Who cares? It's a HOBBY, do w/e you want and get w/e you want out of it. There's no set way to go about this... I just don't understand why people let it emotionally affect them when it's not their army or their models lol.

Some people prefer to play against a fully painted army as it helps them get into the spirit of things.

My army is not painted, and if someone did not want to play against me because of that, it's their choice.

Because it's a part of the gaming hobby.

Yes, the hobby in and of itself is segregated, some collect and paint, some model, some play, some do a combination of any or all of those things.

However, the gaming/play side of it is supposed to be done properly, that means with legally modelled and painted miniatures.

Someone who fields an army of grey plastic miniatures which require their own assembly and painting can be seen by an opponent to be half-arsing it, i.e. putting in half the effort and only partaking in half the hobby.

Frankly, I'm inclined to agree with them. Why? Because if it was any other aspect of the hobby it wouldn't matter as much because it doesn't directly affect the other hobbyist. However, battling with unpainted figures does have a direct impact on the other persons interaction/enjoyment of the hobby.

Some people honestly value the hobby aspect over the actual game itself, usually citing the fact that you spend much longer painting and modeling than you do playing (though on a long enough timeline, i challenge that assumption).

Others are just elitist gakkers.

I love to play against painted armies. I would never refuse to play someone because their army isn't painted. Ever.



I paint incredibly slowly and with painstaking attention to detail (for my skill level), and i'm hyper critical of my work. I will not be happy with a mini until it's "right", which leads me to have armies i've been collecting for years that are still getting paint on them. Admittedly, i enjoy the modeling side of the hobby probably more than painting, but i do like to paint.

If someone didn't want to play against me because my force is in a half state of paint, i wouldn't bother taking the time to explain the above paragraph to them ; they are likely not someone i would have a good time playing either, so we're both better off just finding other opponents - they, so my half painted army doesn't wound their delicate sensibilities, and me, because i don't like playing with holier than thou people.

Yes i'm coming off a bit biased and possibly a touch jerky. I just can't fathom wrinkling my nose and refusing to play someone because their army isn't painted. That just screams of being a jerk to me.


(War)Gamers are such a marginalized subculture as it is, why further sub-marginalize each other ?

*shrug*

 Anfauglir wrote:
Because it's a part of the gaming hobby.

Yes, the hobby in and of itself is segregated, some collect and paint, some model, some play, some do a combination of any or all of those things.

However, the gaming/play side of it is supposed to be done properly, that means with legally modelled and painted miniatures.

Someone who fields an army of grey plastic miniatures which require their own assembly and painting can be seen by an opponent to be half-arsing it, i.e. putting in half the effort and only partaking in half the hobby.

Frankly, I'm inclined to agree with them. Why? Because if it was any other aspect of the hobby it wouldn't matter as much because it doesn't directly affect the other hobbyist. However, battling with unpainted figures does have a direct impact on the other persons interaction/enjoyment of the hobby.

There's no rules in a hobby... You partake in your own hobby any way you want to. I don't see in the rule book anything stating armies must be painted. My army is painted and I do that because that's how I justify my own purchase, but honestly, I could give a rats ass if my opponents stuff is painted. It affects me in no way shape or form and who am I to tell someone else what to do with their time and money? If they want to play, come play! It's a game that's meant for fun. I honestly see the only people getting upset about this sort of thing are the self loathing neck beards.

Its not unpainted models in general, but its what they can connote. Say you could be a flavour of the month player, new army comes out, you buy the most abuse able army available then once the meta has changed to meet the new army, you sell yours on ebay (You get a better deal if you leave models unpainted) and get your next army. Or maybe because some people play for the spirit of the game, and having my lovingly painted wood elves being wailed on by new High elves when most of them are simply legs and torsos is fairly disheartening and not in MY spirit of the game. If someone is genuinely busy, or its a new army, then I'd gladly play them and say no more about it. But if its a years old army, then I'd much prefer playing against a painted army (not even well painted, it doesn't take much to get them to 'table top' standard) then an unpainted/unassembled army because it helps me get into the feeling more. How can I get into a universe, when half built models keep reminding me I'm playing a board game?

Not speaking for myself of course, but I think it might be a sort of insult, as in: "I took the time to paint my army, this person didn't even bother." Which I sort of get. Why spend the thousands on an army for 40k, something that is built around showing off your army as much as (if not more than sometimes) playing the game, and then just do NOTHING with the figures. *shrug*

A form of elitism maybe? In tournament play I know the armies have to be painted, or mostly anyway, for judging reasons.

Dunno why people get annoyed. Why do people make posts on forums with a goal to insight an argument?

 Frankenberry wrote:
Not speaking for myself of course, but I think it might be a sort of insult, as in: "I took the time to paint my army, this person didn't even bother." Which I sort of get. Why spend the thousands on an army for 40k, something that is built around showing off your army as much as (if not more than sometimes) playing the game, and then just do NOTHING with the figures. *shrug*

A form of elitism maybe? In tournament play I know the armies have to be painted, or mostly anyway, for judging reasons.

Dunno why people get annoyed. Why do people make posts on forums with a goal to insight an argument?

Why do people try to insight arguments on forums?! That's another thing I never understood!

I will play against someone with an unpainted army.

However, I won't enjoy it anywhere near as much as if the army was painted. 40k is much cooler when you're playing against a specific chapter of Space Marines, rather than a collection of grey army men (especially for fluff bunnies such as myself).

Personally, I view painting and modelling as a vital part of the hobby (I know this view isn't shared by all). This leads to me expecting to see signs of progress on an army. It doesn't have to be much, just a layer of undercoat one month and two or three basecoated infantry models the next shows that you're at least putting some time in occasionally and means I'll be happy to keep playing you.

It's the height of arrogance, I know, but there you have it.

Dalymiddleboro wrote:
There's no rules in a hobby...

I didn't say it was a rule, I said it was the proper way to play. Because it is.

I could give a rats ass if my opponents stuff is painted. It affects me in no way shape or form.

Okay. That's fine, more power to you. You can only speak for yourself, however. Does it make me mad or refuse a game when someone pulls out an unpainted army? No, it doesn't. Does it affect the quality of the game/immersion in the hobby? Yes, most definitely.

 ALEXisAWESOME wrote:
Its not unpainted models in general, but its what they can connote. Say you could be a flavour of the month player, new army comes out, you buy the most abuse able army available then once the meta has changed to meet the new army, you sell yours on ebay (You get a better deal if you leave models unpainted) and get your next army. Or maybe because some people play for the spirit of the game, and having my lovingly painted wood elves being wailed on by new High elves when most of them are simply legs and torsos is fairly disheartening and not in MY spirit of the game. If someone is genuinely busy, or its a new army, then I'd gladly play them and say no more about it. But if its a years old army, then I'd much prefer playing against a painted army (not even well painted, it doesn't take much to get them to 'table top' standard) then an unpainted/unassembled army because it helps me get into the feeling more. How can I get into a universe, when half built models keep reminding me I'm playing a board game?

Exactly.

If i'm going to play someone I prefer it to at least liik like they are making an effort. I would never play an opponent with an entierly grey plastic army, or a massive load of stand ins/ proxys becuase it detracts from the game so much, if its helf painted and eveything if undecoated, i'll go with it, becuase at least they are having a go.

 Anfauglir wrote:

Dalymiddleboro wrote:
There's no rules in a hobby...

I didn't say it was a rule, I said it was the proper way to play. Because it is.

I could give a rats ass if my opponents stuff is painted. It affects me in no way shape or form.

Okay. That's fine, more power to you. You can only speak for yourself, however. Does it make me mad or refuse a game when someone pulls out an unpainted army? No, it doesn't. Does it affect the quality of the game/immersion in the hobby? Yes, most definitely.

 ALEXisAWESOME wrote:
Its not unpainted models in general, but its what they can connote. Say you could be a flavour of the month player, new army comes out, you buy the most abuse able army available then once the meta has changed to meet the new army, you sell yours on ebay (You get a better deal if you leave models unpainted) and get your next army. Or maybe because some people play for the spirit of the game, and having my lovingly painted wood elves being wailed on by new High elves when most of them are simply legs and torsos is fairly disheartening and not in MY spirit of the game. If someone is genuinely busy, or its a new army, then I'd gladly play them and say no more about it. But if its a years old army, then I'd much prefer playing against a painted army (not even well painted, it doesn't take much to get them to 'table top' standard) then an unpainted/unassembled army because it helps me get into the feeling more. How can I get into a universe, when half built models keep reminding me I'm playing a board game?

Exactly.

I don't think having painted models is the proper way to play. I think it's a matter of personal preference.

 ALEXisAWESOME wrote:
How can I get into a universe, when half built models keep reminding me I'm playing a board game?

Man, if unpainted models takes away from the "feel", I'd hate to think what open bottles of beer would do to the universe...

I started played almost 3 months ago but have worked my tail off trying to paint my entire army (orks). I am sick of painting ork boy after ork boy but I do it because when you get the armies on the table it looks 1000 times better when they are painted. I think it's easier to get lost in the game that way and makes it more enjoyable. I'm not saying I'd turn down a game with someone who had an unpainted army but if I had a choice I'd rather play the guy that put the time in to paint everything. But like people above me said, some people like to play others like to paint. Do what you want and get the most enjoyment out of your investment which ever way you decide to go.

I think it comes down to personal preference generally. But to be honest, it looks way cooler when painted armies are 'smashing' each other.

I'll play anyone, painted or no, but painted armies fighting does look pretty cool.

Dalymiddleboro wrote:
I don't think having painted models is the proper way to play. I think it's a matter of personal preference.

You think wrong.

Everyone enjoys their hobby differently. I have friends who hate painting. I personally enjoy it, but I have so much stuff there's no way I could get it all painted. For some of us, it's definitely a time constraint to get it all painted. Chances are, I can build and play or build and paint. If I feel like playing, a couple models might get painted because I'm super excited about them. Others might not. If people refused to play me because my army wasn't painted, it's there choice. However, chances are they're people I wouldn't want to associate with, if they have that attitude, so no loss on my part.

 Anfauglir wrote:

Dalymiddleboro wrote:
I don't think having painted models is the proper way to play. I think it's a matter of personal preference.

You think wrong.

There's no proper way to play. The book encourages forging a narrative, and even playing the rules differently if you would like to. You're wrong sir, people are welcome to play this game in any fashion. As long as both people agree, there's no wrong way to skin a cat.

I mean, I don't know if I'd say it makes me MAD if someone doesn't paint their army.... Its just one of those things where it gets kind of lame to go play unpainted stuff week after week.

I can only speak from extremely limited experience but what drew me to the hobby before 3rd edition was seeing my cousin's painted models. He is a very good painter. So I'm biased...

But looking at it from my POV, I go out to play a game once a week. Most of the people there are there week after week.

I think its just a shame to see people that have MASSIVE armies, or more than one massive army and nothing is even painted, or its just primed and painted like garbage..

It doesn't make me MAD, its just flat out not as cool to me.

Now, a lot of these guys are REALLY into 40k and know a ton more about the game and rules than I do, I'm sure it annoys them that I am such a novice but at least my army looks good.That's how I look at it. Its 2 different sets of values for people I guess.

If I REALLY want to take it to the nth degree I'd say the whole buy a bunch of minis and never paint them just creates a ton of demand for the product which shoots the prices up...

Imagine if people actually painted what they bought before buying dozens and dozens of kits and never finishing anything...

I know that's kind of extreme, but if a perfect world I think that would be ideal haha.

Just my .02 on it.

Dalymiddleboro wrote:

 Anfauglir wrote:

Dalymiddleboro wrote:
I don't think having painted models is the proper way to play. I think it's a matter of personal preference.

You think wrong.

There's no proper way to play. The book encourages forging a narrative, and even playing the rules differently if you would like to. You're wrong sir, people are welcome to play this game in any fashion. As long as both people agree, there's no wrong way to skin a cat.

Not saying it's impossible, but how does one 'forge a narrative' from primered/unpainted armies clashing on a dinner table? Imagination aside, those factors make creating an epic battle REALLY hard

from a pratical standpoint painting also allows easier reckongization of whose minis are what. even when they're painted up in the same paint scheme you can useally tell whose minis are whose.

Case in point, my last game was my ultramarines against someone else's space marines, likewise painted ultramarines. our style was slightly differnt so we could easily tell whose where whose (I used a darker blue)

Dalymiddleboro wrote:
There's no proper way to play.

Yes, there is. The hobby, in its full form, is designed, produced, packaged, sold and enjoyed by many in its natural, intended form. That is, someone buys a rulebook, army book, a collection of minis, assembles and paints said minis (to whatever degree/ability), and plays the TT game against another/others who have done likewise. This is the standard, socially accepted, "proper" or "normal" way to play games of WHFB/40K etc. This is not up for debate, it's simply the way it is. Period.

The book encourages forging a narrative, and even playing the rules differently if you would like to. You're wrong sir, people are welcome to play this game in any fashion. As long as both people agree, there's no wrong way to skin a cat.

Correct. Proper =/= only. Also, what you refer to "the book" encouraging doesn't make any referece to the state of the models vis-a-vis painted/unpainted, only the manner in which the models are used once they reach the tabletop.

They're designed/intended to be painted, whether you choose to use them as such or not. End of story.

 Frankenberry wrote:

Dalymiddleboro wrote:

 Anfauglir wrote:

Dalymiddleboro wrote:
I don't think having painted models is the proper way to play. I think it's a matter of personal preference.

You think wrong.

There's no proper way to play. The book encourages forging a narrative, and even playing the rules differently if you would like to. You're wrong sir, people are welcome to play this game in any fashion. As long as both people agree, there's no wrong way to skin a cat.

Not saying it's impossible, but how does one 'forge a narrative' from primered/unpainted armies clashing on a dinner table? Imagination aside, those factors make creating an epic battle REALLY hard

Your opponents models got turned into stone. BOOM! Took only a second. I'm just saying the people who actually let this bother them to the point of not wanting to play are elitist neck beards, and anyone that does that in my opinion should get outside more often. People need to stop nerd raging over army guys.

So anyone who doesn't play the way you want them to are 'elitist neckbeards' that need to 'go outside' and stop 'nerd raging over army guys'.

You just insulted the vast majority of wargamers and they're the ones who are raging?

Also, did anyone else see the irony in all of this?

 Frankenberry wrote:
So anyone who doesn't play the way you want them to are 'elitist neckbeards' that need to 'go outside' and stop 'nerd raging over army guys'.

You just insulted the vast majority of wargamers and they're the ones who are raging?

Also, did anyone else see the irony in all of this?

I'm not raging though, wrote that calmly. It's true though... Anyone that genuinely gets upset over army guys needs to reevaluate their priorities.

The only person who appears to be nerd raging to any extent in this thread is you!

Honestly, where have you got the idea that not playing against unpainted models is anything more substantial than a preference for the overwhelming majority?

One assumes you'd have no problem with Robert Downey Jr standing in front of a green screen in t-shirt and jeans reading his lines in the next Avengers or Iron Man movie? Because, you know, you'd still get all the story right?

For the record, I don't mind playing unpainted armies, although I limit myself to only fielding painted models as it is a good way of keeping me focused on getting it done.

 azreal13 wrote:
The only person who appears to be nerd raging to any extent in this thread is you!

Honestly, where have you got the idea that not playing against unpainted models is anything more substantial than a preference for the overwhelming majority?

One assumes you'd have no problem with Robert Downey Jr standing in front of a green screen in t-shirt and jeans reading his lines in the next Avengers or Iron Man movie? Because, you know, you'd still get all the story right?

For the record, I don't mind playing unpainted armies, although I limit myself to only fielding painted models as it is a good way of keeping me focused on getting it done.

Opening up a discussion doesn't qualify one as nerd raging. I don't care what my oponents do or do not paint. I'm just wondering why it eats away at some people.

I agree with everyone for painting armies. The whole hobby is based on doing the hard yards of completing an army from start to finish to how you want it to look. So that when you bring your army to war, the opponent can actually visualise the story that's unfolding on the tabletop. If I battle an opponent who has an unpaired army I can't get into the story at all and I honestly don't care if I loose or win, I just want it over. It doesn't take much to paint an army. 10 years ago we basically only had white dwarf and our codex to compare to. Now we have internet tutorials and YouTube videos to basically full proof any painting we do. In my mind an opponent with an unpainted army won't be judged, I just wouldn't have much interest battling as I wouldn't get a story with it.

This is what baffles me, where have you got the idea that it eats away at people?

Sure, I'd choose a painted army over a non painted army to play against, but who wouldn't?

I just can't picture anyone being kept up at nights by it, or, perhaps, anyone who is has much deeper issues than that.

Dalymiddleboro wrote:
Who cares? It's a HOBBY, do w/e you want and get w/e you want out of it. There's no set way to go about this... I just don't understand why people let it emotionally affect them when it's not their army or their models lol.

Exactly, it's a hobby, so why would you not participate in the hobby aspect, which is painting the figures?

well, you could be reallyyy bad at painting, collect them for different reasons, or just not like painting? maybe they want to play the game, and involve themselves, but loath painting the small things. Why should they have to take hours out of their lives just to satisfy your "immersion?"

on a side note, primer+ base coating really isn't to terribly hard. its hard to mess up just covering the entire model.

 Tyberos the Red Wake wrote:

Dalymiddleboro wrote:
Who cares? It's a HOBBY, do w/e you want and get w/e you want out of it. There's no set way to go about this... I just don't understand why people let it emotionally affect them when it's not their army or their models lol.

Exactly, it's a hobby, so why would you not participate in the hobby aspect, which is painting the figures?

There's no right or wrong way to have a hobby. I say if someone doesn't want to paint, who cares. People to refuse games based on that just seems childish to me.

 Anfauglir wrote:

Dalymiddleboro wrote:
There's no proper way to play.

Yes, there is. The hobby, in its full form, is designed, produced, packaged, sold and enjoyed by many in its natural, intended form. That is, someone buys a rulebook, army book, a collection of minis, assembles and paints said minis (to whatever degree/ability), and plays the TT game against another/others who have done likewise. This is the standard, socially accepted, "proper" or "normal" way to play games of WHFB/40K etc. This is not up for debate, it's simply the way it is. Period.

The book encourages forging a narrative, and even playing the rules differently if you would like to. You're wrong sir, people are welcome to play this game in any fashion. As long as both people agree, there's no wrong way to skin a cat.

Correct. Proper =/= only. Also, what you refer to "the book" encouraging doesn't make any referece to the state of the models vis-a-vis painted/unpainted, only the manner in which the models are used once they reach the tabletop.

They're designed/intended to be painted, whether you choose to use them as such or not. End of story.

You are coming off as highly high-and-mighty and arrogant. In what way, shape, or form is painting strictly required for someone to use their expensive plastic army men? Where is it written that your list of the parameters of the hobby are the game's laws of enjoying 40k? You have all rights to decline a game with someone for any reason, but where do you get the idea that you can tell someone off for having a different approach to the hobby? Not up for discussion, my squig's warty tail!

Yes, GW recommends that the armies be painted. Yes, said armies look better painted. But notice that GW also sells the paint, so naturally they'll self advertise. In the end, they don't care because once you've bought their kits, they have that money. If you got their paint, more so. If not, eh, they sold the kits already. So, in what way do they imply that painting is manditory? It's merely been recommended.

For people merely treating the hobby solely as a game, or those with no interest in painting, painted minis are going the extra mile. In what way is having an assembled, but unpainted army improper? I guess you'd never play me, as I haven't gotten around to painting everything yet. But I'll be damned if I field something that isn't assembled. Does it bother you that people don't use "proper" terrain, or don't use a dedicated gaming table or realm of battle tiles? Because that'd be me, too, seeing as there is no FLGS near me. I'm not sure I'd want to play you at any rate, with your attitude.

