As it says, I'm interested in hearing from Veteran gamrs ( especially those with 15+ years). When did you first begin to see lots of unpainted miniatures on the table, and what do you think contributed to the trend?

I began gaming sometime around 1993, but until the 00's I didn't game out often enough to see what the standards were for other folks and by then the grey hordes seemed to be almost as common as painted armies.

Please don't turn this into a painted vs. unpainted thread, there are already several of those. I'd just like to get a feel for how this trend developed over time.


EDIT: Please include how long you have been gaming so we know what kind of experience is behind your observation.

Since tournaments allows them... Basically its tournament gaming emerging over the 'hobby'.

If you look at a lot of the 'compeditive' blogs most of the bat reps have gawd-aful looking minis.

Not really sure how it developed tbh, when I started playing/collecting somewhere around 91, I always made sure that any new unit I bought was painted before I got another one.

In my old local GW (Peterborough), there used to be a rule that only painted units could be used to game instore. Because of this rule I always tried to paint my units as I bought them. This was because my local GW was the only place I could regularly get a game in.

I have not been into a GW store for a long time (2+ years), but I can only assume that they have relaxed the rules somewhat.....


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ahhhh Tournaments..... Never been to one!

Q: When did I start seeing unpainted armies on the table?

A: I don't know. When did companies start selling models to be used in game armies?

Q: What do I think contributed to it?

A: People buying models to use in their armies, but for various reasons, not painting them.

Tournaments actually is not a valid answer. Most tournaments require you to have your army at a 3 color minimum, and then you get scores based on your painting. Tournaments are where I see the most painted armies.

I've been in gaming since 1981. I didn't get into minis until about 1985, but I was occasionally around them at the FLGS. As far back as I can remember seeing people use minis in RPG's and in wargames, I can remember unpainted models.

IMO, a better question would be to ask when the view that models/armies had to be painted come into common usage.

Eric

When ever im in my local GW most people playing seem to have armies that arent painted, painted very very badly. See the odd few with very well painted armies.

Personally speaking most of my army isnt painted, but thats due to a lack of time on my part. But since Its quite a small army I'm working my way threw them quite quickly to get them all painted.... dreading starting my tyranid army

I grew up playing games mostly at conventions and game clubs where everything would be painted. Only when I started playing with friends did I encounter the grey/primer black hordes. It has nothing to do with "tournament thinking" or whatever; I have friends who just enjoy the game a lot more than the painting aspect.

I really like the club idea that painted models got preferred enemy against unpainted models. I tried to introduce this idea to my old game group but only one other guy actually painted his minis regularly so that didn't fly!

As soon as there was an enviorment that allowed unpainted models, you saw armies of them popping up.

Once people started allowing it, particularly at tournaments.

I don't think it became acceptable until figures were made lead-free. Before that armies were largely all metal and getting your hands covered in lead was not fun.

DarkCorsair wrote:Tournaments actually is not a valid answer. Most tournaments require you to have your army at a 3 color minimum, and then you get scores based on your painting. Tournaments are where I see the most painted armies.

I know they require 3 colors to be allowed to win anything but I dont think it has anything to do with keeping people from playing, atleast it has never stopped me.

For as long as there have been people who enjoyed wargaming but didn't enjoy painting, there have been unpainted armies. I started playing miniature wargames in 1991, and have seen others play with unpainted armies and have played with some unpainted armies myself. Many people really like the game, but don't really care for the modeling/painting side of the hobby.

I think the really bad codex creep has contributed to it a lot. People don't want to paint their minis because they are getting ready for the next big book and painted minis sell/trade for less than unpainted.

Bat Manuel wrote:I think the really bad codex creep has contributed to it a lot. People don't want to paint their minis because they are getting ready for the next big book and painted minis sell/trade for less than unpainted.

That's one of the most cynical things I've ever read.

Just this year my dad painted some minis he bought on his honeymoon. His honeymoon was over 30 years ago. Unpainted minis are nothing new.

I think people enjoy playing the game more than doing the Hobby. And competitive play is seeing more recognition and people like me that just want to play spend more time play testing and working lists than painting. But i would love to have my DE fully painted, i just dont have the time

My dad was actually shocked to learn that I planned on PAINTING my pewter miniatures. Lots of pewter wizards and dragons in that house. I've seen wholly unpainted armies as long as I've played. I got into the hobby from the model car and tank hobbies that was the main component for me. My brother on the other hand has no patience for painting and never has put the effort into getting good at it.
He feels that 40k is a tactical game and if he can kick your butt with gray plastic chaos marines, then they didn't really need painted. He won't play in Ard Boys where they score your paint jobs.
I actually painted up Abbadon for him once with a Dreadnought and termie squad in Night Lord colors. Those are probably still the most painted models he has.

In my local area, I've seen more and more unpainted armies as of late in local leagues and tournaments. However, I contribute that partly to new people getting into the hobby and wanting to play before they have their stuff ready to go.

As a somewhat older gamer who has been in the hobby for 15+ years, I actually think it is our responsibility to set an example to the newer guys that we play with painted models and that we keep up a positive attitude and be a good sport during our games...

There have been several comments to the effect that unpainted minis have always been with us and nothing has really changed.

I don't buy it.

Unpainted figures are nothing new, but, I don't belive for a moment that unpainted armies (or large portions thereof) were as prevalent on the public game table in the past as they currently are.

As I noted in the OP, I was not as involved in the gaming scene when I first started, but in my visits to my FLGS in the early 90's, I did not see anywhere near the high percentage of unpainted figs on the table as I see today. In fact, I saw very few unpainted figs with painted figs being in the majority. Now it seems that half or more of the armies I see at the FLGS are -entirely or majority- unpainted.

So What happened? My theories revolve around the influence of Magic and the Video Game culture creating a focus on the play rather than the hobbying, as well as the larger size of "Standard" armies in 40k and WHFB. However, being someone for whom the standard for play is painted, I don't know personally.

UPdate:I just updated the first message. For those who haven't please consider including how long you have been gaming so we know how much experience/longevity is behind your observation.

I'll make this post about why I don't paint

A) I don't have the space in my room for a painting station

B) I'm terrible at it and don't want to ruin $5 a model figures trying to learn. I have absolutely no artistic talent, watching me try to steady my hand is hilariously sad.

C) I just really don't enjoy painting. I really enjoy the game. Different strokes for different folks.

Eilif wrote:There have been several comments to the effect that unpainted minis have always been with us and nothing has really changed.

I don't buy it.

Unpainted figures are nothing new, but, I don't belive for a moment that unpainted armies (or large portions thereof) were as prevalent on the public game table in the past as they currently are.

As I noted in the OP, I was not as involved in the gaming scene when I first started, but in my visits to my FLGS in the early 90's, I did not see anywhere near the high percentage of unpainted figs on the table as I see today. In fact, I saw very few unpainted figs with painted figs being in the majority. Now it seems that half or more of the armies I see at the FLGS are -entirely or majority- unpainted.

So What happened? My theories revolve around the influence of Magic and the Video Game culture creating a focus on the play rather than the hobbying, as well as the larger size of "Standard" armies in 40k and WHFB. However, being someone for whom the standard for play is painted, I don't know personally.

UPdate:I just updated the first message. For those who haven't please consider including how long you have been gaming so we know how much experience/longevity is behind your observation.

You can buy it or not, but my experience, and the experience of some of the other posters here, show that we have experienced playing against non-painted armies for years. You asked the question, I suppose you don't have to accept the answers you get.

I blame the increasing size of armies. When you need 60+ infantry and 12+ vehicles, it takes a lot of time to paint that all.

sharkticon wrote:I blame the increasing size of armies. When you need 60+ infantry and 12+ vehicles, it takes a lot of time to paint that all.

pretty much

the emphasis on painting guys is being reduced as the armies get bigger and bigger to generate more and more GW sales

Eilif wrote:So What happened? My theories revolve around the influence of Magic and the Video Game culture creating a focus on the play rather than the hobbying, as well as the larger size of "Standard" armies in 40k and WHFB. However, being someone for whom the standard for play is painted, I don't know personally.

I think this is an issue because GW has been pushing for bigger and bigger armies. A 2000 point 2nd edition Marine force was pretty small, few squads, couple of characters and vehicle or two. Now most armies are massive, especially some of the Fantasy ones.

