have to do is say 'no'. Go somewhere else. Tell others why you are doing so, and let them make their own decisions.
This is called 'gatekeeping' and it's why your D&D group doesn't have Johnny Rapejoke.
Can you really not understand the difference between not tolerating toxic elements in your community and the attitudes of those toxic members?
Lance845 wrote: I started with posting the wiki article on the subject, but I thought you might grasp it better with pictures.
I'm not the target audience for that cartoon, it was made to reassure people who are incapable of determining their associations like adults. Real grownups can deal with anything another human being says. Cowards and weaklings need words to be 'outside the law' so their fragile feelings can be protected.
Lance845 wrote: Can you really not understand the difference between not tolerating toxic elements in your community and the attitudes of those toxic members?
Mmmpi wrote: So, when is this game death apocalypse supposed to happen?
Most people still paint their models, there is spectacle to be had and it attracts the new players. So it is not happening now.
You can of course go into your reality denial mode, but seriously, try actually observing it. If in a game store there are two tables, on one people play with their grey hordes that are missing bits, using cardboard boxes as terrain and on another there are painted models fighting over a carefully crafted and painted terrain, which game will attract more spectators? Which will attract more people asking about the game? We all know the answer.
I say this as politely as I can. Don't. Just fething don't. I understand perfectly well the concept you're referring to, it is superbly important. And trying to apply it to fething miniature games is bloody insulting! Not to me, not to the gamers in general, but to people who are suffering from actual oppression. I would like to say more, but as I promised to be polite I can't.
Crimson wrote: I say this as politely as I can. Don't. Just fething don't. I understand perfectly well the concept you're referring to, it is superbly important. And trying to apply it to fething miniature games is bloody insulting! Not to me, not to the gamers in general, but to people who are suffering from actual oppression. I would like to say more, but as I promised to be polite I can't.
While we may disagree at one point, you're not entirely wrong in your outrage here.
Well, I don't want to play against unpainted models.
I have a knee injury, so is the goose-stepping a requirement, or is it just understood I do that in my spare time?
The paradox of tolerance is my stance here. Games are all inclusive. And I want them to be all inclusive. And I will protect their inclusiveness in my community from toxic elements that want to put up artificial elitist barriers to keep those out that don't meet their "standards".
I called it gatekeeping because it is. I called it rude because it is. I called it toxic because it is.
You 100% have a right to feel how you do. Go home, invite others like you to your house, and keep it over there. The community doesn't need you.
Lance845 wrote: The paradox of tolerance is my stance here. Games are all inclusive. And I want them to be all inclusive. And I will protect their inclusiveness in my community from toxic elements that want to put up artificial elitist barriers to keep those out that don't meet their "standards".
I called it gatekeeping because it is. I called it rude because it is. I called it toxic because it is.
You 100% have a right to feel how you do. Go home, invite others like you to your house, and keep it over there. The community doesn't need you.
Lance845 wrote: The paradox of tolerance is my stance here. Games are all inclusive. And I want them to be all inclusive. And I will protect their inclusiveness in my community from toxic elements that want to put up artificial elitist barriers to keep those out that don't meet their "standards".
WRONG.
Products are inclusive. Establishments are inclusive, until the posted rules are broken. My time is not open source free-for-all. Protecting my time, freely determining my association is my own right. If people do not like it, then fewer people will play with me. If my standards are unpopular, my recreation options will be limited. It will sort itself out.
Lance845 wrote: I called it gatekeeping because it is. I called it rude because it is. I called it toxic because it is.
WRONG.
You have as much right to demand 'all inclusive' access to my recreation time as you do my romantic life. I am 100% entitled to my own preferences and association. Demanding I change that is toxic, and several other adjectives that get red-lettered.
Lance845 wrote: You 100% have a right to feel how you do. Go home, invite others like you to your house, and keep it over there. The community doesn't need you.
WRONG.
You do not speak for "the community" or any community for that matter. You have no right to demand I do this. You CAN speak for yourself, which is fine. That is your right.
If you cannot accept this, then perhaps it is you who should keep away and do some self-reflection.
Lance845 wrote: The paradox of tolerance is my stance here. Games are all inclusive. And I want them to be all inclusive. And I will protect their inclusiveness in my community from toxic elements that want to put up artificial elitist barriers to keep those out that don't meet their "standards".