I finish with; while you may have a notion of what the "proper" way to engage in the hobby is, don't try to force it on others. Especially on the internet. I wouldn't have posted anything had you presented your opinion as an opinion, not an unalterable truth laid down by the Emperor himself. Good day to you.

OT; This hobby's too expensive to care what others do with their armies. If painted, great! If not, whatever! So long as I can tell what is what, and you don't mind reminding me what unfamiliar units are/do, then I'm good with it.

 Anfauglir wrote:

Dalymiddleboro wrote:
There's no rules in a hobby...

I didn't say it was a rule, I said it was the proper way to play. Because it is.

I think you're expressing your opinion of "proper" as a fact. Which is wrong.

BladeSwinga wrote:

 Anfauglir wrote:

Dalymiddleboro wrote:
There's no proper way to play.

Yes, there is. The hobby, in its full form, is designed, produced, packaged, sold and enjoyed by many in its natural, intended form. That is, someone buys a rulebook, army book, a collection of minis, assembles and paints said minis (to whatever degree/ability), and plays the TT game against another/others who have done likewise. This is the standard, socially accepted, "proper" or "normal" way to play games of WHFB/40K etc. This is not up for debate, it's simply the way it is. Period.

The book encourages forging a narrative, and even playing the rules differently if you would like to. You're wrong sir, people are welcome to play this game in any fashion. As long as both people agree, there's no wrong way to skin a cat.

Correct. Proper =/= only. Also, what you refer to "the book" encouraging doesn't make any referece to the state of the models vis-a-vis painted/unpainted, only the manner in which the models are used once they reach the tabletop.

They're designed/intended to be painted, whether you choose to use them as such or not. End of story.

You are coming off as highly high-and-mighty and arrogant. In what way, shape, or form is painting strictly required for someone to use their expensive plastic army men? Where is it written that your list of the parameters of the hobby are the game's laws of enjoying 40k? You have all rights to decline a game with someone for any reason, but where do you get the idea that you can tell someone off for having a different approach to the hobby? Not up for discussion, my squig's warty tail!

Yes, GW recommends that the armies be painted. Yes, said armies look better painted. But notice that GW also sells the paint, so naturally they'll self advertise. In the end, they don't care because once you've bought their kits, they have that money. If you got their paint, more so. If not, eh, they sold the kits already. So, in what way do they imply that painting is manditory? It's merely been recommended.

For people merely treating the hobby solely as a game, or those with no interest in painting, painted minis are going the extra mile. In what way is having an assembled, but unpainted army improper? I guess you'd never play me, as I haven't gotten around to painting everything yet. But I'll be damned if I field something that isn't assembled. Does it bother you that people don't use "proper" terrain, or don't use a dedicated gaming table or realm of battle tiles? Because that'd be me, too, seeing as there is no FLGS near me. I'm not sure I'd want to play you at any rate, with your attitude.

I finish with; while you may have a notion of what the "proper" way to engage in the hobby is, don't try to force it on others. Especially on the internet. I wouldn't have posted anything had you presented your opinion as an opinion, not an unalterable truth laid down by the Emperor himself. Good day to you.

OT; This hobby's too expensive to care what others do with their armies. If painted, great! If not, whatever! So long as I can tell what is what, and you don't mind reminding me what unfamiliar units are/do, then I'm good with it.

Amen brother! I bet you go outside and have fun don't you! Glad somebody else could see this from my perspective! Cheers.

Pretty sure this thread is pointless. This guy is going to see any attempt to actually answer the question as a reason to repeat himself.

People don't get mad when you don't paint your army. They think you're silly.
Elitist neckbeards that need to go out more eh? I guess the 90% of us who'd like to play against a painted army are just nerd shut-ins with no life. Oh wait, my wife, children, house, and career disagree with you.

Every reply has been answering your question in one form or another. Your replies are different versions of "I'll play whatever way I want to. Nyah!". Way to actually discuss the topic.

I agree with frankenberry... I think everybody if given the choice would rather play against a painted army than non. Whether your army is painted or not.

I can't imagine someone, with all things being equal, actually having a preference to play grey plastic or even hastily primed models.

 Frankenberry wrote:
Pretty sure this thread is pointless. This guy is going to see any attempt to actually answer the question as a reason to repeat himself.

People don't get mad when you don't paint your army. They think you're silly.
Elitist neckbeards that need to go out more eh? I guess the 90% of us who'd like to play against a painted army are just nerd shut-ins with no life. Oh wait, my wife, children, house, and career disagree with you.

Every reply has been answering your question in one form or another. Your replies are different versions of "I'll play whatever way I want to. Nyah!". Way to actually discuss the topic.

Relax bro, no need to get upset. It's a general discussion, posted in the general discussion forum. Half the threads in this forum are pointless. Take a few deep breaths

Hmmm, you've got too many posts to be a troll account, so I'm guessing you're a bored kid trying to bait some nerds?

I mean, you've asked a daft question, people have given you the benefit of the doubt and answered you as best they can, and as soon as there's a hint of anything you can jump on as slightly agitated all we get is "chillax bro, s'only toy soldiers!"

Oh, point of order, this is the 40K General section, not the General Discussion Section.

We'd eat you alive over there!

 azreal13 wrote:
Hmmm, you've got too many posts to be a troll account, so I'm guessing you're a bored kid trying to bait some nerds?

I mean, you've asked a daft question, people have given you the benefit of the doubt and answered you as best they can, and as soon as there's a hint of anything you can jump on as slightly agitated all we get is "chillax bro, s'only toy soldiers!"

Oh, point of order, this is the 40K General section, not the General Discussion Section.

We'd eat you alive over there!

Not sure how I'd be eaten alive on the interwebs. Don't care. I was asking a serious question and some people got butthurt so started getting snarky and all mad. I wish I was a kid! I'm 28 I'd do anything to be 18 again...

Dalymiddleboro wrote:

 azreal13 wrote:
Hmmm, you've got too many posts to be a troll account, so I'm guessing you're a bored kid trying to bait some nerds?

I mean, you've asked a daft question, people have given you the benefit of the doubt and answered you as best they can, and as soon as there's a hint of anything you can jump on as slightly agitated all we get is "chillax bro, s'only toy soldiers!"

Oh, point of order, this is the 40K General section, not the General Discussion Section.

We'd eat you alive over there!

Not sure how I'd be eaten alive on the interwebs. Don't care. I was asking a serious question and some people got butthurt so started getting snarky and all mad. I wish I was a kid! I'm 28 I'd do anything to be 18 again...

Oh dear....

Perhaps you are the one who needs more outside, because I'm afraid your posts don't read that way.

 azreal13 wrote:

Dalymiddleboro wrote:

 azreal13 wrote:
Hmmm, you've got too many posts to be a troll account, so I'm guessing you're a bored kid trying to bait some nerds?

I mean, you've asked a daft question, people have given you the benefit of the doubt and answered you as best they can, and as soon as there's a hint of anything you can jump on as slightly agitated all we get is "chillax bro, s'only toy soldiers!"

Oh, point of order, this is the 40K General section, not the General Discussion Section.

We'd eat you alive over there!

Not sure how I'd be eaten alive on the interwebs. Don't care. I was asking a serious question and some people got butthurt so started getting snarky and all mad. I wish I was a kid! I'm 28 I'd do anything to be 18 again...

Oh dear....

Perhaps you are the one who needs more outside, because I'm afraid your posts don't read that way.

I actually probably need to be inside more often.... Far too many bar nights my man. My life would have a lot less hangovers if I were a basement dweller.

BladeSwinga wrote:
In what way, shape, or form is painting strictly required for someone to use their expensive plastic army men? Where is it written that your list of the parameters of the hobby are the game's laws of enjoying 40k? You have all rights to decline a game with someone for any reason, but where do you get the idea that you can tell someone off for having a different approach to the hobby?

So, in what way do they imply that painting is manditory?

Not once, at any point, in any of my posts have I said any of that. Please read carefully all posts in the topic, noting to whom/what they are replying to, in what context(s) the content of those posts were made and, therefore, what has been said (and not said) by another user before making a reply.

In what way is having an assembled, but unpainted army improper?

In the way that they're not being used as intended. Honestly guys, this isn't a hard concept.

I guess you'd never play me, as I haven't gotten around to painting everything yet. But I'll be damned if I field something that isn't assembled. Does it bother you that people don't use "proper" terrain, or don't use a dedicated gaming table or realm of battle tiles? Because that'd be me, too, seeing as there is no FLGS near me. I'm not sure I'd want to play you at any rate, with your attitude.

*shrug* You're making a lot of assumptions based around things you mistakenly think I've said or think. I'm sorry about that, but it's really not my problem.

I finish with; while you may have a notion of what the "proper" way to engage in the hobby is, don't try to force it on others. Especially on the internet. I wouldn't have posted anything had you presented your opinion as an opinion, not an unalterable truth laid down by the Emperor himself. Good day to you.

*another shrug* And once again I'll refer you to my advice at the beginning of this post. Read carefully and don't jump to incorrect conclusions and assumptions before posting a reply. The fact that there is an intended way to behave with the miniatures is not a matter of opinion. I'm sorry that you feel otherwise, and I'm sorry if my discussion with another user has upset you, but it is what it is. Good day to you, too.

 beigeknight wrote:
I think you're expressing your opinion of "proper" as a fact. Which is wrong.

Please see previous posts/above. The models are designed, manufactured, packaged, sold, and intended for DIY assembly and painting... all with the intention that the TT game is played with legally assembled/modelled and painted armies. This is not an opinion.

I think the thread title leads you to read into things a certain way.

You asked why people get mad.

I dont think anybody does get mad, and had you named the thread

'why do people prefer painted armies" then you'd behappier with the responses you've gotten.

Just a theory.

I've never seen someone rage over unpainted armies, don't know where you play that all this 'raging' is happening but it's nowhere I've ever played.

Most of my displeasure with unpainted armies comes from the people that I KNOW that play them. Most of them don't paint the stuff because they look for the most broken combinations and builds ONLY, don't care about the army, the story, just to win at all costs. No paint, no primer, so they can dispatch them as soon as the next big thing comes out, and even this doesn't cause me to 'rage'... just makes me disappointed.

If I don't know you, I'll still play you, but it's not as enjoyable. I don't have tons of free time, and it takes forever for me to paint an army and personally I won't put a model on the table until it's painted. I don't think there's any doubt that playing a painted army is 'more enjoyable' to all involved. I don't rage when armies aren't painted but I'm sure to look for a painted army to play first.

 Matt1785 wrote:
I've never seen someone rage over unpainted armies, don't know where you play that all this 'raging' is happening but it's nowhere I've ever played.
.

I guess you'd never play me, as I haven't gotten around to painting everything yet. But I'll be damned if I field something that isn't assembled. Does it bother you that people don't use "proper" terrain, or don't use a dedicated gaming table or realm of battle tiles? Because that'd be me, too, seeing as there is no FLGS near me. I'm not sure I'd want to play you at any rate, with your attitude.

I'm guessing....his house?

I usually play my painted stuff over my primed/grey stuff unless im really looking to try out some models to see how they do.But really doing that can lead to a cycle of buying to try and NOT painting cuz they sucked in their first few games.

Mostly I enjoy building painting and some customizing or even scratch building so most of my played armys are painted.

It doesn't bother me in the least to play others unpainted armys though.I count myself lucky to have the time to do the painting part of the Hobby as I know others have very little time for that part of it.

Game and let Game...that's the way I feel in all my gaming

 azreal13 wrote:

 Matt1785 wrote:
I've never seen someone rage over unpainted armies, don't know where you play that all this 'raging' is happening but it's nowhere I've ever played.
.

I guess you'd never play me, as I haven't gotten around to painting everything yet. But I'll be damned if I field something that isn't assembled. Does it bother you that people don't use "proper" terrain, or don't use a dedicated gaming table or realm of battle tiles? Because that'd be me, too, seeing as there is no FLGS near me. I'm not sure I'd want to play you at any rate, with your attitude.

I'm guessing....his house?

The bar dude.. The bar... Remember? I'm never home!

You go to a bar where you play 40K?

Colour me skeptical.

VanHallan wrote:
I agree with frankenberry... I think everybody if given the choice would rather play against a painted army than non. Whether your army is painted or not.

I can't imagine someone, with all things being equal, actually having a preference to play grey plastic or even hastily primed models.

Well, yes. This should be a given: in a perfect wargaming world, every model would be painted, based, and we'd all be Golden Daemon winners or their equivalents. But this isn't a perfect world. We all enjoy different parts of the hobby, which includes building, painting, sculpting, converting, playing and probably other parts that I'm forgetting. Person A likes building and painting. Person B likes converting and sculpting, but just primes minis to hide the green stuff and then plays with them. Player C pays somebody to build his models then plays with them. Is any person enjoying his hobby incorrectly? Absolutely not: it's his hobby. Anyone saying otherwise is 100% wrong, because they have no right whatsoever to tell somebody else how to enjoy their hobby. You're not a jerk if you prefer playing against painted armies over unpainted. You're a jerk if you tell somebody they're playing wrong or they're a bad hobbyist because they didn't paint their models, or if you refuse to play against unpainted minis because the person who didn't paint his minis is obviously inferior. Those two situations make you jerks. Preferring painted minis, but still accepting unpainted is not jerky.

I just have only ever witnessed raging between WAAC players who couldn't possibly be losing to the other OP list they're facing.. never over the status of another's painting.

I will say that Anfauglir is fairly set on painted vs unpainted... but has a point that the models are 'made to be painted'... otherwise they might come that way. This isn't Heroclix where collection and playing is all you do... He does seem to have a STRONGER opinion then most though.. but nothing wrong with that.

I guess I'm just confused on where the horror story is on people refusing to play unpainted armies.

I am with you 100%.

I prefer painted armies, however I am grateful that there are local players that are hardcore into the strategy... They can give me better advice about what my army needs than my eyes can when I go looking at boxes of cool stuff to paint.

My biggest discovery since i started the hooby again is that my blood angels army doesn't really work... I was just painting units and buying things i didnt have, 1 of everything.

Now that I'm getting my butt kicked by unpainted armies weekly, I am not complaining about it, I'm learning from my mistakes and making adjustments.

That to me is what the hobby is all about.

ULTIMATELY, I am looking for a solid core of 5-7 players that I can create a gaming group with, and one of the rules of joining would be that every mini would be painted, but that would just be MY house rule, I would have no desire to take my house rules into another hobby environment.

 Matt1785 wrote:
I will say that Anfauglir is fairly set on painted vs unpainted... but has a point that the models are 'made to be painted'... otherwise they might come that way. This isn't Heroclix where collection and playing is all you do... He does seem to have a STRONGER opinion then most though.. but nothing wrong with that.

I'm the same as 95% of all the other responses - yes I'd prefer to play against painted. A couple of posters have failed to comprehend what I've said, put two and two together come up with fourteen and then run with it. Eh... what can you do.

 Anfauglir wrote:

BladeSwinga wrote:
In what way, shape, or form is painting strictly required for someone to use their expensive plastic army men? Where is it written that your list of the parameters of the hobby are the game's laws of enjoying 40k? You have all rights to decline a game with someone for any reason, but where do you get the idea that you can tell someone off for having a different approach to the hobby?

So, in what way do they imply that painting is manditory?

Not once, at any point, in any of my posts have I said any of that. Please read carefully all posts in the topic, noting to whom/what they are replying to, in what context(s) the content of those posts were made and, therefore, what has been said (and not said) by another user before making a reply.

In what way is having an assembled, but unpainted army improper?

In the way that they're not being used as intended. Honestly guys, this isn't a hard concept.

I guess you'd never play me, as I haven't gotten around to painting everything yet. But I'll be damned if I field something that isn't assembled. Does it bother you that people don't use "proper" terrain, or don't use a dedicated gaming table or realm of battle tiles? Because that'd be me, too, seeing as there is no FLGS near me. I'm not sure I'd want to play you at any rate, with your attitude.

*shrug* You're making a lot of assumptions based around things you mistakenly think I've said or think. I'm sorry about that, but it's really not my problem.

I finish with; while you may have a notion of what the "proper" way to engage in the hobby is, don't try to force it on others. Especially on the internet. I wouldn't have posted anything had you presented your opinion as an opinion, not an unalterable truth laid down by the Emperor himself. Good day to you.

*another shrug* And once again I'll refer you to my advice at the beginning of this post. Read carefully and don't jump to incorrect conclusions and assumptions before posting a reply. The fact that there is an intended way to behave with the miniatures is not a matter of opinion. I'm sorry that you feel otherwise, and I'm sorry if my discussion with another user has upset you, but it is what it is. Good day to you, too.

 beigeknight wrote:
I think you're expressing your opinion of "proper" as a fact. Which is wrong.

Please see previous posts/above. The models are designed, manufactured, packaged, sold, and intended for DIY assembly and painting... all with the intention that the TT game is played with legally assembled/modelled and painted armies. This is not an opinion.

My main issue with your statements was the way they came off. Arrogance is something I do not abide, and you achieved the tone of arrogance through claiming that your points on the hobby were absolutes. I'm not going to nicely edit the quoted text like you do, because doing so on a tablet is nightmarish.

If I made arguments you feel were based on assumption, keep in mind that I said you came off as arrogant. Your posts implied there was an absolute right/wrong in a hobby that is one giant grey area. Yes, the models are intended for painting. I stated this in my post, but in no way does this make painting manditory. It's a hobby, which is partaken in by choice, and you should be able to choose which aspects to partake in by choice. I think proper isn't the word to be flung around in this context, as it is different between people what proper is- such as in our disagreement.

An intent for what GW's miniatures are used for does not deem their intended use is the absolute law for using them. That is the point I'm trying to make; you may see a Ork Boy as something to be painted and be used in the TT called WH40K, but someone else may look at the same model and think it would be perfect for righting that wobbly chair, for a lack of a better example. I would never do that, but I hope this conveys my point better. At the end of the day, to each their own. It just read to me that your argument was like a kid in a sandbox yanked away another kid's toy truck because he/she was "playing with it wrong" and was showing him/her how to play with it the "right" way.

 azreal13 wrote:
You go to a bar where you play 40K?

Colour me skeptical.

The club I play at is over a bar, and we go downstairs and bring up beers regularly. It rules.

I'm in this hobby largely for the painting aspect. There's nothing I love more than two well painted armies rushing at each other on a beautifully painted battlefield, but I understand not everyone has the time or resources to paint or what have you. However, you'll only get better the more you do. I wouldn't get mad at someone for not having a painted army, but I definitely urge people on. This game really comes into its own when there's some solid spectacle built around it.

It's like some one in a D&d group who refused to engage in role playing and merely wants to fight and engage in the crunch. It brings it down and ruins the fun.

 Anfauglir wrote:
However, the gaming/play side of it is supposed to be done properly, that means with legally modelled and painted miniatures.

Good thing that that is not what GW says the hobby is then isn't it?

BladeSwinga wrote:
My main issue with your statements was the way they came off. Arrogance is something I do not abide, and you achieved the tone of arrogance through claiming that your points on the hobby were absolutes.

Ah. You see, this is a problem derived of reading, and then taking my posts out of context. My tone is in response of the discussion with the TC. Unfortunately you jumped in kind of late.

If I made arguments you feel were based on assumption, keep in mind that I said you came off as arrogant.

It doesn't matter how you think my post "came off"... you flat out took what I'd wrote and turned it into something else. Pure lack of comprehension followed by conjecture which was then used to inform your reply - something that I do not abide. Even if I thought another user was being arrogant, I would never dream of putting words in their mouth and then using it against them in a reply.

Your posts implied there was an absolute right/wrong in a hobby that is one giant grey area.

They really didn't. See above.