Griever wrote:B) I'm terrible at it and don't want to ruin $5 a model figures trying to learn. I have absolutely no artistic talent, watching me try to steady my hand is hilariously sad.

Nothing happens without practice.

If true though, that GW figures are now so expensive that people are too afraid to paint them the hobby is a sad place.

To be fair the whole "dont like painting" is a lame excuse. My friend dosn't like painting that much be even he manages primer, dipping and some detail looks pretty good too and way better than a load of grey marines

augustus5 wrote:

Eilif wrote:There have been several comments to the effect that unpainted minis have always been with us and nothing has really changed.

I don't buy it.

Unpainted figures are nothing new, but, I don't belive for a moment that unpainted armies (or large portions thereof) were as prevalent on the public game table in the past as they currently are.

You can buy it or not, but my experience, and the experience of some of the other posters here, show that we have experienced playing against non-painted armies for years. You asked the question, I suppose you don't have to accept the answers you get.

Very True, especially when there seem to be as many folks giving answers on one side of the issue as the other.

That said, in defference to your observations, it is entirely possible that different regions, clubs, FLGS's had extremely different community standards for a very long time.

mikhaila wrote:As soon as there was an enviorment that allowed unpainted models, you saw armies of them popping up.

Any estimates as to when this was? As a game store owner, I assume you were well-placed to observe when FLGS's and other venues became more amiable to unpainted models.

The way I see it is I could give a care less if you don't paint it, not everyone is golden demon material. All I do for my blood angels is prime, mechrite red and astronomicon grey, then when it dries, go over the grey with chainmail silver, then wash in devlan mud and badab black, I keep the eyes black, so there's 3 colors, but for my tyranids, I still have 38/90 gaunts unpainted due to lack of free time.

The way I see it is if you can't paint well, you don't have to, if you can, do it, I still need to paint my tanks, most of the people in my LGS don't paint their models, because it's time consuming.

If you really have /that/ much of a problem, maybe you should find another hobby, or offer a painting serviced for a reasonable price.
,

I started playing way back in 2nd (mid 90's) and the store by my college had lot of unpainted armies.

In fact the only reason I even started painting was so that I could play in tournaments.

Brother SRM wrote:

Bat Manuel wrote:I think the really bad codex creep has contributed to it a lot. People don't want to paint their minis because they are getting ready for the next big book and painted minis sell/trade for less than unpainted.

That's one of the most cynical things I've ever read.

Yeah it is

But it's what I've seen from the people who habitually don't want to paint their armies, not the ones who can't paint for whatever reason.

Daston wrote:To be fair the whole "dont like painting" is a lame excuse. My friend dosn't like painting that much be even he manages primer, dipping and some detail looks pretty good too and way better than a load of grey marines

To be fair, you don't really know what you're talking about.

It's plain and simple. Some people don't like/want to paint their armies. They choose to play with unpainted armies. There is nothing obligating anyone to partake in the painting aspect of the hobby unless that person wishes to take part in tournaments or clubs with a painting requirement.

And there's nothing obligating me from not thinking they look gak.

I've been playing for at least ten years. Everyone I started with played Grey Elves or Grey Dwarves. Only I was bold enough to play Grey Men Actually, I was the only one really into painting, and got bummed out that my painting wasn't up to the level that I wanted it at-at the time.

40k came out in 1987, so they appeared in 40k armies in 1987.

That being said, there wasn't any grey back in those days. Silver yes, but the plastic was all sorts of colors.

GW required 100% painted minis in GW stores and battle bunkers within a 50 mile radius of GW US HQ up intil around 2005-2006. This is also when RTTs were in full force and GW GTs were around. All required painting.

When the GW GT died, GW began letting unpainted models towards the launch of 4th edition in my experience. When GW began allowing unpainted in GW stores... the genie was out of the bottle.

Up until then, all GW stores required painting and most FLGS near me required at least PRIMED to distinguish from people opening stuff and assembling in store and possibly 'stealing' things. Requiring primed was a theft deterrent as it is harder to steal a 40$ model and assemble it in a corner and play it and claim it is yours if it has to have a coat of primer on it.

augustus5 wrote:

Daston wrote:To be fair the whole "dont like painting" is a lame excuse. My friend dosn't like painting that much be even he manages primer, dipping and some detail looks pretty good too and way better than a load of grey marines

To be fair, you don't really know what you're talking about.

It's plain and simple. Some people don't like/want to paint their armies. They choose to play with unpainted armies. There is nothing obligating anyone to partake in the painting aspect of the hobby unless that person wishes to take part in tournaments or clubs with a painting requirement.

So basecoat+dip doesn't look better than unpainted models? In which part of what you quoted does he not know what he's talking about?
Not liking painting _is_ a lame excuse. As much as nothing obligates anyone to paint their armies it's also nothing to be proud of. You're choosing to play with ugly models because you're lazy or uninformed about how easy and quick it can be to manage a solid looking army these days.

When I started playing in 91-92 I only ever saw unpainted models at my sporadic school club meets or when I was playing at home. Unpainted models have always been around, people have only been proud not to bother painting fairly recently since it apparently became a sign of how committed they are to "competitive play".

Come on guys, let's not turn this into another painted vs not thread.

Interestingly, it does seem to me that folks are more willing to be "out" about not having the time to paint or even wanting to.

I wonder if this collective lowering of the painting-bar is actually now encouraged (or at least painting isn't as emphasized) by GW and Privateer who have tapped into a new large group of competative players who are more likely to play if the community at large doesn't place as high a value on painting.

As an asside, one reason I ventured into this topic was feeling quite out-of-sorts after visiting my FLGS's very popular Warmachine night (I was not playing warmachine). I counted about 18 armies and less than a third had any paint at all, and only 2-3 were completely painted. I've been in on the WM nights since then and continue to see less than 1/3 painted miniatures.

It may be just a gut reaction, but I feel quite sure things were not always this way in wargaming'dom.

nkelsch wrote:GW required 100% painted minis in GW stores and battle bunkers within a 50 mile radius of GW US HQ up intil around 2005-2006. This is also when RTTs were in full force and GW GTs were around. All required painting.

When the GW GT died, GW began letting unpainted models towards the launch of 4th edition in my experience. When GW began allowing unpainted in GW stores... the genie was out of the bottle.

Up until then, all GW stores required painting and most FLGS near me required at least PRIMED to distinguish from people opening stuff and assembling in store and possibly 'stealing' things. Requiring primed was a theft deterrent as it is harder to steal a 40$ model and assemble it in a corner and play it and claim it is yours if it has to have a coat of primer on it.

I think the GW influence has a big effect. We may rag on GW stores for being places where snot-nosed 12 year olds go to scream WAAAGH!!! and play but GW at least used to set a firm example that the hobby aspect was important to the overall game by running painting clinics and requiring painted models to play in their stores. Those small mall stores introduced alot of kids to the hobby who later graduated to playing with and as adults at independent FLGS. When GW stopped stressing the hobby aspect and switched focus to all-sales-all-the-time, those kids didn't get the same "hobby matters" message and its too late to change some of their minds. Combine that with the overall increase in the model count of 40k armies over the past 15 years making it harder to completely assemble/paint an army (more time/effort to do so) and a tourney scene that switch from "must be painted" to "bonus points if you paint well" to "no benefit if you bothered to paint" in the recent 'ard boyz.. and you end up with more armies that have no plan to ever be painted. There have always been armies that were WIP or unpainted but the social pressure to put some effort into making them look nice has largely disappeared.

Eilif wrote:
I wonder if this collective lowering of the painting-bar is actually now encouraged (or at least painting isn't as emphasized) by GW and Privateer who have tapped into a new large group of competative players who are more likely to play if the community at large doesn't place as high a value on painting.

As an asside, one reason I ventured into this topic was feeling quite out-of-sorts after visiting my FLGS's very popular Warmachine night (I was not playing warmachine). I counted about 18 armies and less than a third had any paint at all, and only 2-3 were completely painted. I've been in on the WM nights since then and continue to see less than 1/3 painted miniatures.

It may be just a gut reaction, but I feel quite sure things were not always this way in wargaming'dom.