I called it gatekeeping because it is. I called it rude because it is. I called it toxic because it is.
You 100% have a right to feel how you do. Go home, invite others like you to your house, and keep it over there. The community doesn't need you.
That seems a bit non inclusive...
Then you don't understand the philosophy. Go read the comic or dig into the wiki until you get it.
Lance845 wrote: The paradox of tolerance is my stance here. Games are all inclusive. And I want them to be all inclusive. And I will protect their inclusiveness in my community from toxic elements that want to put up artificial elitist barriers to keep those out that don't meet their "standards".
I called it gatekeeping because it is. I called it rude because it is. I called it toxic because it is.
You 100% have a right to feel how you do. Go home, invite others like you to your house, and keep it over there. The community doesn't need you.
If you don't want toxic elements in your gaming community you probably should start by removing yourself.
Mmmpi wrote: So, when is this game death apocalypse supposed to happen?
Most people still paint their models, there is spectacle to be had and it attracts the new players. So it is not happening now.
You can of course go into your reality denial mode, but seriously, try actually observing it. If in a game store there are two tables, on one people play with their grey hordes that are missing bits, using cardboard boxes as terrain and on another there are painted models fighting over a carefully crafted and painted terrain, which game will attract more spectators? Which will attract more people asking about the game? We all know the answer.
Most isn't all, I've seen more players start over enthusatic games than over painted armies, and yes, it's been happening for decades.
The only one denying reality here is you. I have observed it, my entire arguement is based on the observations of myself and others.
Which will attract more people? The one that's having the more dynamic game. Paint rarely factors into it. The one having the good time, or is displaying nail biting play will draw the crowds.
We do know the answer. It's enthusiastic and inclusive play.
Lance845 wrote: The paradox of tolerance is my stance here. Games are all inclusive. And I want them to be all inclusive. And I will protect their inclusiveness in my community from toxic elements that want to put up artificial elitist barriers to keep those out that don't meet their "standards".
I called it gatekeeping because it is. I called it rude because it is. I called it toxic because it is.
You 100% have a right to feel how you do. Go home, invite others like you to your house, and keep it over there. The community doesn't need you.
If you don't want toxic elements in your gaming community you probably should start by removing yourself.
Lance845 wrote: The paradox of tolerance is my stance here. Games are all inclusive. And I want them to be all inclusive. And I will protect their inclusiveness in my community from toxic elements that want to put up artificial elitist barriers to keep those out that don't meet their "standards".
I called it gatekeeping because it is. I called it rude because it is. I called it toxic because it is.
You 100% have a right to feel how you do. Go home, invite others like you to your house, and keep it over there. The community doesn't need you.
You can write off anything as gatekeeping like this. You're gatekeeping me out by not playing my token proxies. Oh it's in the rules that I must use models? That's gw kool aid!
Lance845 wrote: The paradox of tolerance is my stance here. Games are all inclusive. And I want them to be all inclusive. And I will protect their inclusiveness in my community from toxic elements that want to put up artificial elitist barriers to keep those out that don't meet their "standards".
I called it gatekeeping because it is. I called it rude because it is. I called it toxic because it is.
You 100% have a right to feel how you do. Go home, invite others like you to your house, and keep it over there. The community doesn't need you.
That seems a bit non inclusive...
Then you don't understand the philosophy. Go read the comic or dig into the wiki until you get it.
You don't understand life. Go live some and stop digging through wiki and comics until you do...
Lance845 wrote: The paradox of tolerance is my stance here. Games are all inclusive. And I want them to be all inclusive. And I will protect their inclusiveness in my community from toxic elements that want to put up artificial elitist barriers to keep those out that don't meet their "standards".
WRONG.
Products are inclusive. Establishments are inclusive, until the posted rules are broken. My time is not open source free-for-all. Protecting my time, freely determining my association is my own right. If people do not like it, then fewer people will play with me. If my standards are unpopular, my recreation options will be limited. It will sort itself out.
I didn't tell you how to spend your time. I told you how I think the community should be. If you don't want to be that way in the community, go someplace else. I am saying that I, actively, encourage the community to find your stated standards unpopular so that it sorts itself out to be best for the community.