It just read to me that your argument was like a kid in a sandbox yanked away another kid's toy truck because he/she was "playing with it wrong" and was showing him/her how to play with it the "right" way.

This is why context combined with content is fundamental to effective communication. Oh well, I hold no grudges.

VanHallan wrote:
I agree with frankenberry... I think everybody if given the choice would rather play against a painted army than non. Whether your army is painted or not.

I can't imagine someone, with all things being equal, actually having a preference to play grey plastic or even hastily primed models.

I would rather play grey plastic over a bad paint job, or just primer job. The plastic has great detail, and is easy to see the wysiwig on. Primer and bad paint jobs can make this hard to do.

And don't for get about the 'Ard Boyz format. It is/was a dedicated grey plastic format for years.

I'd rather see a badly painted army than an unpainted one; a badly painted army at least shows some token effort, which is nice to see. For most people, it's their first step towards a good looking army.

 Anfauglir wrote:

BladeSwinga wrote:
In what way, shape, or form is painting strictly required for someone to use their expensive plastic army men? Where is it written that your list of the parameters of the hobby are the game's laws of enjoying 40k? You have all rights to decline a game with someone for any reason, but where do you get the idea that you can tell someone off for having a different approach to the hobby?

So, in what way do they imply that painting is manditory?

Not once, at any point, in any of my posts have I said any of that. Please read carefully all posts in the topic, noting to whom/what they are replying to, in what context(s) the content of those posts were made and, therefore, what has been said (and not said) by another user before making a reply.

In what way is having an assembled, but unpainted army improper?

In the way that they're not being used as intended. Honestly guys, this isn't a hard concept.

I guess you'd never play me, as I haven't gotten around to painting everything yet. But I'll be damned if I field something that isn't assembled. Does it bother you that people don't use "proper" terrain, or don't use a dedicated gaming table or realm of battle tiles? Because that'd be me, too, seeing as there is no FLGS near me. I'm not sure I'd want to play you at any rate, with your attitude.

*shrug* You're making a lot of assumptions based around things you mistakenly think I've said or think. I'm sorry about that, but it's really not my problem.

I finish with; while you may have a notion of what the "proper" way to engage in the hobby is, don't try to force it on others. Especially on the internet. I wouldn't have posted anything had you presented your opinion as an opinion, not an unalterable truth laid down by the Emperor himself. Good day to you.

*another shrug* And once again I'll refer you to my advice at the beginning of this post. Read carefully and don't jump to incorrect conclusions and assumptions before posting a reply. The fact that there is an intended way to behave with the miniatures is not a matter of opinion. I'm sorry that you feel otherwise, and I'm sorry if my discussion with another user has upset you, but it is what it is. Good day to you, too.

 beigeknight wrote:
I think you're expressing your opinion of "proper" as a fact. Which is wrong.

Please see previous posts/above. The models are designed, manufactured, packaged, sold, and intended for DIY assembly and painting... all with the intention that the TT game is played with legally assembled/modelled and painted armies. This is not an opinion.

Pretty sure there is nothing in the rules about "legally assembled/modelled and painted armies". That's just your (and I'm sure many other peoples) preference. Which is by definition an opinion. Please stop stating it as fact.

 beigeknight wrote:

 Anfauglir wrote:

BladeSwinga wrote:
In what way, shape, or form is painting strictly required for someone to use their expensive plastic army men? Where is it written that your list of the parameters of the hobby are the game's laws of enjoying 40k? You have all rights to decline a game with someone for any reason, but where do you get the idea that you can tell someone off for having a different approach to the hobby?

So, in what way do they imply that painting is manditory?

Not once, at any point, in any of my posts have I said any of that. Please read carefully all posts in the topic, noting to whom/what they are replying to, in what context(s) the content of those posts were made and, therefore, what has been said (and not said) by another user before making a reply.

In what way is having an assembled, but unpainted army improper?

In the way that they're not being used as intended. Honestly guys, this isn't a hard concept.

I guess you'd never play me, as I haven't gotten around to painting everything yet. But I'll be damned if I field something that isn't assembled. Does it bother you that people don't use "proper" terrain, or don't use a dedicated gaming table or realm of battle tiles? Because that'd be me, too, seeing as there is no FLGS near me. I'm not sure I'd want to play you at any rate, with your attitude.

*shrug* You're making a lot of assumptions based around things you mistakenly think I've said or think. I'm sorry about that, but it's really not my problem.

I finish with; while you may have a notion of what the "proper" way to engage in the hobby is, don't try to force it on others. Especially on the internet. I wouldn't have posted anything had you presented your opinion as an opinion, not an unalterable truth laid down by the Emperor himself. Good day to you.

*another shrug* And once again I'll refer you to my advice at the beginning of this post. Read carefully and don't jump to incorrect conclusions and assumptions before posting a reply. The fact that there is an intended way to behave with the miniatures is not a matter of opinion. I'm sorry that you feel otherwise, and I'm sorry if my discussion with another user has upset you, but it is what it is. Good day to you, too.

 beigeknight wrote:
I think you're expressing your opinion of "proper" as a fact. Which is wrong.

Please see previous posts/above. The models are designed, manufactured, packaged, sold, and intended for DIY assembly and painting... all with the intention that the TT game is played with legally assembled/modelled and painted armies. This is not an opinion.

Pretty sure there is nothing in the rules about "legally assembled/modelled and painted armies". That's just your (and I'm sure many other peoples) preference. Which is by definition an opinion. Please stop stating it as fact.

Agree 100% !

 beigeknight wrote:
Pretty sure there is nothing in the rules about "legally assembled/modelled and painted armies". That's just your (and I'm sure many other peoples) preference. Which is by definition an opinion. Please stop stating it as fact.

*sigh* Okay... final time. Go and show me where I said anything about it being in the rules. Then, go and find where it says that having properly assembled and painted miniatures is not the intended way in which to play the TT game. Once you have failed to do either of those, let that be the end of it. Thank you.

 Anfauglir wrote:

 beigeknight wrote:
Pretty sure there is nothing in the rules about "legally assembled/modelled and painted armies". That's just your (and I'm sure many other peoples) preference. Which is by definition an opinion. Please stop stating it as fact.

*sigh* Okay... final time. Go and show me where I said anything about it being in the rules. Then, go and find where it says that having properly assembled and painted miniatures is not the intended way in which to play the TT game. Once you have failed to do either of those, let that be the end of it. Thank you.

Your use of the term proper is where your use of words, intentionally or no, implies that there is a factual basis for your opinion being the "right" one. The game does state that complete armies look good, and it is the intention, but it is not the be-all, end-all of how to enjoy the hobby/game.

I certainly don't get upset if someone's army is unpainted. If that's good enough for them why should I care?

But I won't play them. I have no need to. There are plenty of people who do paint their armies, and for me it helps with the immersion into the hobby. If it was just a war game, then none of the miniatures would be required - just a representation. So why not use card cut-outs and fight over a tennis shoe and a beer can? If that satisfies some players, who am I to argue?

It's a matter of consideration. The OP is so concerned about others infringing on his view of the hobby he neglects to consider that his view might just as easily infringe on somebody else's enjoyment of the hobby. If I am going to spend the time to play a game, I'd rather share my time with like-minded individuals that appreciate the hobby in the same regard as I do. If others don't paint their armies, more power to them! But please don't act like there is some moral superiority by playing games with painted or unpainted models. You just have your own preferences as do I.

its still the fact of considering people should HAVE to go that extra mile ( or several as the case may be) that bugs him methinks

None of this bothers me what so ever. I'm just curious why unpainted armies bug OTHER people. lol

Dalymiddleboro wrote:
None of this bothers me what so ever. I'm just curious why unpainted armies bug OTHER people. lol

Because they're doing a disservice to the miniature wargaming hobby?

Dalymiddleboro wrote:
None of this bothers me what so ever. I'm just curious why unpainted armies bug OTHER people. lol

I think it's been covered.

A) It doesn't annoy some at all.

B) Some struggle to get into the spirit and fluff of a 40k battle if one side is grey.

C) A few are annoyed by a perceived lack of effort relative to their own (I painted mine, why didn't he?)

Most people will still play an opponent with an unpainted army, but will find it less fun.

Slightly off-topic, is your army painted (not that it matters)? I'm just wondering what side of the proverbial fence you're standing on.

Unless theres any new units/loadouts i want to try, i stick to using painted models. I'm a fluff gamer at heart. During games I often comment on whats happening on the table from each units perspective.

Scout sgt just killed an Honour guard champion after being assaulted. "Your honour guards are just looking at him and asking each other what the hell happened to the champion"

Marine biker fails dangerous terrain check and armour save.
"Haha his bike's wheels blew up after hitting that piece of rock, and he just impaled himself on that spike right there"

Or any assortment of light hearted comments like those. Its just much easier to get absorbed into the universe when playing full painted armies (not to mention passer-by comments and are curious about the game).

The only guy in my flgs I really hesitate to play is a guy who brings FOTM armies with the most broken lists (and he has all the armies mind you, ask him any bit or unit and he has it). And not any single one of them is painted (slight exageraion, some primed and basecoat at best).

The other guy i always try to get games with plays TAU, even before the codex update. Dont care if he brings painted stuff or not, but we do the whole action play by play which is fun.

orkybenji wrote:
It's like some one in a D&d group who refused to engage in role playing and merely wants to fight and engage in the crunch. It brings it down and ruins the fun.

And if that group enjoys it, who cares? Not all groups are roleplayers and actually do prefer crunch.

So many posts in here reek of elitism over the way they feel the hobby "SHOULD" be played, despite being opinions to the contrary, 'proper' or not.

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:

So many posts in here reek of elitism over the way they feel the hobby "SHOULD" be played, despite being opinions to the contrary, 'proper' or not.

The minority in the group doesn't get to point at the majority and scream 'elitism'. If anything, its the people who act indignant when defending their unpainted miniatures and using the excuse of participating in the hobby 'their way' that's elitist.

 Happyjew wrote:

 ALEXisAWESOME wrote:
How can I get into a universe, when half built models keep reminding me I'm playing a board game?

Man, if unpainted models takes away from the "feel", I'd hate to think what open bottles of beer would do to the universe...

Improve it, greatly!

Especially if its a really good beer

Dalymiddleboro wrote:
None of this bothers me what so ever. I'm just curious why unpainted armies bug OTHER people. lol

Because they look like gak, and you seem to be having an inordinate amount of trouble trying to wrap your head around why people in general would prefer to play against a less gakky looking set of models.

If I have choice, and given the emphasis on visual representation in this hobby for the table and anything on it, I would rather have a cool looking army across from mine, but I'm not bugged by it - I play against models without a lick of paint on them all the time, I'd just rather play against someone who took the time to paint their models because that makes the whole game look better.

 Anfauglir wrote:

Dalymiddleboro wrote:
There's no rules in a hobby...

I didn't say it was a rule, I said it was the proper way to play. Because it is.

I could give a rats ass if my opponents stuff is painted. It affects me in no way shape or form.

Okay. That's fine, more power to you. You can only speak for yourself, however. Does it make me mad or refuse a game when someone pulls out an unpainted army? No, it doesn't. Does it affect the quality of the game/immersion in the hobby? Yes, most definitely.

 ALEXisAWESOME wrote:
Its not unpainted models in general, but its what they can connote. Say you could be a flavour of the month player, new army comes out, you buy the most abuse able army available then once the meta has changed to meet the new army, you sell yours on ebay (You get a better deal if you leave models unpainted) and get your next army. Or maybe because some people play for the spirit of the game, and having my lovingly painted wood elves being wailed on by new High elves when most of them are simply legs and torsos is fairly disheartening and not in MY spirit of the game. If someone is genuinely busy, or its a new army, then I'd gladly play them and say no more about it. But if its a years old army, then I'd much prefer playing against a painted army (not even well painted, it doesn't take much to get them to 'table top' standard) then an unpainted/unassembled army because it helps me get into the feeling more. How can I get into a universe, when half built models keep reminding me I'm playing a board game?

Exactly.

this x OVER 9000

I'd just rather play against someone who took the time to paint their models because that makes the whole game look better.

What if the opposing army is mono color , like most marines or necron ?What difference is there between a grey plastic army and a full metalic necron or black painted marines with visors painted in green , which you won't see anyway .

The rules don't say armies have to be painted , painted or not has no influence on the gaming aspect , unless someone plays in tournaments with a paint score . Not everyone lives in places where getting enough space to paint is easy. If someone wants to sell his army in some time , then an unpainted one sells easier and a bad painted one sells cheaper then an unpainted one , so if your not realy good at painting your destroying them by trying. It takes up time not everyone has . Offten it is hard enough to find time for stuff you want to do like gaming , wasting the time on something you don't like and don't want to do , just that others can see your 120 IG models from the other side of the table , would be stupid. Paints , brushs cost cash one could spend on more models and models let you play games , can open up the possibility to have different builds . paints and brushes , if your not in to painting , add nothing to the gaming aspect of w40k.

There seem to be a lot of people making excuses in here for not having painted armies and then telling people who like playing against painted armies that they are horrible human beings

What a great and productive thread you've created Dalymiddleboro.

Time to go back to raging at the unpainted models in my EX-opponent's army that offend my elitist neckbeard sensitivities.

Jesus christ, this thread devolved quickly. In fairness to Dailymiddleboro, I don't think he's responsible for the downward spiral. There's a lot of opinion being slung around as immutable, bully pulpit fact in this thread (on both sides of the particular debate).


So from what i see there are three camps.

1) People who don't care one way or the other, but have a tepid preference for painted, sure, if they absolutely have to answer the question.

2) People that insist on painting models, and that by playing a non painted army, their opponent is passively impacting their enjoyment of the game.

3) People that do that feel that painting is necessary, nor an active contributor to the game.



Whatever camp you fall in, the other two are elitist neckbeard shut-in nerds living in their mom's basement with cheeto stained fingers, and couldn't possibly have a point in their side of the debate if we'd all just take the time to read for a minute. Got it.

I will say this much.

The Warhammer hobby is composed of 3 different aspects:
Building, Painting, Playing.

Some people enjoy all 3. Others only enjoy one or 2 parts.
For example, I enjoy building and playing, but dislike painting, where as my friend *hates* building the models, but finds painting them to be relaxing.

Personally, I have no preference whether or not an army is painted. But it should at least be assembled (models that have lost an arm or head is one thing, models that are ust a chest and legs or just legs on a base is something completely different. It's why my shiny new Wraithknight has yet to see the tabletop.).

 raiden wrote:
well, you could be reallyyy bad at painting, collect them for different reasons, or just not like painting? maybe they want to play the game, and involve themselves, but loath painting the small things. Why should they have to take hours out of their lives just to satisfy your "immersion?"

They don't have to do that, and I don't have to take hours out of my life to play against them.

I like painted army's, but I would not hold it against my opponent, if they did not have painted minis, mainly because I know painting is very time consuming and sometimes real-life needs to be prioritized over the hobby.

For example whilst I do like painting, I am also currently studying for my college subjects, which has held me back on painting my army, as I prioritize real-life over my hobby as I find it more important therefore I can understand if my opponent does not have a painted army.

That being said, its always a nice bonus to be facing a fully painted army, and if I know someone just bought a netlist and has not painted any of it, and the force was unpainted, that right there would grind my gears to the degree where oil and grease simply wouldn't cut it .

I will, in general, play any opponent I can. I don't get games in as often as I'd like, so if there's one going then I'm in, regardless of whether or not models/terrain are/is painted. The only time I'll refuse a game is if I'm playing someone who deliberately breaks the rules for advantage.

I myself make a point of only using painted models, (in some cases I'll allow myself one unpainted squad if it's reasonably new) as I enjoy painting and, for me, seeing painted models on the table is the reward for the hours spent labouring on them. I do enjoy playing against painted model more than grey plastic, simply because it adds to the 'feel' of the game. but as said above, I would never be so presumptuous as to refuse a game based on quality of painting.

BrianDavion wrote:
from a pratical standpoint painting also allows easier reckongization of whose minis are what. even when they're painted up in the same paint scheme you can useally tell whose minis are whose.

Case in point, my last game was my ultramarines against someone else's space marines, likewise painted ultramarines. our style was slightly differnt so we could easily tell whose where whose (I used a darker blue)

This is a good point. Last game I was at the other table had some un-painted stuff on each side a there was confusion because of it, and some models went "missing". A lot harder for that kind of thing to happen with painted models.

I like playing against a painted army but happy to not. Plus painted can cover alot of things - there are very varying levels of skill and results................

I pay people to paint mine as I am very bad at it, don't enjoy and I can afford it - I am sure some people will consider that I am doing my hobby "wrong" but feth them.

Same with proxies and stand ins as long as they are in keeping and recognisable / pointed out - its all good. Unless of course like a local player they are using proxies as they gain actual in game advantage due to base / model size.......

 Anfauglir wrote:

 beigeknight wrote:
Pretty sure there is nothing in the rules about "legally assembled/modelled and painted armies". That's just your (and I'm sure many other peoples) preference. Which is by definition an opinion. Please stop stating it as fact.

*sigh* Okay... final time. Go and show me where I said anything about it being in the rules. Then, go and find where it says that having properly assembled and painted miniatures is not the intended way in which to play the TT game. Once you have failed to do either of those, let that be the end of it. Thank you.

You didn't. And it doesn't. What you are doing is pressing you opinion of "proper way to play" when there technically is none. Its possible to play with unpainted/armless/silly proxies and still have fun with the game. Which I believe something to the effect of "have fun" is actually in the rulebook, so I suppose that would be the "proper" way to play the game. Having fun.

I prefer the modeling side of the hobby over gaming anyway which in some people's book prob makes me as bad as the non painters.

The models are that expensive I can't understand buying them if you don't paint them you may as well use bits of paper with the units written on them. But I really couldn't care it dosnt annoy me in the slightest. Whatever aspect of the hobby people like to focus on then I think that a ok with me.

I can say, without shame, that my wonderfully painted Wood Elves and menacing Dark Eldar where not painted by me. What would happen is I would buy new models and do the 'grunt' work, gluing, building, first few coats and some simple highlights to make the models 'table top worthy'. This is where I would expect people to bring there models up to, it takes very little skill and time to get them to the standard where you can look from across the table and be able to distinguish important parts of the model. When they get to this stage I will play with them, not before. Then they go on my dads long production line for his finishing process, and slowly but surely each unit gets take out for painting. I don't know what my dad does to make my base line into the great colours he does, but he wouldn't do any painting at all if I didn't get him to that stage. He wants to look at a finished batch and think 'Wow' which you simply can't do when they are 'simply' table top worthy.

See, that's the extra mile. The difference between having painted models and owning painted models is to be proud of your army when it comes together. Not everyone wants that, not everyone who wants that has the time but everyone, I mean everyone, is of the capacity to get to table top worthy standards. Why does gamesworkshop (Mine at least) let you play in store? Because its free advertisement to show well painted models to get people into the game. Our Gamesworkshop tolerates non-painted models for a while, but if they are left to long the manager may 'suggest' that they get painted up, because strangely grey models don't attract as much attention as vibrant models. Its about preference, but i'd much prefer to play an army that is at lest table top worthy then a bunch of grey models, it makes the game more enjoyable for me. Why would I want to play an army that diminishes the fun for me, when I could play an army that is a joy to look at?

If you don't even try to make the effort to paint then you're in the wrong hobby. Go play Magic. War gaming is a gentleman's affair.

 Las wrote:
If you don't even try to make the effort to paint then you're in the wrong hobby. Go play Magic. War gaming is a gentleman's affair.

What a narrow minded view - who made you god?

 beigeknight wrote:
You didn't. And it doesn't.

Right... so why are we having this discussion?

What you are doing is pressing you opinion of "proper way to play" when there technically is none.