It's similar at my LGS. Warmachine (the game I'm currently playing) definitely has fewer painted models than the 40k gamers. Some of that is a function of some of the players being new to Warmachine, some of it is encouraged by PP and official tournaments that have no painting requirement. We just had a new influx of players that seem to place some value on painting, which is good. I can't see how anyone can argue that, everything else aside, playing with painted armies looks better.


I guess I understand the incessant complaints about prices a little more now. If your $$$ is only buying you an incredibly expensive counter and not something you get to paint and convert I don't think I'd see the value either.

Eilif wrote:
It may be just a gut reaction, but I feel quite sure things were not always this way in wargaming'dom.

You're wrong. Man up and deal with it.

Bookwrack wrote:

Eilif wrote:
It may be just a gut reaction, but I feel quite sure things were not always this way in wargaming'dom.

You're wrong. Man up and deal with it.

I'm not above admitting when I'm wrong, but the thread is still pretty split so there really isn't any consensus that I should consider submiting to.

However, I welcome you to the thread and would encourage you to continue if you can find anything usefull to add.

Bookwrack wrote:

Eilif wrote:
It may be just a gut reaction, but I feel quite sure things were not always this way in wargaming'dom.

You're wrong. Man up and deal with it.

Quite an opportunity here for some young people. The final test of manhood in many cultures is to agree with an abrasive nerd on a gaming forum. Welcome to adulthood!

I blame the whole ardboys thing starting tournaments that don't require painting and the push towards larger points values. I remember when they still had tournaments at 1500 pts. Then 1750 and 1850 is the norm, now its 2000 for Nova style tournaments. Takes time to paint all that stuff. Also if your going to trade or selll your army to hop on the latest bandwagon it being painted is an instant hit in value unless you are a golden daemon winner.

warboss wrote:I think the GW influence has a big effect. We may rag on GW stores for being places where snot-nosed 12 year olds go to scream WAAAGH!!! and play but GW at least used to set a firm example that the hobby aspect was important to the overall game by running painting clinics and requiring painted models to play in their stores. Those small mall stores introduced alot of kids to the hobby who later graduated to playing with and as adults at independent FLGS. When GW stopped stressing the hobby aspect and switched focus to all-sales-all-the-time, those kids didn't get the same "hobby matters" message and its too late to change some of their minds. Combine that with the overall increase in the model count of 40k armies over the past 15 years making it harder to completely assemble/paint an army (more time/effort to do so) and a tourney scene that switch from "must be painted" to "bonus points if you paint well" to "no benefit if you bothered to paint" in the recent 'ard boyz.. and you end up with more armies that have no plan to ever be painted. There have always been armies that were WIP or unpainted but the social pressure to put some effort into making them look nice has largely disappeared.

Well said, for the most part I would have to agree...

Eilif wrote:As an asside, one reason I ventured into this topic was feeling quite out-of-sorts after visiting my FLGS's very popular Warmachine night (I was not playing warmachine). I counted about 18 armies and less than a third had any paint at all, and only 2-3 were completely painted. I've been in on the WM nights since then and continue to see less than 1/3 painted miniatures.

It may be just a gut reaction, but I feel quite sure things were not always this way in wargaming'dom.

While unpainted figs have always been around, the proliferation of people using them in public venues hasn't. All the old grey haired historical gamers that got me into minis gaming wouldn't have dared to put unpainted figs on the table during an official club game at someone's house or FLGS during the early to mid 90's when I started. They occasionally used a newly purchased unit of unpainted figs in small one-on-one games in their own houses but that was generally the extent of it. If they liked how it looked/played, they painted it and used it; if not, it went in the large lead pile of never painted/played figs gathering dust for 10-20 years in their garage/basement. Its from that atmosphere that GW spun off in the 80's and kept true to that ethos till 3rd edition. Every one of the half dozen 40k players in the group I joined at the very start of 3rd edition (all of us completely new to 40k so starting fresh) eventually got our intial armies painted even as we collected second ones. We encouraged each other (and so did GW via their stores, tournies/events, and printed materials like White Dwarf) and even the two players who absolutely hated painting (including the guy with the hand tremor that precluded him from doing detailed work) eventually put their 3 colors on almost every fig (barring new purchases of course that would be future WIP). The majority of our armies weren't pretty but still added to the overall look of the game and the enjoyment of most of the players present.

Warmachine was borne of a time when GW already moved away from the hobby/painting focus and it shows locally here too. I don't play warmachine but I frequently run RPGs in the FLGS during warmachine nights and noticed the distinct lack of painted forces for that game too. Even the two 40k players I knew that had several completely painted 40k armies who branched out into WM didn't bother putting a dab of paint on anything (one guy primed half his force and stopped there with no intention of going further). Much like soft scores in tournies, this just happens to be the way the industry is moving overall for better or for worse.

edit: After writing this and thinking about it for a bit, I do already see a general shift that I previously didn't notice. The generation that mentored me into gaming simply didn't use unpainted figs where as the gamers I started with played with them WHILE painting the army up (finishing up a new unit every week or two/three while playing simultaneously). The next generation graduated to "eh, I'll paint them up if I get a chance.. maybe". There are exceptions to each but the general trend towards unpainted started long ago now that I think about it.

warboss wrote: All the old grey haired historical gamers that got me into minis gaming wouldn't have dared to put unpainted figs on the table during an official club game at someone's house or FLGS during the early to mid 90's when I started.

In whatever small town/area/store you are from which in your mind represents the entire world.

The world did not match your experiences.

DarknessEternal wrote:

warboss wrote: All the old grey haired historical gamers that got me into minis gaming wouldn't have dared to put unpainted figs on the table during an official club game at someone's house or FLGS during the early to mid 90's when I started.

In whatever small town/area/store you are from which in your mind represents the entire world.

The world did not match your experiences.

Neither does the world match yours. This entire thread is about our experiences/observations and the changes (if any) we've noticed. That was the general experience in the small hamlet of Chicago... YMMV.

I started 40K in 1989 and have always seen unpainted models.

Since then, I've gamed in Florida, North Carolina, California, Arizona and Virginia and I've seen unpainted minis at every location, whether the FLGS or a GW store.

However, tourneys for the most part had painting requirements and folks followed suit. In the last few years, I've seen tourneys dropping this requirement and I've seen more and more unpainted armies at tourneys. This became even more prevalent when the Ard Boyz came around.

For myself, this is a shame as viewing and gaming against fully painted armies is as much fun as playing the game. Plastic colored armies are simply boring.

I've been an active 40k player since 1999. Unpainted arimies had been common at least that long. Although it was less prevalent. 4ed really ushered in the common unpainted armies as the gaming part of the hobby expanded.

From my region I think it was 2006 when I saw the serious shift from seeing the majority of painted models on a game table to what I see today.

I am now one of the minority with a fully painted army to field.

Personally as others have posted in here, its the policy changes from GW that has this effect.

plastictrees wrote:

augustus5 wrote:

Daston wrote:To be fair the whole "dont like painting" is a lame excuse. My friend dosn't like painting that much be even he manages primer, dipping and some detail looks pretty good too and way better than a load of grey marines

To be fair, you don't really know what you're talking about.

It's plain and simple. Some people don't like/want to paint their armies. They choose to play with unpainted armies. There is nothing obligating anyone to partake in the painting aspect of the hobby unless that person wishes to take part in tournaments or clubs with a painting requirement.

So basecoat+dip doesn't look better than unpainted models? In which part of what you quoted does he not know what he's talking about?
Not liking painting _is_ a lame excuse. As much as nothing obligates anyone to paint their armies it's also nothing to be proud of. You're choosing to play with ugly models because you're lazy or uninformed about how easy and quick it can be to manage a solid looking army these days.

When I started playing in 91-92 I only ever saw unpainted models at my sporadic school club meets or when I was playing at home. Unpainted models have always been around, people have only been proud not to bother painting fairly recently since it apparently became a sign of how committed they are to "competitive play".

I never implied that non-painted models look better or worse than painted models. I just don't agree that non-painted models equals lazy or uninformed player. Maybe some people genuinely just enjoy playing the game, and don't give a good god damn about painting their figures. Painting one's figures isn't a necessary requirement for wargaming. Calling somebody lazy because they have different motivations than you do is at best an ignorant, vain notion.

augustus5 wrote:
I never implied that non-painted models look better or worse than painted models. I just don't agree that non-painted models equals lazy or uninformed player. Maybe some people genuinely just enjoy playing the game, and don't give a good god damn about painting their figures. Painting one's figures isn't a necessary requirement for wargaming. Calling somebody lazy because they have different motivations than you do is at best an ignorant, vain notion.