Lance845 wrote: I called it gatekeeping because it is. I called it rude because it is. I called it toxic because it is.
WRONG.
You have as much right to demand 'all inclusive' access to my recreation time as you do my romantic life. I am 100% entitled to my own preferences and association. Demanding I change that is toxic, and several other adjectives that get red-lettered.
You are 100% entitled to whatever opinion you want. And you are free to suffer the consequence of those opinions. If you want to act toxic you should get treated like your toxic and as you say, it should sort itself out.
Lance845 wrote: You 100% have a right to feel how you do. Go home, invite others like you to your house, and keep it over there. The community doesn't need you.
WRONG.
You do not speak for "the community" or any community for that matter. You have no right to demand I do this. You CAN speak for yourself, which is fine. That is your right.
If you cannot accept this, then perhaps it is you who should keep away and do some self-reflection.
I don't speak for anyone but me. But I actively work within my gaming groups to cultivate a community I like. Which includes keeping people who gatekeep out if they cannot be brought out of their dumb ideas.
Mmmpi wrote: We do know the answer. It's enthusiastic and inclusive play.
You know what works? People who seem to be enjoying what they're doing.
Maybe that's my table, with all the painted models and taking photographs.
Maybe it's the one next to it, with two guys learning how to play with grey models.
Or maybe it's the next one over with a mix of both.
Maybe people are entirely capable of determining what they enjoy on their own and shouldn't force themselves to accomodate others. There are options, if you don't like someone's standards or what they're bringing to the table, then find another game. It's not difficult.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Lance845 wrote: I didn't tell you how to spend your time. I told you how I think the community should be. If you don't want to be that way in the community, go someplace else. I am saying that I, actively, encourage the community to find your stated standards unpopular so that it sorts itself out to be best for the community.
You do not speak for the community.
Also, most communities dislike someone who demands everyone agree with them so they can... are you ready? Exclude other persons that haven't done anything wrong.
Lance845 wrote: You are 100% entitled to whatever opinion you want. And you are free to suffer the consequence of those opinions. If you want to act toxic you should get treated like your toxic and as you say, it should sort itself out.
I know.
And it's yet to cause any problems. It's made things better. System is working fine.
Lance845 wrote: I don't speak for anyone but me. But I actively work within my gaming groups to cultivate a community I like. Which includes keeping people who gatekeep out if they cannot be brought out of their dumb ideas.
No one has ever been obligated to play anyone for any reason.
if you want to play against or with grey plastic or not to play with or against grey plastic that is your choice. what the heck happened to talking with your opponent to get what you want out of a game or event.
its the same thing with level of games (Casual/competitive and the inbetween).
No one has ever been obligated to play anyone for any reason.
if you want to play against or with grey plastic or not to play with or against grey plastic that is your choice. what the heck happened to talking with your opponent to get what you want out of a game or event.
its the same thing with level of games (Casual/competitive and the inbetween).
Now your being exclusionist by having a preference apparently.. But only if its a specific preference..
To anyone who feels like it, which of the following does NOT sound like toxic gatekeeping?
Adeptus Doritos wrote: You have ZERO claim to anything I do in my recreational time, it does not belong to you.
Lance845 wrote: I told you how I think the community should be. If you don't want to be that way in the community, go someplace else. I am saying that I, actively, encourage the community to find your stated standards unpopular so that it sorts itself out to be best for the community.
Lance845 wrote: You 100% have a right to feel how you do. Go home, invite others like you to your house, and keep it over there. The community doesn't need you.
Lance845 wrote: I actively work within my gaming groups to cultivate a community I like. Which includes keeping people who gatekeep out if they cannot be brought out of their dumb ideas.
Mmmpi wrote: We do know the answer. It's enthusiastic and inclusive play.
You know what works? People who seem to be enjoying what they're doing.
Maybe that's my table, with all the painted models and taking photographs.
Maybe it's the one next to it, with two guys learning how to play with grey models.
Or maybe it's the next one over with a mix of both.
Maybe people are entirely capable of determining what they enjoy on their own and shouldn't force themselves to accomodate others. There are options, if you don't like someone's standards or what they're bringing to the table, then find another game. It's not difficult.
Not sure why you're arguing against me, I've been saying your exact post for four days now.
does not look better then bare plastic.