No, what I'm doing is stating that if you buy miniatures which are supposed to be painted as much as they are supposed to be battled with, and you choose not to paint them, they're not being used as intended, i.e. improperly. This is not an opinion, it is simply the way it is. I really can't make it any simpler than that. Sorry.

Its possible to play with unpainted/armless/silly proxies and still have fun with the game. Which I believe something to the effect of "have fun" is actually in the rulebook, so I suppose that would be the "proper" way to play the game. Having fun.

And here is where you're going wrong... you know that thing about comprehansion I talked about with the other poster? Well, the same applies to you. Read and understand what I'm saying, and therefore you will stop making incorrect jumps like the above. Or, if you really need me to spell it out to you: saying there is a proper way to use the miniatures is not the same as saying there is only one way to use them, or that there are rules or laws when it comes to painted vs unpainted, or any of the other crap that you and others are extrapolating from my posts that simply isn't there.

I'm just a purist. This acceptance of unpainted models is a halmark of 40k and it stems from the ideology of the "GW hobby" as being outside the larger wargaming culture. You simply do not find unpainted armies in historical war gaming. Have some respect for your armies and the hobby.




Note: I don't even really like painting.

I play with models painted by others (or badly by myself) - is that "allowed"

I don't care what you do, that's just how I view unpainted armies and the people who field them.

I'll still play against grey minis, I'll just feel vastly superior to you the entire time and let that mitigate the disappointment of having to look at them.

I look at it sort of like going to dinner in a very nice restaurant. Maybe they won't toss you out for showing up with a baseball cap, t-shirt and sandals on, but it definitely shows a complete lack of respect to the rest of the people dining there who dressed appropriately to the environment. If that's who you are, fine, you are certainly entitled to be "that guy", and it may bother some folks more then others.

I'd much rather play against a well painted army, way more fun for me.

 infinite_array wrote:

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:

So many posts in here reek of elitism over the way they feel the hobby "SHOULD" be played, despite being opinions to the contrary, 'proper' or not.

The minority in the group doesn't get to point at the majority and scream 'elitism'. If anything, its the people who act indignant when defending their unpainted miniatures and using the excuse of participating in the hobby 'their way' that's elitist.

Yes because when being told they shouldn't be playing at all in their hobby they should sit quietly and take it.

Because that certainly is far more elitist to defend oneself when being told "You aren't playing it this hobby the way I FEEL you should be playing it, thus you are scum and don't deserve to play thisgame."

"Using the excuse of participating their way?" There is no defined standard on how to enjoy this hobby.

This thread rules just for the fact that people are reading so much into everyone else's posts. Come on people, really? Is there some body language you can see from written text that is making you think people are saying...

"You are scum and don't deserve to play this game." Did ANYONE actually post that? No... (Las came close, but I think that's just sarcasm)

It's really just one side bashing the other, gosh it's like Washington DC in this thread.

 Matt1785 wrote:
This thread rules just for the fact that people are reading so much into everyone else's posts. Come on people, really? Is there some body language you can see from written text that is making you think people are saying...

"You are scum and don't deserve to play this game." Did ANYONE actually post that? No... (Las came close, but I think that's just sarcasm)

It's really just one side bashing the other, gosh it's like Washington DC in this thread.

This is the standard, socially accepted, "proper" or "normal" way to play games of WHFB/40K etc. This is not up for debate, it's simply the way it is. Period.

Somewhat comes close, seeing as anyone who doesn't paint is suddenly "Not normal"

Yeah neither side will back down to be honest, it's not like one side is going to suddenly be convinced that the other side is going to be right. Even if I am guilty of doing the same thing.

 Matt1785 wrote:
This thread rules just for the fact that people are reading so much into everyone else's posts. Come on people, really? Is there some body language you can see from written text that is making you think people are saying...

"You are scum and don't deserve to play this game." Did ANYONE actually post that? No... (Las came close, but I think that's just sarcasm)

It's really just one side bashing the other, gosh it's like Washington DC in this thread.

Ha, yeah. But I do genuinely feel that it's a habit that degrades the hobby.

There is one other side of this that hasn't been explored. I would imagine we all would like the hobby to flourish so that we have a decent sized community to game with. If somebody with no clue walks into a club or store and sees a battle going on with nicely painted models, it's far more likely to get them interested then a battle with half assembled grey models.

anchorbine wrote:
There is one other side of this that hasn't been explored. I would imagine we all would like the hobby to flourish so that we have a decent sized community to game with. If somebody with no clue walks into a club or store and sees a battle going on with nicely painted models, it's far more likely to get them interested then a battle with half assembled grey models.

Been there, done that Bit mine was in the middle of a text wall, and by the looks of things here, people don't like to read entire posts making snap judgements

The sense of satisfaction when seeing a squad of fully models on a nice bored is worth the time and effort! I don't understand why people wouldnt bother painting them. None of my buddies field grey miniatures, unless theres a valid reason I personally find it lazy!

I dont mind either way, its better to play against a nicely painted army, you can get some banter going about different painting styles etc. I would not say I wouldn't play someone though because their army isn't painted.

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:

 Matt1785 wrote:
This thread rules just for the fact that people are reading so much into everyone else's posts. Come on people, really? Is there some body language you can see from written text that is making you think people are saying...

"You are scum and don't deserve to play this game." Did ANYONE actually post that? No... (Las came close, but I think that's just sarcasm)

It's really just one side bashing the other, gosh it's like Washington DC in this thread.

This is the standard, socially accepted, "proper" or "normal" way to play games of WHFB/40K etc. This is not up for debate, it's simply the way it is. Period.

Somewhat comes close, seeing as anyone who doesn't paint is suddenly "Not normal"

Yeah, this is exactly what Matt is referring to. Honestly, I'm shocked that your previous posts are/were directed at mine. Yours is the worst example yet at taking what I've posted and mutating it completely into something else. Well done. I'm done at teaching others basic reading comprehension, however. It's done more than enough to derail the topic already. I tell the TC that GW minis are supposed to be painted as well as battled with... and suddenly I'm calling other people scum? How can I even begin to have a discussion with others who display such disregard for proper written communication?

 Anfauglir wrote:

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:

 Matt1785 wrote:
This thread rules just for the fact that people are reading so much into everyone else's posts. Come on people, really? Is there some body language you can see from written text that is making you think people are saying...

"You are scum and don't deserve to play this game." Did ANYONE actually post that? No... (Las came close, but I think that's just sarcasm)

It's really just one side bashing the other, gosh it's like Washington DC in this thread.

This is the standard, socially accepted, "proper" or "normal" way to play games of WHFB/40K etc. This is not up for debate, it's simply the way it is. Period.

Somewhat comes close, seeing as anyone who doesn't paint is suddenly "Not normal"

Yeah, this is exactly what Matt is referring to. Honestly, I'm shocked that your previous posts are/were directed at mine. Yours is the worst example yet at taking what I've posted and mutating it completely into something else. Well done. I'm done at teaching others basic reading comprehension, however. It's done more than enough to derail the topic already. I tell the TC that GW minis are supposed to be painted as well as battled with... and suddenly I'm calling other people scum? How can I even begin to have a discussion with others who display such disregard for proper written communication?

Actually my previous posts weren't, however there are many ways one can define "Normal" and from previous topics have used it as an excuse to trash on players who don't.

I am sorry for targeting you specifically, but I suppose I have been in this issue far to much with insults being slung because people somehow enjoyed the hobby in a way they didn't and I lashed out unnecessarily.

These threads always rule so hard.

Regardless of whether you enjoy painting or not, its a fairly large part of the hobby, its nice to see painted models, even nicer to see well painted ones. I don't even understand or comprehend why you would spend the ungodly amounts of money on warhammer when you don't want to paint them or even assemble them.

mitch_rifle wrote:
Regardless of whether you enjoy painting or not, its a fairly large part of the hobby, its nice to see painted models, even nicer to see well painted ones. I don't even understand or comprehend why you would spend the ungodly amounts of money on warhammer when you don't want to paint them or even assemble them.

I agree on assembly. Painting...not so much. If I didn't work so many hours a week (and had more money to buy the necessary supplies), I would paint my army. It wouldn't look good (initially) and I realise that...but hey.

I don't think anyone is particularly bothered if someone can paint well or not, just that some people choose not to put any effort or time into painting, if you don't have the time, or are not very skilled at painting fair enough.

If you dont want/have time to paint or make cool models you could just go play chess with a 20 $ chess set. That game has nicely made pieces waiting for you and the rules are easy to figure out.

Chess is a fair game with good rules, nice pieces, and economical for the guy who needs his strategy fix.

Warhammer isn't really fair, it's rules are written badly, and is meant for people to play some kind of game with nicely crafted models. If you show up to a game with gray models you are immediately putting off a vibe that says you are in this game for some reason that isnt finely crafted models. It also immediatly makes this game uglier then the 20 dollar chess game.

Strategy game? Competitive chess, checkers.
Need an expensive strategy game with a new flavor every other month? Play Magic the Gathering standard bracket.
No time to paint? Buy board/card games
Need a story? Play Dungeons and Dragons

Like painting models? Play 40k

This thread pretty much sums up the problem with the wargaming community.

If someone doesn't want to paint their wardollies, but you want to paint your wardollies, then hey, guess what? You're just being different people. If someone doesn't paint their models and you don't like it? Don't play against them.

Same with people who enjoy the hobby in different ways. Know someone who min-maxes their army lists for the most competitive efficiency they can get, and don't like that kind of gamer? Don't play them. Someone has a My Little Pony army and you think it's just too silly? Don't play them. Someone has an army painted to the bare minumim for a tournament (3 colours/wash) and you think it looks lazy and ruins your immersion? Don't play then. Someone has an unpained army and it ruins your immersion? If you answer anything but 'don't play them' you're simply making an issue out of nothing.

 Anfauglir wrote:

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:

 Matt1785 wrote:
This thread rules just for the fact that people are reading so much into everyone else's posts. Come on people, really? Is there some body language you can see from written text that is making you think people are saying...

"You are scum and don't deserve to play this game." Did ANYONE actually post that? No... (Las came close, but I think that's just sarcasm)

It's really just one side bashing the other, gosh it's like Washington DC in this thread.

This is the standard, socially accepted, "proper" or "normal" way to play games of WHFB/40K etc. This is not up for debate, it's simply the way it is. Period.

Somewhat comes close, seeing as anyone who doesn't paint is suddenly "Not normal"

Yeah, this is exactly what Matt is referring to. Honestly, I'm shocked that your previous posts are/were directed at mine. Yours is the worst example yet at taking what I've posted and mutating it completely into something else. Well done. I'm done at teaching others basic reading comprehension, however. It's done more than enough to derail the topic already. I tell the TC that GW minis are supposed to be painted as well as battled with... and suddenly I'm calling other people scum? How can I even begin to have a discussion with others who display such disregard for proper written communication?

How is telling someone that their preferred way to enjoy their hobby is not "socially accepted ... not up for debate ... Period." polite?
If you had left out those two words there'd by no issue with your posts. And yes, I read them all in context - but saying it's not socially accepted is absolutely false. It might not be in your specific area, but other posters have demonstrated that your statement isn't true. And then you act all offended when you're called on your absolute statement being incorrect.

FWIW I really dislike painting, but my Nids are painted (well, except the gants I use for spawning) because they needed to be for a tournament I entered.

I play with quite a few opponents who play painted only, and that's how I roll as well. Gray miniatures look awful - you'd almost be better off playing with action figures, at least they have a paint job. I understand that some people don't have time to complete their armies, but I feel a lot of people buy more than they ever intend upon completing. If you have time for TV, you have time to paint - they can both be done at the same time.

As exciting as a painted army is to see upon the battlefield, an unpainted army is equally unexciting.

 Thokt wrote:
If you have time for TV, you have time to paint - they can both be done at the same time.

They really can't in all cases. 90% of my TV watching happens in bed. I'm pretty sure my wife would kick me out of bed if I brought my paints in.

Paint your army instead of watching then.

 Las wrote:
Paint your army instead of watching then.

Or, how about you not dictate my enjoyment of my hobby and I won't dictate yours?
In case you missed it, I said my Nids were painted.

This is why i thought heroclix was going to be fun since i wouldnt have to do any painting when i first wanted to try wargaming. Didnt enjoy it, 40k fluff appealed to me more.

So i just bit the bullet and painted my AOBR marines with a really bad paint job. Got a little better over time and even if I wont be winnIng awards, im quite happy with my work. But that's because i dedicated some time for it, which is not always the case for everyone. So when I play against a painted army, i know this guy is dedicated to the hobby.

Now for people who say they wont play unpainted armies, i wouldnt begrudge them that. If they want prefer to play with people who has taken the time to paint (or money to pay a painter) its their choice. Then again i've yet to meet someone who is like that in our gaming circle.

rigeld2 wrote:

 Las wrote:
Paint your army instead of watching then.

Or, how about you not dictate my enjoyment of my hobby and I won't dictate yours?
In case you missed it, I said my Nids were painted.

I wasn't. You were talking about how you didn't have the ability to paint while watching TV so I offered an alternative.

 Las wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 Las wrote:
Paint your army instead of watching then.

Or, how about you not dictate my enjoyment of my hobby and I won't dictate yours?
In case you missed it, I said my Nids were painted.

I wasn't. You were talking about how you didn't have the ability to paint while watching TV so I offered an alternative.

No, I was talking about the statement that they can be done at the same time being incorrect. Sometimes they can, but not always.

Dalymiddleboro wrote:
Who cares? It's a HOBBY, do w/e you want and get w/e you want out of it. There's no set way to go about this... I just don't understand why people let it emotionally affect them when it's not their army or their models lol.

1. Because it shows laziness, like typing w/e for whatever.
2. You can't have fun if it isn't the same fun I'm having, obviously! Stop having fun wrongly!
3. Chicks like painted miniatures. FACT!
4. Something about serious business or something.

It's an immersion thing. Some people play this this game because of the imagination factor of two good looking armies on a table getting ready to clash. The mind likes not having to fill in ALL the gaps

I dislike grey and poorly painted armies because painting isn't hard. Its about the inclination of actually trying. About 10 years ago the standards for painting were much higher, and I remember going to GTs and seeing amazing work, now, you're lucky to see a handful of well painted models at a tournament.

The "10 minute" water colour wash method is stupid easy and you can paint an army in no time. It looks great and leaves room for the eventuality of wet blending it into awesome.

My non-wargaming girlfriend painted up 12 gaunts in 3 hours and never painted a model in her life. And they looked better then some people who have been doing it for 10+ years.

Everything I've learned about painting can be summed up as follows:

1. Paint
2. ???
3. Profit

It IS a hobby, and some people take it too seriously.

But really, I'd prefer playing with/against painted armies, mostly because they're more distinguishable - especially when BOTH sides play the same faction, AND have unpainted models in their midst. That scenatio might cause some arguments over which model is yours and which is opponent's.

It's the best for keeping things clear and understandable to paint your whole army. I tolerate those who don't, but as I mentioned, some hustle may occur... and besides: you can't let a fine piece of art unfinished! ;3

My group is all about the fluff aspect of the game. Painting isn't important as forging a narrative. That's why we have to have detailed army histories including individually named models with a basic family lineage for each and a quick list of hopes, aspirations, and fears. When any unit suffers a casualty we have to get in character and give a quick moment of grief for his surviving squad mates and talk about the good times they shared. When ever moving, shooting, or performing any action with a unit we pick up the leader for the group and, in the character's voice, give out the order to the squad with resulting "aye sir" from his squad. Objectives and mission are entirely superfluous as we decide who wins based on audience approval of our individual performances and how pulled in they got into the 40K universe.
Really anyone who does any less is subhuman and in the wrong game entirely and should be shamed into something like tetris.

Painted armies look better on the table, but I'm not going to get mad over/refuse to play against unpainted minis.

I wont refuse to play against someone with an unpainted army, but I refuse to field my own unpainted miniatures. So if my troops are unpainted.... they don't play!

I view it as "readiness," painted miniatures are "trained troops" I have noticed dice rolls mystically roll higher for painted Soldiers. Would you send a real Soldier into combat "un-trained?"

-J

 kronk wrote:
Chicks like painted miniatures. FACT!

That's going in my signature block.

And it IS totally true, whenever my wife picks me up from the FLGS (we only have 1 car) and sees unpainted models on the table she's all "They look so much better painted, you're so cool." And I'm all "Yeah, I know."

I wouldn't not play against an unpainted army, but doing so does diminish the overall experience. I don't play with something until it is painted for my own personal armies. So when I put down my painted figs next to primer or bare plastic opponent's it just makes the table look meh....

I would even take it a step further and say when you have 2 really well painted armies and cruddy terrain it still doesn't feel right...lol!

 Savageconvoy wrote:
My group is all about the fluff aspect of the game. Painting isn't important as forging a narrative. That's why we have to have detailed army histories including individually named models with a basic family lineage for each and a quick list of hopes, aspirations, and fears. When any unit suffers a casualty we have to get in character and give a quick moment of grief for his surviving squad mates and talk about the good times they shared. When ever moving, shooting, or performing any action with a unit we pick up the leader for the group and, in the character's voice, give out the order to the squad with resulting "aye sir" from his squad. Objectives and mission are entirely superfluous as we decide who wins based on audience approval of our individual performances and how pulled in they got into the 40K universe.
Really anyone who does any less is subhuman and in the wrong game entirely and should be shamed into something like tetris.

But wouldn't it be fluffier to have all your units painted up with unique squad/regimental colours and insignia, with campaign badges and such added for flavour?

The amount of pretentiousness in this thread and general topic is staggering. Do what you want with your hobby, time, money, and feel free to set your own standards for your army. You feel like everything should be painted before battling on the tabletop? Go hard, but don't try to impose what you feel is "right" in your little hobby world on other people. Sorry, the miniatures are nothing more than physical avatars for which to represent the rules of the models, paint schemes and standards never come into the equation. If my opponent's mini is an unpainted troop choice and mine is a painted troop choice then guess what? They both operate the exact same on the tabletop. Whether the lack of paint on your opponent's behalf disrupts your imaginative forging of the narrative or just plain bugs you, that's on you and not your opponent. Either work on your imaginative play or simply get over it, both solutions are relatively simple.

I imagine the "purists" on this board would also judge their opponent for having scratch builds, third party models, and *gasp* using third party paints because they aren't directly in line with the GW purist culture. Please, take a step back, get over yourself, and come back to the hobby when you're ready to actually enjoy the company of others and enjoy the game for what it is.

A hobby filled with players that hate on their mother company, GW, and, more importantly, other players is a community divided that doesn't have a lot of hope for a future.

If you want to play against the same purist every game simply because his/her products are good enough for you and up to your standards then go ahead. Me? I'll just be over here playing with everybody else and enjoying the game instead of nitpicking the aesthetics of my opponent's army.

For myself, I would never play with an unpainted army. I waited until I had 750 points of Orks to start playing. Painting is a huge part of the hobby for me.

I don't personally enjoy playing against unpainted armies but will if that is the only way I get to play.

Though I have passed up games against unpainted models, when another opponent with painted models was available. (my loss I know)

There is no animosity towards unpainted armies, its just I like the fluff and story as much as I like the gaming aspect, and fighting against another painted army
really leads to more fun. (for me)

 c0j1r0 wrote:

 kronk wrote:
Chicks like painted miniatures. FACT!

That's going in my signature block.

And it IS totally true, whenever my wife picks me up from the FLGS (we only have 1 car) and sees unpainted models on the table she's all "They look so much better painted, you're so cool." And I'm all "Yeah, I know."

My love quotes similarly when she's watching me paint. Usually she storms to my little corner-workshop of little men when she's paying a visit.
"I wanna see what new you've painted, they look so badass" (yes, she calls 'em badass => instant turn on!)