Agreed! Very few people think that the person who only paints models is too lazy to show up for games, or too stupid to learn the rules. They may think that they are odd, but the painter/modeler doesn't catch any flak for their hobby.

However, it's totally ok to label the non-painting gamer as lazy. Why?

You'll also notice that many war-games (Risk, Axis & Allies, Chess) use unpainted miniatures all the time. Shock!

DarkCorsair wrote:Tournaments actually is not a valid answer. Most tournaments require you to have your army at a 3 color minimum, and then you get scores based on your painting. Tournaments are where I see the most professionally painted armies.

Had to adjust that a bit. Tournament gamers don't paint.

Da Butcha wrote:

augustus5 wrote:
I never implied that non-painted models look better or worse than painted models. I just don't agree that non-painted models equals lazy or uninformed player. Maybe some people genuinely just enjoy playing the game, and don't give a good god damn about painting their figures. Painting one's figures isn't a necessary requirement for wargaming. Calling somebody lazy because they have different motivations than you do is at best an ignorant, vain notion.

Agreed! Very few people think that the person who only paints models is too lazy to show up for games, or too stupid to learn the rules. They may think that they are odd, but the painter/modeler doesn't catch any flak for their hobby.

However, it's totally ok to label the non-painting gamer as lazy. Why?

You'll also notice that many war-games (Risk, Axis & Allies, Chess) use unpainted miniatures all the time. Shock!

I blame Vassal. Nothing is more lazy then playing 40k with no actual table, terrain or models. it is corrupting the children I tell you...

Da Butcha wrote:

augustus5 wrote:
I never implied that non-painted models look better or worse than painted models. I just don't agree that non-painted models equals lazy or uninformed player. Maybe some people genuinely just enjoy playing the game, and don't give a good god damn about painting their figures. Painting one's figures isn't a necessary requirement for wargaming. Calling somebody lazy because they have different motivations than you do is at best an ignorant, vain notion.

Agreed! Very few people think that the person who only paints models is too lazy to show up for games, or too stupid to learn the rules. They may think that they are odd, but the painter/modeler doesn't catch any flak for their hobby.

However, it's totally ok to label the non-painting gamer as lazy. Why?

You'll also notice that many war-games (Risk, Axis & Allies, Chess) use unpainted miniatures all the time. Shock!

Well, for a start the person that only paints doesn't show up to a game store, put his models opposite me on the table and then actively refuse to play me for an hour and a half, but I am expected to happily face someone's grey horde week after week because they can't find three hours, some spray paint and some dip.
Modellers and painters don't detract from my experience of the game by doing their thing, people that never paint do. I'm perfectly happy to be completely unreasonable about this. I don't care if it's not what you got into gaming for, it's part of the hobby, deal with it or go play the (billions) of games that don't ask you to paint anything under any circumstances. I know gamers with 4 kids that still get stuff painted (slowly) so yes, if you never paint any of your models I'll label you lazy. You can either be content with the fact that some random guy thinks you're lazy or you can paint your models. If you don't care, actually don't care, don't run around demanding that I respect your decision to not do things.

Yes, I have noticed that there are games that don't require you to paint anything. That proves that no-one should ever have to paint anything?

plastictrees wrote:three hours, some spray paint and some dip.

TBH I'd often rather play against a clean unpainted army then one submited to what you describe above...

CT GAMER wrote:

plastictrees wrote:three hours, some spray paint and some dip.

TBH I'd often rather play against a clean unpainted army then one submited to what you describe above...

Hyperbole. Obviously they'd get a finishing coat of glitter before I'd consider them truly painted.

Da Butcha wrote:
Agreed! Very few people think that the person who only paints models is too lazy to show up for games, or too stupid to learn the rules. They may think that they are odd, but the painter/modeler doesn't catch any flak for their hobby.

However, it's totally ok to label the non-painting gamer as lazy. Why?

I think it comes back to tradition. Regardless of how it played out in reality, there is a tradition in miniature wargaming of an expectation that painting miniatures is part of the hobby. It might stem from the fact that the first miniatures available were toy soldiers, which, before the advent of plastic, were always painted metal figures. As to the non-player, there is also a long tradition of those who paint and collect as a hobby and don't play. Thus, if you enter the miniature wargaming hobby and fail to even try to paint your miniatures, it is likely that folks will assume that you are either lazy, rediculously busy (but not so busy that you can't find time to assemble 2000 points and play with them...) or have some other extenuating circumstance.

Da Butcha wrote: You'll also notice that many war-games (Risk, Axis & Allies, Chess) use unpainted miniatures all the time. Shock!

Risk, A&A and Chess are completely different. They are board games, not tabletop miniature wargames and are not a proper comparison.

sharkticon wrote:I blame the increasing size of armies.

I blame George Bush!

Remember, folks... If you refuse to play with or against unpainted models, the terrorists win.


Eric

ITT: unnecessary arguing over unpainted models.

If it's that much of a problem to you, maybe you need a new hobby. Not everyone is a talented painter, or has the time to paint all their models, especially since people love to insult other people's paint jobs. When all the pathetic asshats constantly insult your painting, it can demotivate you from painting. I mean, I put in the effort to paint, even though I'm not 'eavy metal material, but there were fething 30-somethings picking on a kid because of his painting when, he wound up leaving them unpainted, and they picked on him for that, so he just quit. I say that it's none of your business whether I paint my models or not, who knows, I'm probably a better player than you anyways, I might of been a worthy opponent, you'll never know because you didn't want to play because I didn't want to paint.

Yeah, I paint my models, but I have an unpainted copy of my army, in case a model is lost or stolen, just paint it and replace.

plastictrees wrote:<SNIP> I don't care if it's not what you got into gaming for, it's part of the hobby, deal with it or go play the (billions) of games that don't ask you to paint anything under any circumstances. I know gamers with 4 kids that still get stuff painted (slowly) so yes, if you never paint any of your models I'll label you lazy. You can either be content with the fact that some random guy thinks you're lazy or you can paint your models. If you don't care, actually don't care, don't run around demanding that I respect your decision to not do things.

Yes, I have noticed that there are games that don't require you to paint anything. That proves that no-one should ever have to paint anything?

Small correction.
It's part of YOUR hobby. You cannot accurately represent MY hobby. If MY hobby does not include painting, I am still into wargames. Wargaming is still my hobby.
When you grow up, you'll understand the difference between "lazy" and disinterested. I paint. I paint quite well, in fact. I used to accept commissions in a different life time. What I would not do THEN, and rarely do NOW is paint armies or even large units. I do not enjoy it. I don't like painting hordes of models in the same color scheme. I like painting characters and -sometimes begrudgingly- small 3 to 5 man units.
You see, for me, the hobby is about having fun in a social atmosphere with people who are fun to be with while playing a wargame.

What seems to be the difference between you (and many who agree that armies should be painted) and those of us who don't care is that WE are not actually running around demanding that you "respect our decision." We simply ask that you leave us the heck alone about it. You "hobby" your way and let us "hobby" our way, without having to deal with your open scorn and derision. That isn't asking you to respect our decision. That is asking you to respect us as human beings.

CT GAMER wrote:

plastictrees wrote:three hours, some spray paint and some dip.

TBH I'd often rather play against a clean unpainted army then one submited to what you describe above...

Agreed.
Also, I'd rather play against the unpainted gray horde than someone who's going to talk crap about me because I choose not to paint.

plastictrees wrote:

CT GAMER wrote:
TBH I'd often rather play against a clean unpainted army then one submited to what you describe above...

Hyperbole. Obviously they'd get a finishing coat of glitter before I'd consider them truly painted.

See, I don't care who you are. That's funny, right there.


Eric

MagickalMemories wrote:

sharkticon wrote:I blame the increasing size of armies.

I blame George Bush!

Remember, folks... If you refuse to play with or against unpainted models, the terrorists win.


Eric

You're just saying that because you're an Clinton appointee who moderatorshipness at an internet trading site is dependent on the continuing selling/trading of those grey/silver hordes! If people refused to play with or against unpainted models, you'd be out of an (unpaid) job and have alot more free time on your hands... I declare bias!

MagickalMemories wrote:

plastictrees wrote:<SNIP> I don't care if it's not what you got into gaming for, it's part of the hobby, deal with it or go play the (billions) of games that don't ask you to paint anything under any circumstances. I know gamers with 4 kids that still get stuff painted (slowly) so yes, if you never paint any of your models I'll label you lazy. You can either be content with the fact that some random guy thinks you're lazy or you can paint your models. If you don't care, actually don't care, don't run around demanding that I respect your decision to not do things.

Yes, I have noticed that there are games that don't require you to paint anything. That proves that no-one should ever have to paint anything?

Small correction.
It's part of YOUR hobby. You cannot accurately represent MY hobby. If MY hobby does not include painting, I am still into wargames. Wargaming is still my hobby.
When you grow up, you'll understand the difference between "lazy" and disinterested. I paint. I paint quite well, in fact. I used to accept commissions in a different life time. What I would not do THEN, and rarely do NOW is paint armies or even large units. I do not enjoy it. I don't like painting hordes of models in the same color scheme. I like painting characters and -sometimes begrudgingly- small 3 to 5 man units.
You see, for me, the hobby is about having fun in a social atmosphere with people who are fun to be with while playing a wargame.

What seems to be the difference between you (and many who agree that armies should be painted) and those of us who don't care is that WE are not actually running around demanding that you "respect our decision." We simply ask that you leave us the heck alone about it. You "hobby" your way and let us "hobby" our way, without having to deal with your open scorn and derision. That isn't asking you to respect our decision. That is asking you to respect us as human beings.

CT GAMER wrote:

plastictrees wrote:three hours, some spray paint and some dip.

TBH I'd often rather play against a clean unpainted army then one submited to what you describe above...

Agreed.
Also, I'd rather play against the unpainted gray horde than someone who's going to talk crap about me because I choose not to paint.

plastictrees wrote:

CT GAMER wrote:
TBH I'd often rather play against a clean unpainted army then one submited to what you describe above...

Hyperbole. Obviously they'd get a finishing coat of glitter before I'd consider them truly painted.

See, I don't care who you are. That's funny, right there.


Eric

Yes it was...

I read active arguments between painted and unpainted supporters. It confuses me.
If anyone has read a thread in which I've posted they know that I am acerbic and confrontational as a common disposition. But when it comes to painted or unpainted armies; I couldn't care less. I spend inordinate amounts of time messing with my plastic or preferable metal toy soldiers to make them WYSIWYG, unique, and maybe even sort of painted. I left the hobby literally days before 5th was released and returned last April, the first tournament I played in June my army was about 60% new. I laid down a fully painted, if not based, force. And while I was a little disappointed that the two other BA at the store were playing unpainted armies I was excited: more people were playing an army I enjoy, and if all they have is a FoTM primer army I can probably double my forces during one of the codex releases later on this or next year. BONANZA.
The truth is I'd rather see people keeping the hobby alive than hiding in thier caves painting, even if that's what I would rather do.

MagickalMemories wrote:
Small correction.
It's part of YOUR hobby. You cannot accurately represent MY hobby. If MY hobby does not include painting, I am still into wargames. Wargaming is still my hobby.
When you grow up, you'll understand the difference between "lazy" and disinterested. I paint. I paint quite well, in fact. I used to accept commissions in a different life time. What I would not do THEN, and rarely do NOW is paint armies or even large units. I do not enjoy it. I don't like painting hordes of models in the same color scheme. I like painting characters and -sometimes begrudgingly- small 3 to 5 man units.
You see, for me, the hobby is about having fun in a social atmosphere with people who are fun to be with while playing a wargame.

What seems to be the difference between you (and many who agree that armies should be painted) and those of us who don't care is that WE are not actually running around demanding that you "respect our decision." We simply ask that you leave us the heck alone about it. You "hobby" your way and let us "hobby" our way, without having to deal with your open scorn and derision. That isn't asking you to respect our decision. That is asking you to respect us as human beings.

Mostly the difference between me, and in this case, you, is that I'm expressing an extremely exaggerated version of my opinion in response to people that appear to be belligerently opposed to fielding painted armies, whereas you are describing actual reality.

The reality is that I have buckets of unpainted models, 40k, Fantasy, Warmachine, Confrontation, Malifaux etc. I think there's even some Chronopia still in there somewhere. I try to paint when I can but I'm working two jobs and have a new baby to deal with so progress is slow. I'm mainly playing Warmachine at the moment and I'm barely keeping pace with one jack painted per month. My goal is fully painted armies and my ideal is to play against fully painted opponents, but I never expect either and still manage to enjoy gaming.

That sort of reasoned description of circumstances has no place on the internet.

plastictrees wrote:

Well, for a start the person that only paints doesn't show up to a game store, put his models opposite me on the table and then actively refuse to play me for an hour and a half, but I am expected to happily face someone's grey horde week after week because they can't find three hours, some spray paint and some dip.

Hahaha, no.

Modellers and painters don't detract from my experience of the game by doing their thing, people that never paint do. I'm perfectly happy to be completely unreasonable about this. I don't care if it's not what you got into gaming for, it's part of the hobby, deal with it or go play the (billions) of games that don't ask you to paint anything under any circumstances. I know gamers with 4 kids that still get stuff painted (slowly) so yes, if you never paint any of your models I'll label you lazy.

Well, from what you're saying, your experience isn't enjoyable because someone didn't paint their models? Wow, aren't we just picky? Kid, I'll put it nicely, get over it.

You can either be content with the fact that some random guy thinks you're lazy or you can paint your models.

Why should I care what someone else thinks?

If you don't care, actually don't care, don't run around demanding that I respect your decision to not do things.

If you don't like it, then you can play another game, like yugioh, where it won't be a problem.

augustus5 wrote:For as long as there have been people who enjoyed wargaming but didn't enjoy painting, there have been unpainted armies. I started playing miniature wargames in 1991, and have seen others play with unpainted armies and have played with some unpainted armies myself. Many people really like the game, but don't really care for the modeling/painting side of the hobby.

Yeah, this. I started just a couple of years before you. Though I have to say that perpetually half-or-part-painted armies have been very common for a very long time. THis is not counting when we used to play at the tables in the local FLGS and buy units to use immediately, which also happened a lot.

remilia_scarlet wrote:

Well, from what you're saying, your experience isn't enjoyable because someone didn't paint their models? Wow, aren't we just picky? Kid, I'll put it nicely, get over it.

It's less enjoyable to me, yes. In the same way that watching a movie on a tiny, fuzzy screen is less enjoyable than watching it in glorious technicolour on a big screen. If discerning between varying degrees of enjoyment is picky then yes, I'm picky. Also, are you implying that I'm younger than you or a baby goat? It's so hard to determine tone on the internet.

remilia_scarlet wrote:

You can either be content with the fact that some random guy thinks you're lazy or you can paint your models.

Why should I care what someone else thinks?

You shouldn't, necessarily, that's pretty much part of the sentence you quoted.

remilia_scarlet wrote:

If you don't care, actually don't care, don't run around demanding that I respect your decision to not do things.

If you don't like it, then you can play another game, like yugioh, where it won't be a problem.

But then I wouldn't get to paint models...which I enjoy doing. Maybe you're condescendingly demanding that the wrong people change games?

plastictrees wrote:
But then I wouldn't get to paint models...which I enjoy doing. Maybe you're condescendingly demanding that the wrong people change games?

I suggested a game where you don't have to worry about who does and doesn't paint their models, since it's an issue with you. If I don't want to paint my models, it's my prerogative, you didn't buy the kits, if it's an issue, and you /love/ painting models, start a painting service, otherwise, deal with it. it's not the end of the world because someone doesn't paint their models, especially if you're not going to use it.

remilia_scarlet wrote:

plastictrees wrote:
But then I wouldn't get to paint models...which I enjoy doing. Maybe you're condescendingly demanding that the wrong people change games?

I suggested a game where you don't have to worry about who does and doesn't paint their models, since it's an issue with you. If I don't want to paint my models, it's my prerogative, you didn't buy the kits, if it's an issue, and you /love/ painting models, start a painting service, otherwise, deal with it. it's not the end of the world because someone doesn't paint their models, especially if you're not going to use it.