 Tyberos the Red Wake wrote:

Dalymiddleboro wrote:
Who cares? It's a HOBBY, do w/e you want and get w/e you want out of it. There's no set way to go about this... I just don't understand why people let it emotionally affect them when it's not their army or their models lol.

Exactly, it's a hobby, so why would you not participate in the hobby aspect, which is painting the figures?

Depends what you class as the Hobby.
I see the hobby as gaming. I don't paint my Monopoly figures, or Settlers of Catan pieces, or my computer.

Yes I do paint my 40K figures, but that's because I want to and not because I have to. Let people just play the game.

 drock403 wrote:
The amount of pretentiousness in this thread and general topic is staggering. Do what you want with your hobby, time, money, and feel free to set your own standards for your army. You feel like everything should be painted before battling on the tabletop? Go hard, but don't try to impose what you feel is "right" in your little hobby world on other people. Sorry, the miniatures are nothing more than physical avatars for which to represent the rules of the models, paint schemes and standards never come into the equation. If my opponent's mini is an unpainted troop choice and mine is a painted troop choice then guess what? They both operate the exact same on the tabletop. Whether the lack of paint on your opponent's behalf disrupts your imaginative forging of the narrative or just plain bugs you, that's on you and not your opponent. Either work on your imaginative play or simply get over it, both solutions are relatively simple.

I imagine the "purists" on this board would also judge their opponent for having scratch builds, third party models, and *gasp* using third party paints because they aren't directly in line with the GW purist culture. Please, take a step back, get over yourself, and come back to the hobby when you're ready to actually enjoy the company of others and enjoy the game for what it is.

A hobby filled with players that hate on their mother company, GW, and, more importantly, other players is a community divided that doesn't have a lot of hope for a future.

If you want to play against the same purist every game simply because his/her products are good enough for you and up to your standards then go ahead. Me? I'll just be over here playing with everybody else and enjoying the game instead of nitpicking the aesthetics of my opponent's army.

The only pretension I see in this thread is yours.

Pretentious- making usually unjustified or excessive claims (as of value or standing), expressive of affected, unwarranted, or exaggerated importance, worth, or stature, making demands on one's skill, ability, or means.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/pretentious

If making a claim or opinion on a forum consisting mostly of opinion is pretentious then I'm guilty as charged. I was merely stating that elitist wargamers who feel that others should paint armies to their standard is pretentious, and it is.

Stop expecting people to play to your standard and not only will you lead a much happier life but you'll also manage to stay out of other people's business. It's a win win.

 drock403 wrote:
The amount of pretentiousness in this thread and general topic is staggering. Do what you want with your hobby, time, money, and feel free to set your own standards for your army. You feel like everything should be painted before battling on the tabletop? Go hard, but don't try to impose what you feel is "right" in your little hobby world on other people. Sorry, the miniatures are nothing more than physical avatars for which to represent the rules of the models, paint schemes and standards never come into the equation. If my opponent's mini is an unpainted troop choice and mine is a painted troop choice then guess what? They both operate the exact same on the tabletop. Whether the lack of paint on your opponent's behalf disrupts your imaginative forging of the narrative or just plain bugs you, that's on you and not your opponent. Either work on your imaginative play or simply get over it, both solutions are relatively simple.

I imagine the "purists" on this board would also judge their opponent for having scratch builds, third party models, and *gasp* using third party paints because they aren't directly in line with the GW purist culture. Please, take a step back, get over yourself, and come back to the hobby when you're ready to actually enjoy the company of others and enjoy the game for what it is.

A hobby filled with players that hate on their mother company, GW, and, more importantly, other players is a community divided that doesn't have a lot of hope for a future.

If you want to play against the same purist every game simply because his/her products are good enough for you and up to your standards then go ahead. Me? I'll just be over here playing with everybody else and enjoying the game instead of nitpicking the aesthetics of my opponent's army.

TLDR version: Justification for being a lazy goob.

 Ugavine wrote:

 Tyberos the Red Wake wrote:

Dalymiddleboro wrote:
Who cares? It's a HOBBY, do w/e you want and get w/e you want out of it. There's no set way to go about this... I just don't understand why people let it emotionally affect them when it's not their army or their models lol.

Exactly, it's a hobby, so why would you not participate in the hobby aspect, which is painting the figures?

Depends what you class as the Hobby.
I see the hobby as gaming. I don't paint my Monopoly figures, or Settlers of Catan pieces, or my computer.

Yes I do paint my 40K figures, but that's because I want to and not because I have to. Let people just play the game.

There's no expectation of painting your Monopoly figures, or Settler pieces, or your computer. So get your strawmen out of here.

There is an expectation that you're to paint your Wargaming miniatures.

 Ravenous D wrote:

 drock403 wrote:
The amount of pretentiousness in this thread and general topic is staggering. Do what you want with your hobby, time, money, and feel free to set your own standards for your army. You feel like everything should be painted before battling on the tabletop? Go hard, but don't try to impose what you feel is "right" in your little hobby world on other people. Sorry, the miniatures are nothing more than physical avatars for which to represent the rules of the models, paint schemes and standards never come into the equation. If my opponent's mini is an unpainted troop choice and mine is a painted troop choice then guess what? They both operate the exact same on the tabletop. Whether the lack of paint on your opponent's behalf disrupts your imaginative forging of the narrative or just plain bugs you, that's on you and not your opponent. Either work on your imaginative play or simply get over it, both solutions are relatively simple.

I imagine the "purists" on this board would also judge their opponent for having scratch builds, third party models, and *gasp* using third party paints because they aren't directly in line with the GW purist culture. Please, take a step back, get over yourself, and come back to the hobby when you're ready to actually enjoy the company of others and enjoy the game for what it is.

A hobby filled with players that hate on their mother company, GW, and, more importantly, other players is a community divided that doesn't have a lot of hope for a future.

If you want to play against the same purist every game simply because his/her products are good enough for you and up to your standards then go ahead. Me? I'll just be over here playing with everybody else and enjoying the game instead of nitpicking the aesthetics of my opponent's army.

TLDR version: Justification for being a lazy goob.

Agreed. Seems like drock's arguing a completely different point.

 drock403 wrote:


I imagine the "purists" on this board would also judge their opponent for having scratch builds, third party models, and *gasp* using third party paints because they aren't directly in line with the GW purist culture. Please, take a step back, get over yourself, and come back to the hobby when you're ready to actually enjoy the company of others and enjoy the game for what it is.

A hobby filled with players that hate on their mother company, GW, and, more importantly, other players is a community divided that doesn't have a lot of hope for a future.

If you want to play against the same purist every game simply because his/her products are good enough for you and up to your standards then go ahead. Me? I'll just be over here playing with everybody else and enjoying the game instead of nitpicking the aesthetics of my opponent's army.

Actually it's quite the opposite. Those of us who are pro-painting are ino asthetics. Dynamic conversions, awesome third party bits, counts-as models and characters, these are all things we love because they show effort and creativity. Just like a painted army does.

It's the dude with the half assembled grey riptide that's going to make a fuss over non-gw models or a customized counts as Lysander in my experience.

This, and every other thread like it, in a nutshell:

90% of people who state a preference for painting: "I wouldn't refuse you a game, but it is so much better looking when you've painted your models"

Unpainted Advocates: "Stop being so elitist!!!!"

 Las wrote:

 drock403 wrote:


I imagine the "purists" on this board would also judge their opponent for having scratch builds, third party models, and *gasp* using third party paints because they aren't directly in line with the GW purist culture. Please, take a step back, get over yourself, and come back to the hobby when you're ready to actually enjoy the company of others and enjoy the game for what it is.

A hobby filled with players that hate on their mother company, GW, and, more importantly, other players is a community divided that doesn't have a lot of hope for a future.

If you want to play against the same purist every game simply because his/her products are good enough for you and up to your standards then go ahead. Me? I'll just be over here playing with everybody else and enjoying the game instead of nitpicking the aesthetics of my opponent's army.

Actually it's quite the opposite. Those of us who are pro-painting are ino asthetics. Dynamic conversions, awesome third party bits, counts-as models and characters, these are all things we love because they show effort and creativity. Just like a painted army does.

It's the dude with the half assembled grey riptide that's going to make a fuss over non-gw models or a customized counts as Lysander in my experience.

I just had to quote this because this is EXACTLY what happened at a tournament that I went to. An acquaintance of mine was playing his Khorne space marine army (Which he had been using as Blood Angels by adding reptillian and daemonic wings to things to make them descent of angels type. He had TONS of conversions and cool models and had painted the army beautifully to a top notch standard. Had never heard him once EVER argue about the look of someone else's models. Instead of the Krak Missile launcher that came on Rhinos, he had converted Bloodletters climbing from the rhinos hurling daemonic missles.. these were his Krakk missile launchers for them. Something he had CLEARED with the TO before the tournament.

His first game, against an unpainted / half assembled army of orks. Really, like zero effort put into the army. The very first thing the Ork player said when he saw the BA list was "HEY!! Those aren't Krak missile launchers! I'm not letting you use them." He calls the TO over, argues for about 10 minutes as how he can't use the daemons as krak missiles. At argument minute 11, the TO says, "Look, they're Krak Missile launchers, how can you argue WYSIWYG when half your army is in shambles. Either suck it up, or you can leave." Not to say that ALL players are like that, but it really reminded me of it.

2 main reasons.

1) its kinda stale to play against a solid gray or primed army. Everything looks the same except for the random big thing.

2) If the army is new, understandable. if you have been playing for months and years and you STILL havent painted, then it tells me youre lazy. Yes not everyone can paint to awesome levels but anyone can paint the basic 3-4 paint schemes. Just avoid the details like bootstraps or whatever and its a lot easier to pull off.

I am not a fan of painting the models I prefer to build and convert them, but I will admit a well painted army is awesome and gives me a bit of the green eyed syndrome I am not good at painting. My only requirement is that if you play that the models are fully assembled so you know what it is and what equipment it has, So I will play with unpainted armies just not half assembled ones.

But all in all when it comes to 40K my opinion is very its your money and your hobby who am I too Judge .

 drock403 wrote:
The amount of pretentiousness in this thread and general topic is staggering. Do what you want with your hobby, time, money, and feel free to set your own standards for your army. You feel like everything should be painted before battling on the tabletop? Go hard, but don't try to impose what you feel is "right" in your little hobby world on other people. Sorry, the miniatures are nothing more than physical avatars for which to represent the rules of the models, paint schemes and standards never come into the equation. If my opponent's mini is an unpainted troop choice and mine is a painted troop choice then guess what? They both operate the exact same on the tabletop. Whether the lack of paint on your opponent's behalf disrupts your imaginative forging of the narrative or just plain bugs you, that's on you and not your opponent. Either work on your imaginative play or simply get over it, both solutions are relatively simple.

I imagine the "purists" on this board would also judge their opponent for having scratch builds, third party models, and *gasp* using third party paints because they aren't directly in line with the GW purist culture. Please, take a step back, get over yourself, and come back to the hobby when you're ready to actually enjoy the company of others and enjoy the game for what it is.

No, kit bashing and 3rd party paints and gear is fantastic, makes for a great varience in creativity. You will note from other threads that I don't even care much for WYSIWYG, I am not at all legalistic about that. Interesting that a cursory review of this thread doesn't reveal anyone who said that they "wouldn't" play against an unpainted army, just that they themeselves insist on painting their stuff before fielding it.

Which leads to me attacking your post. You see, your attitude is exactly what is wrong with modern society today. I choose to have standards, I want my Soldiers painted before I play with them. You choose not to have standards, which I am fine with. But now me being fine with your not having standards isn't good enough - you want to call me pretentious
for imposing my own self standards. Where do you get off forcing your lack of standards down my throat? Why is this happening in every sphere of society?

Orthodox Jews live with a standard for religion and eat Kosher, for some reason pork eaters (I eat bacon) get all pissed off about this. Some people have standards for fitness or how they conduct their business, people without standards hate them for their athleticness or work ethic. Why? How is Rebel Wilson a pop icon? How? No standards. If you don't want to paint your stuff... FINE! But leave me to do what I want.

- J

personally I field armies of gray. I do this for a couple reasons, one I cant paint worth gak and I prefer grey over a crap job( and I don't have the time to play and build that skillset). I also do this because i have army ADD, ive built 5 armies to around 2000 pts. thankfully where i play they have no issue with the gray, if they did id probably be pretty pissed as i personally view 40k as game>hobby

I have no problem with unpainted armies, I just want people to have fun and play nice.

I think the primary problem people have is when they see someone walk in and start fielding their army and they've spent all this love and care painting to lose or play against the grey horde and they feel kind of cheated out of what they view as part of the fun of the game.

I think it kind of relates back to other games too, like when people get angry when someone new comes along and messes everything up or uses a tactic they don't like. There's no real REASON to get mad, it's just something they hate.

 necrondog99 wrote:

 drock403 wrote:
The amount of pretentiousness in this thread and general topic is staggering. Do what you want with your hobby, time, money, and feel free to set your own standards for your army. You feel like everything should be painted before battling on the tabletop? Go hard, but don't try to impose what you feel is "right" in your little hobby world on other people. Sorry, the miniatures are nothing more than physical avatars for which to represent the rules of the models, paint schemes and standards never come into the equation. If my opponent's mini is an unpainted troop choice and mine is a painted troop choice then guess what? They both operate the exact same on the tabletop. Whether the lack of paint on your opponent's behalf disrupts your imaginative forging of the narrative or just plain bugs you, that's on you and not your opponent. Either work on your imaginative play or simply get over it, both solutions are relatively simple.

I imagine the "purists" on this board would also judge their opponent for having scratch builds, third party models, and *gasp* using third party paints because they aren't directly in line with the GW purist culture. Please, take a step back, get over yourself, and come back to the hobby when you're ready to actually enjoy the company of others and enjoy the game for what it is.

No, kit bashing and 3rd party paints and gear is fantastic, makes for a great varience in creativity. You will note from other threads that I don't even care much for WYSIWYG, I am not at all legalistic about that. Interesting that a cursory review of this thread doesn't reveal anyone who said that they "wouldn't" play against an unpainted army, just that they themeselves insist on painting their stuff before fielding it.

Which leads to me attacking your post. You see, your attitude is exactly what is wrong with modern society today. I choose to have standards, I want my Soldiers painted before I play with them. You choose not to have standards, which I am fine with. But now me being fine with your not having standards isn't good enough - you want to call me pretentious
for imposing my own self standards. Where do you get off forcing your lack of standards down my throat? Why is this happening in every sphere of society?

Orthodox Jews live with a standard for religion and eat Kosher, for some reason pork eaters (I eat bacon) get all pissed off about this. Some people have standards for fitness or how they conduct their business, people without standards hate them for their athleticness or work ethic. Why? How is Rebel Wilson a pop icon? How? No standards. If you don't want to paint your stuff... FINE! But leave me to do what I want.

- J

Super long quote. Whatever, too lazy to edit. Just wanted to state that I have standards for my own army, I like them painted. They're not great but I do my best, and I wouldn't field anything that wasn't but that's just how I like to hobby. I'm not advocating that others play non painted miniatures or with painted ones or anything in between. The point I was trying to get across was that we shouldn't expect others to play to our standards. We all hobby in our own way and I don't think it's right that some players should get excluded or shamed for doing things their way. Maybe I didn't make my point properly but what you said in your post about "leave me to do what I want" is exactly what I was getting at. Let's just all throw some dice with our models that we paid good money for.

As long as my opponent isn't a dipsht I have no problem playing against non-painted models.

Rule number one is to have fun, it's not my place as a hobbyist to impinge upon someone else's idea of fun just because they don't live up to my standards.

Not everyone has the time to spend on painting models just because someone else does.

I have trouble believing time is as big a factor as so many say here. This is 40k we're talking about here! You have to cut bits out of sprues and glue them together just to play! And when you do, it takes 3 + hours!

I prefer painted minatures to non painted minatures, simply because they look better.

WHEN GW used to sell skirmish games , and regularly promote games with LOWER minature counts.MORE people used painted minatures.
They would simply paint up small warbands, gangs etc.THIS got them in the habit of 'buy a few paint a few.'

And MOST people applied this to collecting larger armies.(Maybe fields one or two un painted units that were WIP.)

However, since GW corperate have defined the 'GW Hobby' , as 'buying GW product.'
There is more pressure to buy lots of minatures in one go, and this is why a lot of people end up with a sea of plastic to paint which can be very daunting.

The wider war gaming hobby, does not seem to be afflicted by the same problems as 40k/WHFB in reguards to unpainted armies.

Lanrak wrote:


The wider war gaming hobby, does not seem to be afflicted by the same problems as 40k/WHFB in reguards to unpainted armies.

This, a thousand times this.

Just an FYI to the guy who spent 3 pages of posts trying to convince people he never mentioned the "rules"

The minute you put the word legally in your first post you were making reference to matters concerning the law and the law is by definition of a body of governed rules.

So please be mindful of your own terms and that blasting people for not understanding your version of what you intended to write (however misleading it was) is in itself quite arrogant.

Also maybe learn that its OK to be wrong when it comes to written language we internet people can be quite forgiving.

Love.....

For me, it depends on the army.

My Nurgle Daemons are a recent addition. They are all painted (bar one unit that is being painted), because i bought them as a painting/modelling project more than as a playing army, and i love painting them.

My DE are almost universally not painted. I enjoy playing with them, but haven't gotten around to painting them as yet, as I have the Nurgle guys still to finish and i'm also painting m fething orks.

My Orks are my playing army. I love playing with them, but absolutely hate painting the little fethers. It's a chore. I have a bunch of painted units, and a bunch i've not touched yet.

If anyone judgmental were to play me, they would develop different opinions of me depending on the army.

Nurgle: This guy's really into the game! Everything is painted, converted and based!

DE: What a lazy fether! Practically nothing painted, nothing based. This guy couldn't give two short feths about the HHHHobby.

Orks : depends on which units i bring - could be either result, or 'at least most of this guy's models are painted...'

 Las wrote:

Lanrak wrote:


The wider war gaming hobby, does not seem to be afflicted by the same problems as 40k/WHFB in reguards to unpainted armies.

This, a thousand times this.

It is an interesting phenomenon, isn't it? I know Warmachine/Hordes used to have this problem as well, but PP has gotten better with encouraging players to paint their miniatures with their Journeyman Leagues and painting requirements for tournaments.

It never used to be a problem back when GW had the "paint to play" policy. After that disappeared combined with the mass exodus of players the quality these days is pretty brutal.

Astronomi-con is a pretty big tournament here in Canada land and when they started you saw armies that were more akin to works of art. Now you have goobs showing up with terribly painted rush jobs.

I don't get mad when I play unpainted armies. Some people don't have the time/motivation/skill to paint an army to what standard they'd like. I don't really buy into the "Forging a narrative" thing since a lot of 40k battles don't make much sense anyway. Even in it's own madness.

I get mixed feelings when my fully painted army gets beaten by a non painted one. On the one hand, I'm a little upset because I feel like I wasted my time in painting them. I guess this stems from that old gamer belief that painted minis do better. On the other, I had a painted army and he didn't! Moral victory for CustomLime.

I love people who so easily make assumptions about another player solely because the army they have that day is unpainted. All that unpainted army represents clearly is that it is unpainted. Anything else is an assumption on the elitist's part as to "why?" the army isn't painted: Lazy? Army of the month syndrome? Just trying to ruin the elitist's hobby? All assumptions and most likely completely wrong. Even if they aren't wrong the answer to those question is all "So what?"

It is just laughable that some of these people come across as if the absolutely worst thing that has ever happened to them in their life is that an opponent had the audacity to use an army with unpainted figures in a game of 40k. Oh the horror!! They get so whiny and cranky about the unpainted army that they have zero fun in the game, and make the experience lousy for their opponent as well. In my book that makes THEM the problem and not the unpainted army.