I am dealing with it, by gaming for twenty years. I never said it's the end of the world. My preference is to play against painted models, I find it more enjoyable than playing against unpainted models. At no point am stapling a paintbrush to your hand and locking you in a room with your unpainted army. Maybe you need to work out why someone not thoroughly enjoying other peoples decisions is bothering you so much.
Also, maybe I shouldn't get into arguments with shrieking nose-less demons.

It's anime, all noses are tiny. Back OT, did you read the part about the painting service? It seems nobody ever does it, it would solve the problem, and put extra money in your pocket, since you love painting, I do it, I'm not professional, but, I'll make them look decent for a fair price. It's a problem because it makes gaming unpleasant when someone is being an asshat over painting, I don't care, I'll play against empty bases, as long as the game is enjoyable, and everyone else is chill.

remilia_scarlet wrote:It's anime, all noses are tiny. Back OT, did you read the part about the painting service? It seems nobody ever does it, it would solve the problem, and put extra money in your pocket, since you love painting, I do it, I'm not professional, but, I'll make them look decent for a fair price. It's a problem because it makes gaming unpleasant when someone is being an asshat over painting, I don't care, I'll play against empty bases, as long as the game is enjoyable, and everyone else is chill.

I'm being an "asshat" in a thread about painted models. I don't actually harass people about painting their models while we're playing.
Did the painting service thing, back when I could sort of afford to do terrible paying jobs, to varying degrees of success and disaster. Again, I'm not demanding that people paint their models, or even expecting them to, I'm expressing a preference.

I'm pretty sure this thread hasn't been OT for about a page and a half.

mikhaila wrote:As soon as there was an enviorment that allowed unpainted models, you saw armies of them popping up.

But what created that environment?

Was it conventions?

Was it venues?

Was it the games?

Was it the miniatures?

Was it the players themselves?

And Malfred with the save!

Are we talking about TTGs since Chainmail or so (lets call that Wargaming) or are we including historical TTGs in there as well?

I think the biggest factor is just that as Wargaming has become bigger it's encompassed people that don't care all that much about painting.
Lets also distinguish between people that play with unpainted models but are slowly painting them, and people that only ever play with unpainted models and will never paint them. The latter I don't think I've ever really seen until recently, but that's mostly through only playing with friends and at GTs I would imagine.

I do not mind playing against unpainted armies too much, but the fact of the matter is this, if 6 months later I come up against the same army and its all still grey, i wont really want to play you. Simple as it is, I am a busy man, i have played with unpainted armies with the premise that they will be painted or are a work in progress, never ever ever ever ever ever ever have i played an army with no intent to never paint them to completion. The nice part about this hobby is the constant work in progress you can do, whether its the building phase, conversion phase, painting phase, making a display board phase, and starting the process again with a new army or reworking the one you have, the premise behind it should be that its going to be worked on and eventually finished and i understand if you have just started an army, i have been there. I understand if you don't have time and will afford you a break on that, but I want to see potential progress with your army the next time i see it, PAINTING IS PART OF THE GAME! I currently am playing with a half finished army, BUT I AM ACTUALLY WORKING ON FINISHING IT!

Dave-c wrote:I do not mind playing against unpainted armies too much, but the fact of the matter is this, if 6 months later I come up against the same army and its all still grey, i wont really want to play you. Simple as it is, I am a busy man, i have played with unpainted armies with the premise that they will be painted or are a work in progress, never ever ever ever ever ever ever have i played an army with no intent to never paint them to completion. The nice part about this hobby is the constant work in progress you can do, whether its the building phase, conversion phase, painting phase, making a display board phase, and starting the process again with a new army or reworking the one you have, the premise behind it should be that its going to be worked on and eventually finished and i understand if you have just started an army, i have been there. I understand if you don't have time and will afford you a break on that, but I want to see potential progress with your army the next time i see it, PAINTING IS PART OF THE GAME! I currently am playing with a half finished army, BUT I AM ACTUALLY WORKING ON FINISHING IT!

I don't think our preferences are part of this topic. The question is what lead to
the fielding of unpainted armies. plastictrees posits that the growth of wargaming
has lead to the inclusion of different types of wargamers.

plastictrees wrote:I'm being an "asshat" in a thread about painted models. I don't actually harass people about painting their models while we're playing.
Did the painting service thing, back when I could sort of afford to do terrible paying jobs, to varying degrees of success and disaster. Again, I'm not demanding that people paint their models, or even expecting them to, I'm expressing a preference.

I never said YOU were an asshat, unless you harass people and be an asshat. Trust me, if you came to my LGS, you'll be able to tell right away, they gather like vultures to scrutinize your paint jobs, and look for a fault to harass you on. If you're cool about it, I don't mind paint enthusiasts, I don't mind grey armies, and I apologize if you thought I was calling you an asshat, just prefer your preference, and don't get all up in arms when you play against an unpainted army.

All in all, I don't mind paint nazis(within reason), I don't mind the people who don't paint, I don't mind proxies within reason, as long as there's a chill environment, I don't care if you went andy warhol on your minis, and just splashed paint randomly on them.

Also, if you refer to my sig, you'll see I don't hate anyone on dakka.

MagickalMemories wrote:
What seems to be the difference between you (and many who agree that armies should be painted) and those of us who don't care is that WE are not actually running around demanding that you "respect our decision." We simply ask that you leave us the heck alone about it. You "hobby" your way and let us "hobby" our way, without having to deal with your open scorn and derision. That isn't asking you to respect our decision. That is asking you to respect us as human beings...

Despite the way things are expressed on internet boards, I think that this is pretty much the way most of us (there are some asshats on boths sides) function in the real world and the way they should. Painters and not, are going to meet at Gaming Clubs and FLGS's, chat, be civil, maybe even be friends, and when it comes time to play, those for whom painted armies are a prime part of their experience should just try and avoid the unpainted folks.

Slightly back on track, the "Hobby our way" is something we all seem to at least understand (if not always pleased with), and I wonder if that's a more recent (within the last 20-30 years) thing. It's certainly a concept that doesn't apply to all activities, though it has taken root strongly in GW/PP players. It's basically a rejection of the idea that certain activities require the meeting, or pursuit of, of certain standards. Whatever stigma unpainted armies may have once had, it's rapidly fading. It has probably meant that more non-painters have joined the hobby and more $ has entred the wargaming industry and a larger industry is definitley a good thing.

However, more "gamers" and a larger wargaming industry is not going to erase the feeling of many of us that when you walk into a FLGS and almost all the armies are grey, something beautiful about the hobby has been (or is being) lost.

malfred wrote:

mikhaila wrote:As soon as there was an enviorment that allowed unpainted models, you saw armies of them popping up.

But what created that environment?
Was it conventions?
Was it venues?
Was it the games?
Was it the miniatures?
Was it the players themselves?

Despite all the tangents goind on, this is what I'd really like to know.

Maybe the change came when a large portion of the game
became more about a game in a fictional universe than
re-creating or simulating an existing time period. If your goal
is simulation and immersion, then paint would be essential. If
it's only about the gameplay, then game rules would be more
essential.

Just think about all the people who turn down the detailing on
their graphic cards in order to have a more playable video
game experience.

I'd rather most of the (bad) tournament players not try and paint their armies. It's less hassle for me when they sell me their stuff for a song after they got the Warhams kicked out of them and flocked to the next flavor of the month.

It's bad enough that I usually have to rebuild a quarter of their stuff or more because they don't know how to assemble a model either.

In hindsight, I probably should've posting my opinion earlier ... oh well here we go!

Ok, for me (gaming since 1995) as the point limits have grown and the number of models have increased, I have seen more unpainted figures. I am lucky though as the position of 'paint your stuff to win more shiny bitz' keeps a lot of us painting. I don't paint like I used to, more because I lack the space to paint ... and da 'big boss' demands what little time we have together with our work schedules so my painting time is really minimal right now... but I full intend to finish off my deathwing ... 'cause i like shiny bitz.

malfred wrote:

mikhaila wrote:As soon as there was an enviorment that allowed unpainted models, you saw armies of them popping up.

But what created that environment?