Best for me are those who seem to feel the need to keep track of everyone else's armies and decide that it has been long enough for the army or a new unit in the army to be painted so they won't play against them anymroe until it is. Must be nice to have such an empty life that you can keep track of things like that all the time. I tend to be way too busy to care if my opponent has used the same unpainted unit of marines for the last year or not. I just don't care as long as the games are fun and we can actually get games in.

I have tons of miniatures. Some are painted and some are not. I have probably painted more armies in my day than many of the elitists and then sold them off to new homes. None of their business if my army I am playing today isn't fully painted or not, nor is it any of their business why that isn't. For me, though, life is so busy I'd far rather be spending my time actually playing games with the armies I've spent thousands of dollars on through the years than just sitting at home painting and looking at them because I don't have time to do both things of late. As I've told others who worry about such things, if you are some place to play a game and someone starts giving your grief about your unpainted models happily tell them to find another opponent because you are there to play and not to put up with their annoying attitudes and behaviors. I have plenty of friends who will not field a mini or unit that is not painted, but that is their choice and their compulsion and they don't demand that others do the same thing or else.

Skriker

So much grey guilt in these threads.

None of us freak out about unpainted armies. We DO see them as an indication of laziness, but most of us will still play against you. Stop painting (lolz) us as petty folks freaking out at grey plastic.

kranki wrote:
Just an FYI to the guy who spent 3 pages of posts trying to convince people he never mentioned the "rules"

The minute you put the word legally in your first post you were making reference to matters concerning the law and the law is by definition of a body of governed rules.

And to this I say again: context, context, context.

Any time I mentioned legality it was in specific reference to assembly of the models. Why? Because there are rules when it comes to building your miniatures if you want to battle with them, there's a rulebook and everything. Generally, you have to model units with the proper weapons and equipment, they have to be on correctly sized bases/have the correct dimensions for measuring and LOS, things like that. I also happened to mention that to use painted models was to use the products as intended, as there are designed to be used... i.e. properly. What followed was pages of barrage from a couple of other posters saying things like; "erm there's no rule to have painted minis", "hey stop saying there's only one way to enjoy/have fun with the hobby", "omg stop forcing your opinion on others as fact", "jeez what an elitist neckbeard... I bet you think people who use unpainted minis are scum", yadda yadda insert other such nonsense here. They put two and two together and came up with fourteen. Never mind all the other stuff that I actually said, nor the majority of other posters saying very similar/the same/more extreme things than me... no, no, no, let's just keep on at this one post/phrase/word and derail the topic over our misinterpretation of its meaning!



Not that I mind, I can take it. I just think it's a rather interesting, slightly amusing observation. Besides, if others wish to comment on my comments, then I'm more than happy to reply again. Especially if it's to correct their mistake.

Reminder this topic was never about assembly of models it was about painting. Your point about following the given rules for bases sizes and weapons is 100% spot on if you are playing in that kind of environment. The issue is painted models and I cannot see anywhere in the rule set the mention of unpainted or painted models infringing on game play.

Please state page numbers and references of materials if you are to support your argument.

The word context is not a magical I can type what I want if you don't get it then whatever word. Your context on your first post was to group painting into the same category as assembly and then bang on about legality.

Secondly though I cannot whole speak for the community but can voice my opinion I feel its nice for you to enjoy correcting others mistakes but please be kind enough to acknowledge your own when they have been made...

Back to post, GW models are designed to be painted hence the type of materials they are made from. They are also designed to be played with regardless of paint and I would be happy to play anyone who was up for a fun game regardless of the visual impact but that said my favourite moments of the tabletop gaming hobby is getting fully painted models on a tables rich in scenery and that is what gives me my buzz. Its a shame this is becoming less frequent now :(

How can anyone argue that the models we all collect aren't intended to go to war fully painted?

Do you ever see a picture in anything they release of a half painted army versus a grey horde?

Having said that I personally don't only play with painted minis (I'm entirely too slow at painting for that)

Whether or not you've painted your models when playing against me is of no concern, it's obviously a better experience when we both have fully painted forces though.

Guy walks in with new unpainted Riptide:Hey guys you don't mind that (Insert stupid long tau name)is unpainted?That's OK.
5 months later:Sets down grey lump of plastic on table.Us:If your going to spend 85 euro on a model and not paint it that's OK.But it. Ruins how good the game looks AND it makes you look like a dumbass for spending so much money on something then making it look stupid.And it makes you look lazy.

I do plan on painting my army...eventually. I'm pissed off at myself, as my "shiny" new wraithknight is still unassembled waiting for paint.

 Anfauglir wrote:
Because there are rules when it comes to building your miniatures if you want to battle with them, there's a rulebook and everything.

Would you mind explaining where the assembly rules are? Or anything to do with painting them in the rules portion of the rulebook?

kranki wrote:
The issue is painted models and I cannot see anywhere in the rule set the mention of unpainted or painted models infringing on game play.

Nor will you find that particular viewpoint/argument mentioned in any of my posts, either. So I'll ask (like with a previous poster), why are we having this discussion?

The word context is not a magical I can type what I want if you don't get it then whatever word. Your context on your first post was to group painting into the same category as assembly and then bang on about legality.

Wrong. There's an "and" inbetween the words "modelled" and "painted", clearly used to separate them. Stop making the same mistake as the others. Even if you miscomprehended my first post, you, having read through the topic, have had plenty of chances to realise your error in my (multiple) clarifying posts. So stop persisting in taking what I said and twisting it into something else. I never mentioned rules/legality in regards to painted vs unpainted - end of story.

Secondly though I cannot whole speak for the community but can voice my opinion I feel its nice for you to enjoy correcting others mistakes but please be kind enough to acknowledge your own when they have been made...

Gladly.

 Happyjew wrote:
I do plan on painting my army...eventually. I'm pissed off at myself, as my "shiny" new wraithknight is still unassembled waiting for paint.

Whatever you do - don't just basecoat, highlight, wash as some are advocating. You'll play with them a few times, be miserable about how they look and strip them all, ruining a couple in the process.

If you are such an "elitist" that you wont play a game against someone that isnt fully painted then you are a douche imo. I understand armies that are in pieces but if its at least built not playing because there isnt paint is lame as hell.

rigeld2 wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:
I do plan on painting my army...eventually. I'm pissed off at myself, as my "shiny" new wraithknight is still unassembled waiting for paint.

Whatever you do - don't just basecoat, highlight, wash as some are advocating. You'll play with them a few times, be miserable about how they look and strip them all, ruining a couple in the process.

Part of it was for the longest time I had no idea which Craftworld to do. Now that it's decided, I just need money for paints. And food. And bills. And some more models so I can make my army WYSIWYG. Mostly bills and food though.

 namiel wrote:
If you are such an "elitist" that you wont play a game against someone that isnt fully painted then you are a douche imo. I understand armies that are in pieces but if its at least built not playing because there isnt paint is lame as hell.

Then it's a good job such people are vanishingly rare. In fact given that Dakka is the largest wargaming forum on the internet, and given this topic has occurred many times since I have been a member, I can't off the top of my head remember more than a handful of people say they would not play against an unpainted army. And the majority of those who said that were as far from "douche" as could be; generally stating that they don't have a lot of time to play, so prefer to play against people who have made the effort to paint up their army.

Personally I would much rather play against a painted force - I have very limited time to game, paint or indeed take part in any aspect of the hobby and so would prefer to be able to look at a nice table full of painted models. Plus painted models, as much as you may hate to hear it, is one way to indicate a player who is less likely to be one of your "douches", since it indicates a certain level of caring about their army that you don't see if someone plonks down a grey horde across from your stuff...

 SilverMK2 wrote:

 namiel wrote:
If you are such an "elitist" that you wont play a game against someone that isnt fully painted then you are a douche imo. I understand armies that are in pieces but if its at least built not playing because there isnt paint is lame as hell.

Then it's a good job such people are vanishingly rare. In fact given that Dakka is the largest wargaming forum on the internet, and given this topic has occurred many times since I have been a member, I can't off the top of my head remember more than a handful of people say they would not play against an unpainted army. And the majority of those who said that were as far from "douche" as could be; generally stating that they don't have a lot of time to play, so prefer to play against people who have made the effort to paint up their army.

Personally I would much rather play against a painted force - I have very limited time to game, paint or indeed take part in any aspect of the hobby and so would prefer to be able to look at a nice table full of painted models. Plus painted models, as much as you may hate to hear it, is one way to indicate a player who is less likely to be one of your "douches", since it indicates a certain level of caring about their army that you don't see if someone plonks down a grey horde across from your stuff...

I agree painted models are better BUT those who say they will not play someone who isnt painted makes me think they would sit and not play rather then play someone who is unpainted.

 namiel wrote:
I agree painted models are better BUT those who say they will not play someone who isnt painted makes me think they would sit and not play rather then play someone who is unpainted.

They're not actually saying that though, so why hate them for something you could be entirely making up in your head?

I've yet to attend an event or gaming night where there aren't plenty of people to play against, including a mix of people with painted and unpainted armies (you may also notice that people with painted armies tend to have more people interested in playing against them than those with half assembled, un-painted armies ).

By the way using "and" between two words like you have done is using its connective meaning not as you imply as a way of introducing a new or additional comment (look it up)

Your arrogance is personified by your misuse of words in your awful musings and your inability to admit you have made a simple mistake, personally I would bring unpainted models just to avoid playing you.

I will dog this topic no longer as my purpose was to get you to admit fault which with your endless list of pathetic excuses appears to be an exercise in futility.

 SilverMK2 wrote:

 namiel wrote:
I agree painted models are better BUT those who say they will not play someone who isnt painted makes me think they would sit and not play rather then play someone who is unpainted.

They're not actually saying that though, so why hate them for something you could be entirely making up in your head?

I've yet to attend an event or gaming night where there aren't plenty of people to play against, including a mix of people with painted and unpainted armies (you may also notice that people with painted armies tend to have more people interested in playing against them than those with half assembled, un-painted armies ).

Sadly I have seen that. Snobs......

kranki wrote:
By the way using "and" between two words like you have done is using its connective meaning not as you imply as a way of introducing a new or additional comment (look it up)

You're right except for one small problem, and you may well hate me for saying... but, yep, it's that pesky context rearing its ugly head again. You've isolated three lone words from the post in its entirety in order to make your point. This is a mistake because the key issue being addressed with my post (indeed, the whole topic), is not whether or not there are or aren't rules for not painting minis, but why one player may mind if another player battles with unpainted minis. So, when I say "legally modelled and painted", this in itself is in reference to my overall point about their intended, proper usage for battling. If I wanted to refocus the issue of my post onto the legality of painted vs unpainted, I would have said: "legally modelled and legally painted", or better yet, have dropped the modelling part out. However, that was never my point. So I didn't, and as soon as the TC mistakenly thought that's what I was saying, I corrected them in the very next post. And several other posts afterwards, for that matter. I guess you missed those...

Your arrogance is personified by your misuse of words in your awful musings and your inability to admit you have made a simple mistake, personally I would bring unpainted models just to avoid playing you.

And your inability to grasp basic reading comprehension is personified by your erroneous presumption that bringing unpainted models would result in me avoiding you on the table top - despite more than one example in this thread of me stating the contrary.

I will dog this topic no longer as my purpose was to get you to admit fault which with your endless list of pathetic excuses appears to be an exercise in futility.

You're right, it was futile. You could have chosen to add to the topic as a whole, or take part in one of the other more fruitful discussions under way, instead you chose to target and reopen an already exhausted issue that has been resolved already. Again, having read through the whole topic would have told you this and saved both our time and effort... oh, well.

I think some people are really misinterpreting what a lot of people are saying. I understand that yeah it's probably prefered to play against a fully painted army because it's easy to tell what and where everything is and what it's equipped with. It looks better. But really that's it. It's a game. A game that uses models. If you like painting good for you. If you don't like painting, good for you as well. If someone wanted to play against me with an all unprimed army they have had for years it wouldn't bother me. Most of the time it turns out they have too much time dedicated to other things to put in hours to paint their models for a game they play on the week ends. It's the same reason why you don't see everyone making their own special bait and lures to go fishing. It's a hobby and they put in what they want out of it and shouldn't feel the "grey guilt" for not meeting someone's standards but their own.
Lets put it like this.
Guy A: I like playing FPS shooter game 597.
Guy B: Me too. Have you unlocked Special Snowflake mode?
Guy A: No. Why?
Guy B: Well that's just you being lazy. Games been out a while.
Guy A: Well, that's just not for me. I like playing the campaign not the multiplayer too much. It's just not what I got it for.
Guy B: Well this is a FPS. It comes with the territory that you have to strive to get Special Snowflake mode. If you don't then you should just stop playing these games entirely and go play Minesweeper.
Guy A: But I really like this game I just want to play for fun not put any unneccessary work I don't need to.
Guy B: I guess I see that, but I still just think you're lazy and need to play another game. You could just give up an hour of sleep and play before bed each day. Do some hardcore grinding. You could even pay someone to play the game for you to level up.

Guy walks in with new unpainted Riptide:Hey guys you don't mind that (Insert stupid long tau name)is unpainted?That's OK.
5 months later:Sets down grey lump of plastic on table.Us:If your going to spend 85 euro on a model and not paint it that's OK.But it. Ruins how good the game looks AND it makes you look like a dumbass for spending so much money on something then making it look stupid.And it makes you look lazy.

OR it makes you and your group look like intolerant "game snobs" because of the amount of unfounded assumptions you make about someone with almost no real basis. I realize the guy with the unpainted Riptide is having fun wrong, and I am also well aware of the fact that you and your group probably have Golden Demon quality paint jobs (because I refuse to play against anyone who has less than GD quality paint - it ruins my immersion and it makes you look like DUMBASSES for spending all that money on and time on those models to have less than Top-of-the Line Pro Quality work), but seriously ... you might be taking your war-dollies too seriously.

While I would rather play against a painted army, I will never turn down a game against a fully assembled but not painted army and I will have just as much fun. It's just a hobby and different people are in it for different reasons. Some people just don't like to paint. It's not fun for them, but they DO like everything else. I'm cool with that.

I actually prefer playing against unpainted armies. When I get my face smashed in, I can always be comforted by the fact that my army looks better than theirs!

Nah, I prefer a great game on a good table with two well-painted armies facing off against each other. That's what the pictures made the game look like when I got into it during second edition, and those pictures sold me on the game.

 Savageconvoy wrote:
I think some people are really misinterpreting what a lot of people are saying. I understand that yeah it's probably prefered to play against a fully painted army because it's easy to tell what and where everything is and what it's equipped with. It looks better. But really that's it. It's a game. A game that uses models. If you like painting good for you. If you don't like painting, good for you as well. If someone wanted to play against me with an all unprimed army they have had for years it wouldn't bother me. Most of the time it turns out they have too much time dedicated to other things to put in hours to paint their models for a game they play on the week ends. It's the same reason why you don't see everyone making their own special bait and lures to go fishing. It's a hobby and they put in what they want out of it and shouldn't feel the "grey guilt" for not meeting someone's standards but their own.
Lets put it like this.
Guy A: I like playing FPS shooter game 597.
Guy B: Me too. Have you unlocked Special Snowflake mode?
Guy A: No. Why?
Guy B: Well that's just you being lazy. Games been out a while.
Guy A: Well, that's just not for me. I like playing the campaign not the multiplayer too much. It's just not what I got it for.
Guy B: Well this is a FPS. It comes with the territory that you have to strive to get Special Snowflake mode. If you don't then you should just stop playing these games entirely and go play Minesweeper.
Guy A: But I really like this game I just want to play for fun not put any unneccessary work I don't need to.
Guy B: I guess I see that, but I still just think you're lazy and need to play another game. You could just give up an hour of sleep and play before bed each day. Do some hardcore grinding. You could even pay someone to play the game for you to level up.

I'm really getting into the Halloween spirit with all these strawmen being put up.

If, in fishing, all the retailers sold you unfinished lures and tackle to then assemble yourself, maybe I'd believe it.

And the video game analogy is just fething stupid.

Here's a challenge for you: try to find me an example, anywhere, that shows that wargaming models aren't supposed to be painted. That there isn't a tradition of painting your miniatures, and that there isn't an expectation of it.

If anything, you're the self-entitled, special 'snowflake' who feels offended when they can't meet the traditional standards.

Both analogies work fine. The video game one works because it's something available to do that requires extra work outside of what is required (The purchase and assembly of the game piece) to play the game that the person desires to play. The fishing example works as well because you're just getting the equipment needed to play a game. At no point does a paint job (aside from Orks) affect the actual rules of the game, the duration, point tally, so on and so forth. It's a completely asthetic aspect that has no real basis on the game and only affects your personal outlook on your equipment available. The analogies don't fit in perfectly, but that's the problem with analogies.

Here's something to ponder. The reason you see the painted models in white dwarfs and on the GW website aren't because they encourage you to paint. It's because they look more appealing. Like how the hamburger in the commercial is rendered no longer edible with chemicals to make it look appetizing. The Forgeworld site often shows many of their models without even a coat of primer on most of them. Does this mean that I'm encouraged to play with unprimed and unpainted models?

This is why the game analogy works. The game has multiple parts to it that some people may just avoid, in this case solo/co-op campaign and multiplayer; the hobby having painting, converting, basing, tactics, list building, terrain making, and so on. Now you're trying to say that the hobby is all encompassing and that buying into one automatically puts you into the other. Would you deny playing a campaign co-op with a friend on Halo simply because he hasn't unlocked all the armor varients in multiplayer? Absolutely not. It has nothing to do with the game at hand. But wargamming is somehow different? If you want to play 40K you absolutely have to grab a brush and paint and get to work or somehow you're not worthy of the hobby.

 Las wrote:
So much grey guilt in these threads.

None of us freak out about unpainted armies. We DO see them as an indication of laziness, but most of us will still play against you. Stop painting (lolz) us as petty folks freaking out at grey plastic.

Grey guilt....I love that term! When I started 40k about 2-2.5 yrs ago, I thought I needed everything painted. I remember this from way back in the late 80's when it kind of was a requirement to play ( at least in my memory). So when I started I did not even consider showing up for a game until I had a force painted. Wow I was surprised when I did show up. Lots of unpainted and in some cases unassembled models. I still paint everything I play with. It does become frustrating when you lose to someone who simply buys the best stuff and puts it on the table without much thought of ever painting it out. But to each his own and I will continue to grow my force slowly and take my lumps along the way with my painted toys.

 namiel wrote:
If you are such an "elitist" that you wont play a game against someone that isnt fully painted then you are a douche imo. I understand armies that are in pieces but if its at least built not playing because there isnt paint is lame as hell.

Am I also I douche if I don't want to do historical re-enacment with people who don't bother to get a costume?

Now, I play with people with unpainted models in tournaments and other such events, but I'm unlikely intentionally arrange games with such people otherwise. Visual aspect of the game is important to me; I understand its not for others, and they're no way bad people for it, but still, I'm perfectly entitled to use my spare time any way I want.


I also have an impression that attitudes have changed (for worse from my perspective), most peole used to paint their models before playing, now playing with unpainted ones seems to be pretty common practice. And as it has been already pointed out, in historical wargames unpainted armies are unthinkable. I don't know why the culture has changed in GW games; the designers themselves certainly promote the painting side of the hobby, and we of course never see (or even hear about) an unpainted army used in a game in WD.

 Crimson wrote:
and we of course never see (or even hear about) an unpainted army used in a game in WD.

Of course we are going to see the painted models in the magazine that's all about advertizing GW products. It's because it makes it look better to the consumer.

I can't remember when, but they had a WD game to showcase the latest army release. The actual wording they used was that they didn't care about point values, they just grabbed what was painted and ready for photos. Now is this WD advocating playing without point values as long as you have photo ready models? No! It's a glorified ad and they were only going to show painted models because it leads to better sales.

 Savageconvoy wrote:

 Crimson wrote:
and we of course never see (or even hear about) an unpainted army used in a game in WD.

Of course we are going to see the painted models in the magazine that's all about advertizing GW products. It's because it makes it look better to the consumer.

I can't remember when, but they had a WD game to showcase the latest army release. The actual wording they used was that they didn't care about point values, they just grabbed what was painted and ready for photos. Now is this WD advocating playing without point values as long as you have photo ready models? No! It's a glorified ad and they were only going to show painted models because it leads to better sales.

This example breaks down when you get your head out of GW's blinders and look around at the wider hobby. Why do game systems and wargaming magazines independent of companies that offer rules/miniatures combos feature fully painted armies? In all of Warlord Game's rulebooks there are miniatures from a variety of manufacturers. The miniatures from those other than Warlord are no less well painted. The same goes for Tomorrow's War - Ambush Alley Games and Osprey Publishing don't even have a line of miniatures, so why bother painting anything in the books if they're not trying to sell their products?

The fishing example works as well because you're just getting the equipment needed to play a game.

But you're ignoring the difference. Professional fishermen and men who literally live off of their income from fishing don't assemble their own lures for the most part. Companies that make lures don't sell them un-assembled and un-colored. But most wargaming miniature manufacturers do sell your their models unpainted and unembarrassed.

This is why the game analogy works. The game has multiple parts to it that some people may just avoid, in this case solo/co-op campaign and multiplayer; the hobby having painting, converting, basing, tactics, list building, terrain making, and so on. Now you're trying to say that the hobby is all encompassing and that buying into one automatically puts you into the other. Would you deny playing a campaign co-op with a friend on Halo simply because he hasn't unlocked all the armor varients in multiplayer? Absolutely not.

Again, you're missing the difference. There is a massive difference between using a default character in a game and using a grey blob of miniatures. A default character is still colored and looks like belongs in the game. A grey, colorless miniature doesn't.

It's just as Crimson said. I wouldn't expect to be treated well if I showed up to a historical reenactment in cargo shorts and a t-shirt, even though wearing that wouldn't affect my ability to perform in whatever role I was in. It's a purely aesthetic choice that's understood to be a critical and necessary part of the hobby to keep the immersion.

Is anyone else noticing that there are a lot of people in this thread being very intolerant about people expressing a preference for seeing fully painted models, and then accusing those people of being intolerant of their preference for not working.

What I think everyone here has to take a step back and think about for a bit, is that this is a game played between two or more people. You can paint by yourself, or collect grey legions by yourself. If you go to a table for a game, you are going to have to deal with their standards, their preference for how the game is played and for what the models look like. Sure, you may be fine with grey legions, but maybe they really like seeing two or more fully painted armies squared off against each other. Really, you're hurting their enjoyment, much like they could hurt your enjoyment by refusing to play you. It's the same thing really. Now, as socially functional human beings, I am sure we all recognize the need for compromise. I will play your unpainted army, but, all else being equal, I will play a fully painted army. This way, we each get to enjoy ourselves about half the time. If you want to enjoy yourself more often, you can paint your army, meaning that I will enjoy playing you more, and so will play you more. Everyone now wins with you painting your army.

 infinite_array wrote:

 Savageconvoy wrote:

 Crimson wrote:
and we of course never see (or even hear about) an unpainted army used in a game in WD.

Of course we are going to see the painted models in the magazine that's all about advertizing GW products. It's because it makes it look better to the consumer.

I can't remember when, but they had a WD game to showcase the latest army release. The actual wording they used was that they didn't care about point values, they just grabbed what was painted and ready for photos. Now is this WD advocating playing without point values as long as you have photo ready models? No! It's a glorified ad and they were only going to show painted models because it leads to better sales.

This example breaks down when you get your head out of GW's blinders and look around at the wider hobby. Why do game systems and wargaming magazines independent of companies that offer rules/miniatures combos feature fully painted armies? In all of Warlord Game's rulebooks there are miniatures from a variety of manufacturers. The miniatures from those other than Warlord are no less well painted. The same goes for Tomorrow's War - Ambush Alley Games and Osprey Publishing don't even have a line of miniatures, so why bother painting anything in the books if they're not trying to sell their products?

No, your giving more support to the painted for ads to lead to better sell of there stuff, that he was point out. Not the other way around, I'm more likely to buy that "wargaming magazines independent of companies" if it has pretty pics. It the same reason Warload Game's rulebook have pretty pic.

Noir wrote:

 infinite_array wrote:

 Savageconvoy wrote:

 Crimson wrote:
and we of course never see (or even hear about) an unpainted army used in a game in WD.

Of course we are going to see the painted models in the magazine that's all about advertizing GW products. It's because it makes it look better to the consumer.

I can't remember when, but they had a WD game to showcase the latest army release. The actual wording they used was that they didn't care about point values, they just grabbed what was painted and ready for photos. Now is this WD advocating playing without point values as long as you have photo ready models? No! It's a glorified ad and they were only going to show painted models because it leads to better sales.

This example breaks down when you get your head out of GW's blinders and look around at the wider hobby. Why do game systems and wargaming magazines independent of companies that offer rules/miniatures combos feature fully painted armies? In all of Warlord Game's rulebooks there are miniatures from a variety of manufacturers. The miniatures from those other than Warlord are no less well painted. The same goes for Tomorrow's War - Ambush Alley Games and Osprey Publishing don't even have a line of miniatures, so why bother painting anything in the books if they're not trying to sell their products?

No, your giving more support to the painted for ads to lead to better sell of there stuff, that he was point out. Not the other way around, I'm more likely to buy that "wargaming magazines independent of companies" if it has pretty pics. It the same reason Warload Game's rulebook have pretty pic.

Really? That's why gaming magazines feature painted armies? To sell product?

It couldn't possibly be because of the decades of tradition surrounding assembling and painting miniatures could it? A tradition that probably so enthralled the founders of these smaller game companies to get into this business in the first case could it? Could it?

 infinite_array wrote:

This example breaks down when you get your head out of GW's blinders and look around at the wider hobby. Why do game systems and wargaming magazines independent of companies that offer rules/miniatures combos feature fully painted armies? In all of Warlord Game's rulebooks there are miniatures from a variety of manufacturers. The miniatures from those other than Warlord are no less well painted. The same goes for Tomorrow's War - Ambush Alley Games and Osprey Publishing don't even have a line of miniatures, so why bother painting anything in the books if they're not trying to sell their products?

Afraid I'm not familiar with works outside of GW and Forgeworld. However this doesn't change the issue at hand. GW has printed two WD that I know of (at least) where they mishandled rules to push a battle report. I'm sure you've heard of the SoB update where they got a free Fortress of Redemption. The one where the point costs were left to the wayside was DA vs. CSM if I remember right. Does this mean they advocate giving away free Fortifications and loosely handling point values? Giving units more special weapons than they are allowed? Absolutely not. A company that posts up painted models does so because they are trying to show something more asthetically appealing than the bare models. I know of no rules that require a unit (aside form red paint job) to be painted to any color let alone a minimum of three colors and a wash. If it's not part of the rules you can't expect another player to really be aware of this "standard" in the game.

But you're ignoring the difference. Professional fishermen and men who literally live off of their income from fishing don't assemble their own lures for the most part. Companies that make lures don't sell them un-assembled and un-colored. But most wargaming miniature manufacturers do sell your their models unpainted and unembarrassed.

Again, you're missing the difference. There is a massive difference between using a default character in a game and using a grey blob of miniatures. A default character is still colored and looks like belongs in the game. A grey, colorless miniature doesn't.

Do you understand how an analogy works? If I said that jumping without looking is like drinking from a bottle without reading the label there are several differences. Jumping doesn't come in a container. I get it. There are differences. You can point out the differences all day long, but you however ignore the point I was making. Multiplayer options come with the purchase of the game. Much like the option to paint comes with the purchase of models, since you couldn't paint the model without first purchasing it. The option to paint however is not mandatory to enjoy playing the actual game, much like how with the game you can enjoy the campaign without the actual multiplayer aspect. Purchasing lures and bait is an option just like putting in more effort than required to go look for and prepare your own bait and tackle.

Again, look at the gaming analogy. You're brushing it off because to you it seems stupid. Why would someone be upset at someone wanting to play a co-op game just because they haven't spent several hours grinding away at a multiplayer game that has no effect on the actual game play? It sounds silly because it is silly. You're trying to include several aspects of a game that you decide is necessary. What about making your own terrain? That's certainly part of the hobby. Why not bring that into the game as well. Would you accept a game with someone who doesn't bring his own varied set of terrain pieces?

 Savageconvoy wrote:

Again, look at the gaming analogy. You're brushing it off because to you it seems stupid. Why would someone be upset at someone wanting to play a co-op game just because they haven't spent several hours grinding away at a multiplayer game that has no effect on the actual game play? It sounds silly because it is silly. You're trying to include several aspects of a game that you decide is necessary. What about making your own terrain? That's certainly part of the hobby. Why not bring that into the game as well. Would you accept a game with someone who doesn't bring his own varied set of terrain pieces?

I'm 'brushing off' your video game analogy because it's a fundamentally bad analogy. I am saying you cannot compare miniatures to a video game character. Yes, both can require an extended period of time to look different from what they began as. But a video game model doesn't start out without any textures or colors. Your basic character will be fully colored and will look they belong in the game.

If, perhaps, we were talking about X-Wing, or another game that used pre-painted miniatures, then your analogy would make sense (and even then, you can find people who will either touch-up the pre-paint job or strip the miniature to start over). But your default Warhammer figures - in fact, most of your default wargaming miniatures - do not start out colored and looking like they belong in the universe/setting they're portrayed in.

Terrain is another question all together. I would probably be miffed if I showed up at someone's house or club and saw a table with nothing on it and be expected to play on it. And the same would be on me if I was hosting a game or was a part a club and didn't pitch in and make terrain. Which I do - I've taken the time to cut out felt and flock treas for forests, bought, painted, and assembled terrain and even commissioned other pieces when I felt what I wanted was beyond my skill.

The game analogy just doesn't hold up, it's way too different. I see what you're going for in the whole "Im having fun my way" train of thought, but it just isn't the same.

Video games are meant to be able to be played in any of the modes offered and even modded to suit the needs of the player. Wargaming is simply about assembling and painting figures and then using them with a ruleset to simulate battles. That's just fact. Sure, you can choose to partake in any one or combination of these facets of the hobby and culture, but you shouldn't get so defensive when people call you out on not partaking in the hobby as it is supposed to be done.

The majority of tournaments (at least locally, but I'm fairly sure this applies in most places) require models to have three colours and be based. The implication being that you're meant to paint your models before using them. Whether this is out of politeness for your opponents, to prevent WAAC TFGs buying and assembling a flavour of the month power list two days beforehand, or simply to make the hobby look good is up to personal opinion.

Granted, if you don't play in tournaments you can ignore this. However, I take this, the fact that almost every model displayed in a codex or on a box is painted, and the fact that every similar wargame game system also has painted models to mean that you're supposed to paint your 40k minis.

What's with the stupid "taking toy soldiers too seriously" quotes? If you are playing this game and know the rules and play competitive you take it seriously too. Just because some of us want to see them painted doesn't mean we are elitist and taking it "too serious". Really? ONE more step is taking it too seriously? So let me get this straight....

Buy
Build
Learn
Play

That's just right

Buy
Build
PAINT
Learn
Play

Woah man! Take it back a step!! You are taking this waaaay too seriously. You need to chill!

You really can't accuse someone else of taking it too seriously for encouraging ONE more step.

To be honest the painting step pretty much engulfs all the others in terms of time spent unless you go all out on the building process or have been able to play tons of games.

I'll admit I'm guilty of fielding armies with very little painted models. 40k isn't my only hobby and I admit I struggle to paint unless in the mood (which college has made difficult to paint within such time constraints). I've spent hour upon hour on a single guardsman model trying to race out edges and paint some mud onto his form adding a glossy paint to make it look like he is sloshing through water. I try to and I gradually build my way up but I'll admit that painting is my least liked part of the hobby and I can never blame somebody for fielding the grey/black/white/etc.

That being said, there is some sense of entitlement (bad term just not sure what to say) among players of 40k. This hobby is rather niche and you can't deny there is something much more satisfying about playing an enemy army that is painted be it flamboyant pink or a smooth purple. The hobby isn't a competitive game by any means and even the tournaments tend to require 3 paints on every model. This becomes the general expectation that everything else is judged upon. Individually, you will likely find many that simply prefer painted armies but won't reject an individual that hasn't painted their army.

Finally, painting is a major aspect of the hobby. Heck there are many that focus upon the construction and painting of their models above the game itself. And.... there's nothing wrong with that opinion. It is what we do on our spare time and if we feel like it dampens are appreciation then we will chose not to attend such events.

When I got in the game years ago, the local store talked about having a 3 colours minimum to play (2 on the mini, and one more for the weapon) and based to play at the table..that might have been to sell paint. I did 2 squads of Cadians, then promply stopped due to lack of free time.

Restarted year ago (2 years ago now) and worked on getting a 1k force of IG to bring to (another) local store, all ready to play with my painted army, based with sand and grass, even had a squad with eyes and a couple with edging too.

Then I finally played; a foursome with people who didn't bother basing, painted their mini, when they were painted, by spraying them one colour and slapping boltgun metal on the weapon, maybe doing a should pad yellow and calling it 'well painted'. My mind was then opened up to the fact that painting and effort was no longer required, and went in a downward spiral made out of a single shade of grey..Memories of me playing with an autocannon team composed entirely of three 60mm bases with a 'A' scratched on them (to separate them from mortar team made out of three 60mm bases with an 'M' scratched on it), facing Xenos, Chaos and Marines, each of the same monotone, hazy colour, flows back to the surface of my most neutrally coloured nightmares. Leman Russes showing off glue residue on a dull grey plastic armour, armless guardsman storming the line, out of their minds, mostly because they lacked head, pushed to greater feats by a Green stuff Hat-wearing Commissar with matching popped greenstuff collar, all under the hard, watchful gaze of a metal commander half stuck in the base slit (because it's too tick to fit all the way down) and his old-inquisitor-warband-kit-proxing-as-veterans squad mates (The Inquisitor missing his sword arm being the Standard bearer)

But I got over it, thanks to group therapy...or not. Really, it's mostly because my army doubles as the only decoration in my apartment (see no point in having random vases, frames and other crap litter my place serving no other purpose than taking space) so might as well get something that flashes and strikes a better image than some grey bits that I might s well took out from some random board game.

But to answer the post's question, after all that effort made, it's sorta of a let down seeing the other guy not putting as much effort as you do into something you like. It's like work; you and Some guy work at doing X, but Some guy does X partially; but you both get a paycheck of the same value at the end of the week with no consequences for Some guy by doing his work partially.

I don't mind playing against some half painted army if there is progress in the painting, but we had one guy at my local store that never painted his stuff, So we other players were always ribbing him about it during play.

I've never had any complaints. Ever. I play all my armies (list is in my sig.) Of my 3+ companies of Marines (all chapters), ~1.5 companies worth are painted. None of the Xenos stuff is painted. I'm starting to get stuff painted (finishing up a fluffy company, have a blog on that going.)
I guess people get mad because they feel like unpainted armies defeat the point of wargaming. I admit, painted minis are more fun to play with/against, but if it takes me 2 hours (+ basing) to get a mini to a quality I am comfortable with for basic troopers. Considering the sheer number of minis I have...
My 2 bits.

_e

I can see both sides of this issue.

To me, the single most enjoyable part of this hobby is to have a pretty table set-up. I love it when a random passer-by stops to ask what we're doing and to admire how awesome the table looks with the two armies ranging across it. In that regard, playing against a grey army is always a little bit of a let-down. (But I take solace that my army looks much more awesome in comparison.)

By the flip token, I hate painting. I get absolutely no joy out of the process of painting my minis--quite the contrary: it's boring, usually pisses me off, and is physically painful. So I can totally understand it when someone doesn't want to go through that. The joy I get from someone admiring my (our) armies is enough to entice me to go through the ordeal, but I can easily see other people being less enthused by that particular goal.

Not to sound like a total tool but really anyone who says "I enjoy playing against painted armies so if your army is not painted in a friendly game I refuse to play you" IMO sounds pretty childish, especially if said individual has not asked or inquired WHY the models are not painted or in process of being painted. For example, I have work, I am in the military, I have to spend time with my girl, I work out and I have school. That does not leave me alot of time to sit down and paint an army and as mentioned, chances are it would not turn out very well if I did. The idea someone would look at my army and say "sorry your army is not painted so I dont want to play you" really seems to come out in a negative light. Not attacking y'all that feel that way as you have the right to, just realize that you may come off in a negative aspect.

To all those that say not painting your models isn't fully taking part in the hobby, than surely by that logic, people who paint, but don't play are also not fully taking part and are equally worthing of your contempt correct?

 Krellnus wrote:
To all those that say not painting your models isn't fully taking part in the hobby, than surely by that logic, people who paint, but don't play are also not fully taking part and are equally worthing of your contempt correct?

Yes, people who only paint and don't play are not fully taking part in the hobby either. For some reason they don't complain about me not wanting to play against them...

Interested on the prevailing view on people who play with models others have painted (and done a much better job than anything the commisioner coudl have done).

Everyone should be happy - both sides have nicely painted models and someone else gets money as well.............

Or is the commissioner still doing the hobby "wrong" despite this as they don't paint thier own models?

 Mr Morden wrote:
Interested on the prevailing view on people who play with models others have painted (and done a much better job than anything the commisioner coudl have done).

Everyone should be happy - both sides have nicely painted models and someone else gets money as well.............

Or is the commissioner still doing the hobby "wrong" despite this as they don't paint thier own models?

That's completely fine by me. Similarly as I don't care why your models are not painted, I don't care why they are painted, as long as they are.

What's with the stupid "taking toy soldiers too seriously" quotes? If you are playing this game and know the rules and play competitive you take it seriously too. Just because some of us want to see them painted doesn't mean we are elitist and taking it "too serious". Really? ONE more step is taking it too seriously? So let me get this straight....

Buy
Build
Learn
Play

That's just right

Buy
Build
PAINT
Learn
Play

Woah man! Take it back a step!! You are taking this waaaay too seriously. You need to chill!

You really can't accuse someone else of taking it too seriously for encouraging ONE more step.

Speaking for myself - it's not the "encouraging one more step" that bothers me. Problem is too many people are not encouraging that step. They are demanding it and looking down on anyone who doesn't take it. "i'd prefer to play against painted armies" is one thing. "Your unpainted model makes you look like a dumbass, you are ruining the game, and furthermore, I believe you are lazy" is another thing all together and there's way too much of that here. It's that second attitude that irritates me. Plus, playing against unpainted miniatures is still more "imersive" than not playing at all. I totally understand the preference of playing against painted armies over unpainted, but I will just never get the "I'd rather not play at all then play against an unpainted army" point of view.

Mr Morden wrote:
Interested on the prevailing view on people who play with models others have painted (and done a much better job than anything the commisioner coudl have done).

Everyone should be happy - both sides have nicely painted models and someone else gets money as well.............

Or is the commissioner still doing the hobby "wrong" despite this as they don't paint thier own models?

Doesn't bother me one bit when someone does this. If they have the money, want a painted army but don't enjoy doing it themselves then I say go for it!

Tycho wrote:
I totally understand the preference of playing against painted armies over unpainted, but I will just never get the "I'd rather not play at all then play against an unpainted army" point of view.

"I'd rather not go to a fantasy LARP at all than go to a Fantasy LARP where people don't have costumes." or "I'd rather not read a book at all than read 'Twilight'." Can you understand those?