It was people who actually wanted to play the game.

DarknessEternal wrote:

malfred wrote:

mikhaila wrote:As soon as there was an enviorment that allowed unpainted models, you saw armies of them popping up.

But what created that environment?

It was people who actually wanted to play the game.

I think it is also something to note... The metagame was broken and unplayable as a game system up until 4-5th edition. This idea of bringing 'ard' lists didn't exist because you could make the game unplayable with 'ard lists. I could have an Ork HQ unit with 60models and almost 80+ wounds. (infact, I have it... Whenever some guy claimed he was 'the bexztorz at fourty kay and comp was for losers, he could lose to an unassaultable, un shootable, 60 model mess of ork HQ) This was also during the time of horrible VDR rules and such. Because of this, there was less focus on 'the game' because 'the game' was a joke.

It wasn't until 'the game' became playable and had a tighter ruleset that this focus on the meta game really increased. I feel like people who were expelled from previous editions and gaming stores and groups because they wanted to show up with 180 chaos cultists on 60MM bases for 3 points each and win the game by default due to unrefined LOS rules and other issues. Now they can show up with a SPAM metalist and not be seen as a total unreasonable person. The game actually has begun to have integrity where the previous editions and codexes did not. It was very hard to claim to be a disciple of 'the game' and only want to play 'the game' when 'the game' was an unbalanced steaming pile.

As the game gains integrity, the idea of playing 40k as a 'metagame' grows. As long as well run events require painting, I will be happy. 'Ard boyz is such a poor quality of gaming and so poorly run, I am not afraid that it will overtake the current tourney format. ('ard boyz issues have nothing to do with appearance either.)

My bloodbowl teams and Necromunda gangs are completely painted my vast hordes of bugs and eldar have been bare metal/whatever ever since I started playing (end of rogue trader era).

I have been a gamer since 1984, i would love to have the time to paint an army. I am working on the last of my magnet swaps on the bugs, then I will get enough foam cases for all of them, then I will begin airbrushing them. Then rinse repeat with the eldar. See my sig for an accurate points count of shiny paint free figs.

I personally would rather see unpainted vs about %85 of the gak that gets fielded in my area.

warboss wrote:

MagickalMemories wrote:<SNIP>

Eric

You're just saying that because you're an Clinton appointee who moderatorshipness at an internet trading site is dependent on the continuing selling/trading of those grey/silver hordes! If people refused to play with or against unpainted models, you'd be out of an (unpaid) job and have alot more free time on your hands... I declare bias!

Gah! I'm caught!
Actually, I'm a Linrandir appointee, though. lol

plastictrees wrote:
Mostly the difference between me, and in this case, you, is that I'm expressing an extremely exaggerated version of my opinion in response to people that appear to be belligerently opposed to fielding painted armies, whereas you are describing actual reality.

The reality is that I have buckets of unpainted models, 40k, Fantasy, Warmachine, Confrontation, Malifaux etc. I think there's even some Chronopia still in there somewhere. I try to paint when I can but I'm working two jobs and have a new baby to deal with so progress is slow. I'm mainly playing Warmachine at the moment and I'm barely keeping pace with one jack painted per month. My goal is fully painted armies and my ideal is to play against fully painted opponents, but I never expect either and still manage to enjoy gaming.

That sort of reasoned description of circumstances has no place on the internet.

Fair enough, re: "expressing an extremely exaggerated version." Keeping in mind the kind of responses that evokes (i.e. much o fthis thread lol), I'm not sure that expressing anything but how you genuinely feel is the best approach in any conversation... especially online.

I presumed you had unpainted models. Most gamers do. I was addressing the topic of gaming with unpainted armies/units.

malfred wrote:Maybe the change came when a large portion of the game
became more about a game in a fictional universe than
re-creating or simulating an existing time period. If your goal
is simulation and immersion, then paint would be essential. If
it's only about the gameplay, then game rules would be more
essential.

Just think about all the people who turn down the detailing on
their graphic cards in order to have a more playable video
game experience.

You've got a really interesting point here, Malf.
If what you're saying is true, then I'd say POST Chainmail (which, as I recall, was initially tactical medieval battle rules & not "fantasy") would probably be the right time period.
I've seen tons of Napoleonics and other historical games played and I don't think I've ever seen an unpainted army... or probably even a model on the field.
"Make believe" wargames and RPG's that use models have ALWAYS had unpainted models in my expereince.

Eric

For the most part, gaming stores in Orlando have a 40K tournament each weekend at one of the 5 local stores. When the Ard Boyz requirements stated unpainted models were fine, that somehow became the gold standard. Then in order to boost attendance, each store relaxed their painting requirements and removed a painting award. I think painted armies are re-surfacing but I'm not going to hold my breath.

plastictrees wrote:
I'm being an "asshat" in a thread about painted models. I don't actually harass people about painting their models while we're playing.
Did the painting service thing, back when I could sort of afford to do terrible paying jobs, to varying degrees of success and disaster. Again, I'm not demanding that people paint their models, or even expecting them to, I'm expressing a preference.

I'm pretty sure this thread hasn't been OT for about a page and a half.

I'm a painter more than a gamer, and though I play with half-painted models when I have to, I prefer to at least get basecoats down on newer models before I play them. I have to say that while your initial, exaggerated posts made you appear like a giant douche who I'd never want to actually play against (and that's to me - a painter!), your more recent ones make you seem like much more of a reasonable guy. I prefer the latter posts.

nkelsch wrote:GW required 100% painted minis in GW stores and battle bunkers within a 50 mile radius of GW US HQ up intil around 2005-2006. This is also when RTTs were in full force and GW GTs were around. All required painting.

When the GW GT died, GW began letting unpainted models towards the launch of 4th edition in my experience. When GW began allowing unpainted in GW stores... the genie was out of the bottle.

Up until then, all GW stores required painting and most FLGS near me required at least PRIMED to distinguish from people opening stuff and assembling in store and possibly 'stealing' things. Requiring primed was a theft deterrent as it is harder to steal a 40$ model and assemble it in a corner and play it and claim it is yours if it has to have a coat of primer on it.

This is it exactly. It used to be that GW's required painted (or at least partially painted) miniatures for you to be able to play. As a teenager I remember the manager of a store preventing a youngster from fielding his marines because they had literally just had a couple of blobs of paint on them. I know that some stores were quite strict in that regard. Once that environment disappeared, the impetus to paint your army went with it. In my view, that's a shame - although I would never not play someone on the grounds that there army is unpainted, the experience is usually that much more enjoyable if they are - gives you some extra conversation with the person, chance to check out each others stuff etc. and although it is a favorite line of WD and GW going back to time immemorial, it is one I agree with: The site of two, well painted and modelled armies on well made terrain just feels right

Also, as someone else said earlier in the thread, I think an important issue is the amount of models needed to field a full force. It's now something of an uphill battle, especially for the likes of WSB or horde armies where you are looking at potentially 50 very similar troops. Motivation is a key point here. I'm actually really enjoying Infinity at the moment, because I know with each model I will not have to paint that same sculpt again, and I can lavish extra care and attention on them rather than 'production line' painting which I find to be a chore. In fact, I think that anyone who can paint a 2000-2500 pt army these days, and do so within 24 months and to a reasonable standard, deserves some kind of certificate from GW!

Another point, and while I have said I don't mind specifically playing against unpainted armies, I find that people who have spend time painting and constructing them properly tend to look after them a bit more on the tabletop. Memories of a one-armed, unpainted Ghazkull tumbling down a hill and crushing a combat squad of my poor tactical marines beneath ("sorry mate", as ghazkull got thrown in the box later on with the WFB movement trays used to represent war bikes). It probably would have happened in the combat anyway, but that is beside the point

I remember seeing it start cropping up from third edition 40k onwards. When GW halved all points costs over night people suddenly had to add the same amount to there army they already had painted to stay at the same points.

Also as time went by GW kept slowly decreasing points while expanding army sizes so a lot of people never caught up and lots just gave up trying.

New people to the hobby then saw these part painted/unpainted armies and thought it was the norm.

In first and second edition 40k I can never remember fielding or facing an unpainted army.

Also as people become more competitive over time in the hobby the WAAC douche bags now have started the bandwagon codex merry go round. As soon as a new codex comes out, they go on the Internet to find a "broken list of doom" build it quick as possible without painting it just to get some cheap wins over people who haven't read the codex yet, or learnt to beat it yet, then move swiftly onto the next "broken" codex. All in the name of try to prop up there pitiful self esteem and fill a nagging void in there lives, sad isn't it.

It's a shame those people are around, we have a strong bunch of WFB tournament players locally, very competitive but fair and have fully painted, and in some case exceptionally well painted armies.

Thats the way it should be done, friendly, fair, competitive gamers who take pride in making the game enjoyable by presenting good looking armies to the table.

MagickalMemories wrote:I've been in gaming since 1981. I didn't get into minis until about 1985, but I was occasionally around them at the FLGS. As far back as I can remember seeing people use minis in RPG's and in wargames, I can remember unpainted models.

IMO, a better question would be to ask when the view that models/armies had to be painted come into common usage.

Eric

I have to agree totally with this. I first started gaming in 1978 when my brothers brought home the original boxed set for Dungeons and Dragons. I started wargaming about 1987 with Warhammer Fantasy, and started playing Rogue Trader when it was first available here in Georgia (still have that book I bought around 1988).

There have always been people who played with unpainted miniatures. I have to agree with MM that the dramatic increase in the number and quality of painted armies happened when Rogue Trader tournaments started up and had the requirement that the armies had to be painted. I want to say that was sometime in the early 1990's?

I think that recently we've started to see fewer painted armies because of the backlash against "soft-scores" for determining the winner at tournaments. More tournaments today are either leaving out scoring for painting entirely or having the painting scoring be totally separate from the overall winner. Consequently, there's less incentive for the player who loathes painting to finish painting the army.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

plastictrees wrote:Are we talking about TTGs since Chainmail or so (lets call that Wargaming) or are we including historical TTGs in there as well?

OMG, I still have my Chainmail book My brothers bought it in around 1983 when we visited Washington DC to visit family. We used to play that a lot as kids. I had totally forgotten about that, and didn't even think to include that as "wargaming."

Oh, and BTW, we never played with painted figures back then.

I've been gaming for about 10 years, 40k for about eight, and I've seen largely unpainted armies for most of the time I've been playing.

Most of the time I see largely unpainted armies, they're owned by younger gamers (younger than 21) who may still have a "toy" mentality or want to play the game moreso than take the time to paint their models. Older players, I find, have a better appreciation for the hobby as a whole and not just the gaming aspects, thus get more satisfaction out of seeing a fully painted army.

UNCLEBADTOUCH wrote:Also as people become more competitive over time in the hobby the WAAC douche bags now have started the bandwagon codex merry go round. As soon as a new codex comes out, they go on the Internet to find a "broken list of doom" build it quick as possible without painting it just to get some cheap wins over people who haven't read the codex yet, or learnt to beat it yet, then move swiftly onto the next "broken" codex. All in the name of try to prop up there pitiful self esteem and fill a nagging void in there lives, sad isn't it.

What's wrong? Did you get tabled one too many times? These people aren't so bad, because if you're wise, you'll wait for the next codex to come out, and get their minis off them for a reasonable price, because they want the new ones. I just got 30 GK terminators for a competitive list for $30 because of the sisters codex in white dwarf.

@remilla I can get tabled by a small blind kid lol it's the attitude I despise as I still think of wargaming as a sociable hobby. The cheap goodies on eBay are indeed the only upside to there existence.

UNCLEBADTOUCH wrote:@remilla I can get tabled by a small blind kid lol it's the attitude I despise as I still think of wargaming as a sociable hobby. The cheap goodies on eBay are indeed the only upside to there existence.

It is, I mean, the guys I play with are much older than I, have played since rogue trader, and play a balance between casual and competitive. Those types you mentioned are a dime a dozen, and come and go, just treat them with the same regard as you'd treat those douches that hang out in the mall. That being said, just think of them as potential discount models.

There have always been hordes of unpainted armies. I myself am a slow painter and have been fir 14 years.

I first noticed it when GW started to relax the 'All models must have 3 colours and be based Goblin Green'. Honestly that's how it was at the GW I played in Vancouver BC. I think it was 1990-91 when they opened up here and since the store opened you HAD it have painted models because painting and modeling is part of 'The Hobby' ©,tm GWplc. The crappy thing was all models had to be baised with goblin green around the outside edge of the base. Even if you had like spaceship themed basing it had to be based with GG.


When they moved to metrotown it was even worse. It was no OLD GW figgies. So if there was a newer version of the figgies out say the SpaceMarine Tac box. Before that you had the RTB01 models, you couldn't use the RTB01's in the store anymore. I had a huge RT era Imperial Guard army, and because the the metal figgies had come out I was told I couldn't use them anymore. That was the First time I got mad at GW and sold all my stuff.....fun times....

So to answer your question, around here it was when GW relaxed the 'all models must be painted' rule that you started to see the 'Greyspacemarinechapterwhothisweekarebloodangelsandnextweekgreyknights' weekness start.

I've not seen an unpainted horde in historical or ancients tournaments here in 20+ years. it's just something that is "just not done".
The basic ethos of those gamers pretty much encourages you to paint your armymens. Lets face it, with those time periods, it's the main way your opponent can tell WHICH of Caesar's Legions you are playing.

Well to be fair, some people really suck at painting and really hate to look at their sucky painting. Me included. I paint so bad that an unpainted mini looks glorious next to a painted mini of mine.

chromedog wrote:I've not seen an unpainted horde in historical or ancients tournaments here in 20+ years. it's just something that is "just not done".
The basic ethos of those gamers pretty much encourages you to paint your armymens. Lets face it, with those time periods, it's the main way your opponent can tell WHICH of Caesar's Legions you are playing.

Agree fully. I think the rise of metal/grey armies coincided with the rise of plastic non-historical games.

I started 40k probably 6 months before 2nd ed came out.
When most minis were lead, you painted them because they made your hands black.
Plastics never had that problem, so as more plastic kits were available for 40k/fantasy, more unpainted armies appeared.

Looking back, my 2000+pt Ork army from 2nd ed was fully painted.
All the others were work in progress.

I have an Orc fantasy army that was fully painted, until I tried to play the game, and realized how bad my painted build was.
THis here may be the thing.
When you could still get a decent game out of a non-optimized list, then fully painted was easy. You bought the models you liked and painted.
No worries on if the stuff you painted worked together or was overmatched.

chromedog wrote:I've not seen an unpainted horde in historical or ancients tournaments here in 20+ years. it's just something that is "just not done".
The basic ethos of those gamers pretty much encourages you to paint your armymens. Lets face it, with those time periods, it's the main way your opponent can tell WHICH of Caesar's Legions you are playing.

This. And this was also my experience with my 40k and whfb gaming group. When I was taught how to play the game, the Hobby was stressed, with an emphasis on sportsmanship and painting. Very rarely did someone come to the table with an unpainted unit, and if they did, by next game it was painted. I was also coming from an RPG background, and had already been painting tons of models for that.

There may have been unpainted hordes in people's basements, but I'd never know, because we played in our group. I only attended GW tournaments because they were it at the time, and they required all painted armies. Even GW stores required it (don't think they do now). So I will put the rise of unpainted armies on a couple of things:

1) GW deemphasizing the hobby aspect with ard boyz and looser in store requirements
2) GW increasing army sizes, and game sizes with each edition (I remember 1500 as standard GT fare)
3) GW handing over tournaments to the community

The GW GTs are why I have 3 fully painted 40k armies of up to 1850 points. I have rafts of other stuff still to paint, but I paint it before it hits the table, that's my motivation (and I have a full time job and a 2 year old). The immersion in the game, whether its Nappies, ancients, jets, age of sail, sci-fi or whatever, is what prompts the painting. Its not the same experience facing unpainted models.

I have been a wargamer for far too long - approaching fifty years now - and I can remember the first UK national wargames championships, with hordes of unpainted airfix figures (even in a variety different plastic colours) marching to death and glory in the late sixties, early seventies.

Slowly painted armies became the norm, but there has been a trend latelly to allow the "greys" to return

No point being too fixiated on it though , after all we are only playing with toys.....lol

wilycoyote wrote:
No point being too fixiated on it though , after all we are only playing with toys.....lol

LIES!