"I'd rather not go to a fantasy LARP at all than go to a Fantasy LARP where people don't have costumes." or "I'd rather not read a book at all than read 'Twilight'." Can you understand those?

I'm not a LARPER myself but from what I understand of it, you actually NEED to have costumes in order to tell what character class everyone is. It's not really the same thing at all. If I show up to a LARP in a 3 piece suit and tell you I'm a wizard, and then later, when it becomes advantageous to me, I change my mind and tell someone else I'm a Elf or whatever - that actually DOES screw up the game. A Space Marine miniature is a Space Marine miniature whether it's painted or not.

I can certainly understand not wanting to read a Twighlight book, but again, an unpainted miniature doesn't suddenly turn 40k into "not 40k" ...

As I said earlier in the thread, chick dig painted minis. So paint your minis.

Also, shower (with soap) and use deodorant.

 Matt1785 wrote:
What's with the stupid "taking toy soldiers too seriously" quotes? If you are playing this game and know the rules and play competitive you take it seriously too. Just because some of us want to see them painted doesn't mean we are elitist and taking it "too serious". Really? ONE more step is taking it too seriously? So let me get this straight....

Buy
Build
Learn
Play

That's just right

Buy
Build
PAINT
Learn
Play

Woah man! Take it back a step!! You are taking this waaaay too seriously. You need to chill!

You really can't accuse someone else of taking it too seriously for encouraging ONE more step.

It's almost like those steps don't take an equal amount of time or something. That "ONE" more step is in actuality hundreds of hours for many people. And you're advocating doing that before moving on at all.

 Mr Morden wrote:
Interested on the prevailing view on people who play with models others have painted (and done a much better job than anything the commisioner coudl have done).

Everyone should be happy - both sides have nicely painted models and someone else gets money as well.............

Or is the commissioner still doing the hobby "wrong" despite this as they don't paint thier own models?

Oh, that's perfectly fine. I get to play a fully painted army, you don't have to paint an army... everyone wins. I'd only really have issue if there is some kind of painting prize you tried to get.

Tycho wrote:

I'm not a LARPER myself but from what I understand of it, you actually NEED to have costumes in order to tell what character class everyone is. It's not really the same thing at all. If I show up to a LARP in a 3 piece suit and tell you I'm a wizard, and then later, when it becomes advantageous to me, I change my mind and tell someone else I'm a Elf or whatever - that actually DOES screw up the game. A Space Marine miniature is a Space Marine miniature whether it's painted or not.

Yeah, that's not how LARPs work at all. Costumes are just for show, just like paintjobs on models*. You can't change you character any more than an unpainted space marine can change from Black Templar to a Space Wolf mid game.

* (well technically in some LARPs pieces of equipment like armour or weapons may have rules attached to them, but that's more analogous to WYSIWYG on miniatures.)

In my experience those that get most upset about unpainted miniatures are the "old school" 40k gamers, especially those who already have nice fully painted armies. I've had people refuse to play me or give me and others grief about unpainted models, etc. But, it has rarely been anything but polite and in good taste. For instance, our FLGS owner doesn't get to play very often at all, and when he does, his requirement is that his opponent field a fully painted and based army because that is how he most enjoys his gaming time.

I for one started out as a player. I bought models to play the game, I had no idea how to paint, didn't even understand proper base coating etc. It took me forever and I collected models 100 times faster than I could get them painted. I had a finite amount of free time and chose to use it to play the game instead of paint. I've also been in and out of the hobby twice for various reason and have had quite a bit of army turn over. I've always ended up with mostly basecoated armies with a few nicely painted miniatures in each. The only armies I ever painted I had to to play in tournaments.

Now, I'm thinning my collection and will have my first well painted army since I again got back into the hobby. I'm devoting most of my efforts toward tournament play because I enjoy it and have an easier time finding a weekend day to go to a tournament than find casual games during the week. My Farsight Enclave will be ready for a GT next month and I'm chipping away at what I have and painting a couple of hours each week.

I enjoy playing against and with painted models more, but that is not always feasible. I certainly would never hold playing with unfinished miniatures against someone as I would expect them to not hold my competitive, strategic, and rules conscious play against me.

We all play this hobby, many for different reasons. Who are we to judge how the other enjoy themselves?

 Savageconvoy wrote:

I'm sure you've heard of the SoB update where they got a free Fortress of Redemption. The one where the point costs were left to the wayside was DA vs. CSM if I remember right. Does this mean they advocate giving away free Fortifications and loosely handling point values? Giving units more special weapons than they are allowed? Absolutely not.

Off-topic, perhaps, but I would suggest that they were, in fact, advocating more "free-form" gaming, away from the constraints of the Force Org chart and the specifics of the army lists. Especially if they actually drew attention to that fact. Not to the extent that I'd prefer, but at least it's something.

As for the OP, I try to avoid using unpainted models; I find the look of an unpainted army (or an unpainted tabletop for that matter) unappealing. Given the choice, I would indeed avoid playing against an unpainted army, all else being equal. Sadly, it's not always equal; not everyone else agrees with me, so not everyone else has a fully-painted army. Or sometimes the person with the painted army is a jerk - or just prefers a different style of game to me, and I'd rather play against someone who will provide a more fun game, but at the cost of having an unpainted force.

There's a lot of people throwing around definitions of "The Hobby", as if it's an actual thing. Some people like collecting miniatures (and not even opening the packaging, let alone building them), some like painting, some like making scenery, some like the purely competitive gaming aspect and some like roleplaying. Some like different elements more than others. It's all "the hobby".

It seems to me that GW's - or at least their staff writers' - idea of "the hobby" does include playing with painted armies, but so what? That's not binding on anyone else. I don't think they'd say that cutthroat competitive tournament play is what they had in mind, but that doesn't bother anyone.

As an aside, I've heard it said by many small miniatures companies that having pictures of painted models as opposed to unpainted or black-washed castings on their website makes no real difference to sales. Certainly not enough to make up for the additional costs involved in painting and photographing everything.

The only person who gets to say what a "hobby" is is this man, and I sincerely hope that's not you.

When playing a game of tabletop miniture. I try to imagine what I need to do to let my opponent enjoy the game as much as I do. Not set my standards and demand my opponent to reach it or go home.

I personally enjoy playing with painted minitures. It brings a visual enjoyment to the enture game. Playing with grey minies is like playing on a SNES. Great games, but poor visual compaired with PS3s and Xboxs.

I'm a slow painter so I understand why some hobbiest doesn't paint. I also understand with how quickly 40k meta changes, players who really wants a top tier army will be very difficult to have the newest models painited every few months. So I'm OK with people who don't paint armies, as long as they enjoy the game.

I also have an impression that attitudes have changed (for worse from my perspective), most peole used to paint their models before playing, now playing with unpainted ones seems to be pretty common practice. And as it has been already pointed out, in historical wargames unpainted armies are unthinkable. I don't know why the culture has changed in GW games; the designers themselves certainly promote the painting side of the hobby, and we of course never see (or even hear about) an unpainted army used in a game in WD.

I agree with this.

I think the turning point was when RTTs and GTs began dropping soft scores from tournaments (like painting, sportsmanship, comp). I even remember when the "pub quiz" would delineate the top bracket at a GT. Once hard boyz came around this really attracted a certain mindset of gamers where painting was definitely not important. Once GW pulled out of tournaments and TOs were left to their own devices there was never really a return to comp and soft scores with the exception of certain European Fantasy circuits. So, this is what we are left with where winning and battle points are all that matters (used to be the "Best General" prize instead of "Overall Winner").

I have also come across players who don't paint because they will eBay their army for the next new codex creep or perceived power combo. Unpainted minis will sell more quickly as they are not charging a premium for being "pro painted" and it gives the buyer the option to paint in whatever scheme they choose. These people don't really care that they get what they paid for they are just looking to offset the cost of the new army.

Its so much easier to learn to paint these days with the numerous tutorial videos on Youtube, choice of paints and pigments currently available from compainies, and even the cost of airbrushes & equipment going substantially down over the last few years. It just takes some time and some effort. Dakkadakka has a lot of info on painting and is great place for feedback.

 AndrewGPaul wrote:

 infinite_array wrote:

I'm sure you've heard of the SoB update where they got a free Fortress of Redemption. The one where the point costs were left to the wayside was DA vs. CSM if I remember right. Does this mean they advocate giving away free Fortifications and loosely handling point values? Giving units more special weapons than they are allowed? Absolutely not.

Off-topic, perhaps, but I would suggest that they were, in fact, advocating more "free-form" gaming, away from the constraints of the Force Org chart and the specifics of the army lists. Especially if they actually drew attention to that fact. Not to the extent that I'd prefer, but at least it's something.

Hey, pal. I know you're new and all, but do you want to try quoting the right people?

I am known as a very slow painter and I do enjoy painting but over the years I have played with a lot of unpainted armies and feel embarased about it. These days I have a young family am at college again and work full time so painting is a luxury I don't have the time for. But strangely I feel the pull of painting more now than ever before.

rigeld2 wrote:

It's almost like those steps don't take an equal amount of time or something. That "ONE" more step is in actuality hundreds of hours for many people. And you're advocating doing that before moving on at all.

Order is irrelevant... (Except for buying and building). I'm just saying, you can't tell someone that paints he's taking the game too seriously. Yeah, painting takes a long time for lots of people, myself included. But just because something takes a long time doesn't meant it's not worth doing. Takes time to save up to buy the models, takes time to put them together, takes a lot of time and effort to learn to play and win games against others who have learned. Everything takes time. Some people can paint the hell out of things fast, and take longer to learn the game.

I've never said you can't play unless they're painted, I'd just prefer to see armies painted then not.

I'm just saying, you can't tell someone that paints he's taking the game too seriously.

But no one's actually said that. It's possible I missed a post or two, but I've probably come closer than anyone in the thread to saying that and even I didn't actually say that. The people being accused of taking the game too seriously (from my point of view) are NOT the ones who simply prefer painted armies, but rather the ones who seem to be actively looking down on those who don't paint and calling them names or making character judgements because of it (i.e. "That guy with the grey plastic MUST be lazy ...).

I prefer to play painted armies myself and I tend to only deploy painted armies. In all honesty, if two people are standing at two tables and one guy has a painted army and one doesn't - yeah, I'll go for the painted player first. The thing is, if there's time I'll still play the unpainted player after that and even if there isn't time, I will in no way make them feel bad for not having a painted army. It's the players that get sanctimonious about painting that are taking it too seriously.

 kronk wrote:
As I said earlier in the thread, chick dig painted minis. So paint your minis.

Also, shower (with soap) and use deodorant.

Given that the "chicks" I've seen play often don't have painted or fully painted armies I'd say that probably isn't true. It is something more to the tune of, "chicks could careless what you do with your toys."

They do however care about the showering with soap haha.


I am probably in the lazy category judging by statements here. I work a ridiculous amount of hours each week and when I get a day off I choose to unwind and play the game much more often then paint the models. So given how much I work and how little time I have to devote to my hobby after social life and such I am a pretty big lazy jerk it seems. Sucks being so lazy all the time. I should definitely do more painting in the 6-7 hours every day I have before work starts all over again.

I am probably in the lazy category judging by statements here. I work a ridiculous amount of hours each week and when I get a day off I choose to unwind and play the game much more often then paint the models. So given how much I work and how little time I have to devote to my hobby after social life and such I am a pretty big lazy jerk it seems. Sucks being so lazy all the time. I should definitely do more painting in the 6-7 hours every day I have before work starts all over again.

Well, it's not just that you're lazy. You're also having fun the wrong way. I think that's very selfish of you. Perhaps this isn't the hobby for you?

Seriously though, that's exactly what I'm talking about. For some people, painting just isn't in the cards all the time. I would gladly play your unpainted army if it meant the group got one more player!

Panties really are being twisted all over the place in this thread. How about people actually read what others are saying and take a few moments to think about things before they post some hyperbolic, point scoring, quasi-rant?

Tycho wrote:

I am probably in the lazy category judging by statements here. I work a ridiculous amount of hours each week and when I get a day off I choose to unwind and play the game much more often then paint the models. So given how much I work and how little time I have to devote to my hobby after social life and such I am a pretty big lazy jerk it seems. Sucks being so lazy all the time. I should definitely do more painting in the 6-7 hours every day I have before work starts all over again.

Well, it's not just that you're lazy. You're also having fun the wrong way. I think that's very selfish of you. Perhaps this isn't the hobby for you?

No, he just is prioritizing playing over painting. He is being lazy in that he is skipping over an entire, major part of the hobby in order to play more games. Which is fine, but he is still not fully participating in the hobby.

I work and go to university full time and don't really enjoy painting that much. However I always field fully painted. If you have time for wargaming at all then you have time for painting. It's all about prioritizing the different facets of the hobby. Maybe you play next week instead of this week in order to paint. Or maybe you don't because you're lazy. I don't care but a spade is a spade.

 SilverMK2 wrote:
Panties really are being twisted all over the place in this thread. How about people actually read what others are saying and take a few moments to think about things before they post some hyperbolic, point scoring, quasi-rant?

Because, that would be booorinng...

No, he just is prioritizing playing over painting. He is being lazy in that he is skipping over an entire, major part of the hobby in order to play more games. Which is fine, but he is still not fully participating in the hobby.

I work and go to university full time and don't really enjoy painting that much. However I always field fully painted. If you have time for wargaming at all then you have time for painting. It's all about prioritizing the different facets of the hobby. Maybe you play next week instead of this week in order to paint. Or maybe you don't because you're lazy. I don't care but a spade is a spade.

So in your mind, the only possible reason someone could have for not painting is because they have a personality flaw. lol I can't wait to see what happens when you start a family ...

SilverMK2 - you were saying something about hyperbole?

Tycho wrote:

No, he just is prioritizing playing over painting. He is being lazy in that he is skipping over an entire, major part of the hobby in order to play more games. Which is fine, but he is still not fully participating in the hobby.

I work and go to university full time and don't really enjoy painting that much. However I always field fully painted. If you have time for wargaming at all then you have time for painting. It's all about prioritizing the different facets of the hobby. Maybe you play next week instead of this week in order to paint. Or maybe you don't because you're lazy. I don't care but a spade is a spade.

So in your mind, the only possible reason someone could have for not painting is because they have a personality flaw. lol I can't wait to see what happens when you start a family ...

SilverMK2 - you were saying something about hyperbole?

You take the time to assemble, what makes taking the time to paint so far fetched?

I mean I go months without having any time for any wargaming endeavor, yet I still manage to slowly paint my armies over time. Do you not see the flaw in your reasoning? And btw no, that's not what I was saying. And who's talking about hyperbole?

 Las wrote:
You take the time to assemble, what makes taking the time to paint so far fetched? So somehow building minis is always an option regardless of any kind of commitments?

I mean I go months without having any time for any wargaming endeavor, yet I still manage to slowly paint my armies over time. Do you not see the flaw in your reasoning?

To build an entire Tac squad box - maybe 2 hours (getting all the tools out, putting everything away). Total. Painting a single mini will take far longer than that (counting set up and take down).
Do you not see the flaw in your reasoning that they're equivalent?

It takes you over two hours to paint a single tac marine!?

 Las wrote:
It takes you over two hours to paint a single tac marine!?

It takes me 2 hours to paint one guardsman. Then there's basing. Tac marines take about as long. Sure, I can paint a marine in 15 minutes, but for a good paintjob it takes 2 hours.

_e

Counting setup and takedown, yes. 15-20 minutes to set up my area, about an hour and a half (counting time to wait between coats) to paint him, 15-20 minutes to put it all away.

So maybe not "far longer" as I initially said, but a very long time. And no, leaving my paint setup out isn't an option.

Something weird is going on here. So you care enough about painting to spend two hours on a single troop choice mini but not enough to mind fielding grey armies?

Tycho wrote:
So in your mind, the only possible reason someone could have for not painting is because they have a personality flaw. lol I can't wait to see what happens when you start a family ...

SilverMK2 - you were saying something about hyperbole?

Yes, yes I was. And I believe I also mentioned taking a second to actually read what someone had posted and think about what they were actually saying before replying...

rigeld2 wrote:
Painting a single mini will take far longer than that (counting set up and take down).

A more than flawed counter-point. I dare say very few, if any, painters will do set up and take down for a single model*. It's called economy of time and effort. Even newbies will know, and if not they will likely be advised, to do their minis in blocks at least squad sized (5-10 troops, give or take).

Getting TT standard is neither hard nor that time consuming. If you've got the time for collecting, building, reading/learning the rules and gaming, you should have the time management skills to also get some painting done, even if it means you do it little by little. What's more, once you start and carry on, you will get better and quicker at it, too.



*Edit: I should clarify that I'm excluding large, complex, or unique, individual projects with this statement, and mean a basic troop choice/footslogger. I know this seems like common sense, but with the way this thread is, I just thought I'd spell it out now lest someone take my words and run wild with them again...

Yes, yes I was. And I believe I also mentioned taking a second to actually read what someone had posted and think about what they were actually saying before replying...

Maybe you play next week instead of this week in order to paint. Or maybe you don't because you're lazy. I don't care but a spade is a spade.

I'd say he's pretty clear with is point there. The one and only reason in his mind that someone doesn't have painted armies is because they are lazy. Period.

It takes you over two hours to paint a single tac marine!?

It might seem far-fetched but I believe him. I've seen people at my club take even longer to do mediocre paint jobs. Even when I've shown them quicker/easier ways to do things they just really struggle with it, so I can definitely see someone taking that long.

 Las wrote:
Something weird is going on here. So you care enough about painting to spend two hours on a single troop choice mini but not enough to mind fielding grey armies?

I do. I'm a bit of a perfectionist and and am more of an all or nothing kind of guy. If I'm painting a model, it will look as good as I can make it. I will not rush through an army to get paint on it.

So, If I can't find time to paint an entire army to a standard I am comfortable with, I won't.


People can't judge how others choose to enjoy the hobby.

We have casual players, tournament players, hobbyists, and every combination and gradient inbetween. No one is right, and no one has the right to judge the other on how they enjoy the hobby.

That's part of my point - because it takes so long and leaving the station set up isn't possible, it's extremely hard to do it little by little.

And really - I don't paint much above tabletop standard - I don't enjoy painting so I do the minimum that looks good to me.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Las wrote:
Something weird is going on here. So you care enough about painting to spend two hours on a single troop choice mini but not enough to mind fielding grey armies?

It's not that I care enough - I'd rather not.
Because of attitudes like yours however, I feel that I have to. In addition, to use an army in a tournament I feel that I must have everything painted. That's why it's been over 2 years and I haven't gotten more than a tac squad done for my Marines. I rushed my Nids and am unhappy about it. I won't do that with my Marines.

Personally, when I take the time to paint a model, I want it to look great. Hence the long time to paint. I find I prefer the look of grey plastic over poorly/partially painted minis.
Also, collecting, building, and learning the rules doesn't take a lot of time. I can read the rules in class. It's easy to go and put one guy together. Painting requires a larger chunk of time to devote to, even for basic tabletop quality.

_e

Tycho wrote:

Yes, yes I was. And I believe I also mentioned taking a second to actually read what someone had posted and think about what they were actually saying before replying...

Maybe you play next week instead of this week in order to paint. Or maybe you don't because you're lazy. I don't care but a spade is a spade.

I'd say he's pretty clear with is point there. The one and only reason in his mind that someone doesn't have painted armies is because they are lazy. Period.

No, there are a variety of reasons why you might have an unpainted army. However choosing to completely ignore painting and make no effort to work towards accomplishing painting goals is laziness.

It does not make me mad in the least if a person doesn't paint their army.

I personally love to paint it is a nice way to relax while you listen to a bit of music and let your mind go numb after a long day. But I'm also a fairly slow painter and tend to occasionally play a game or two with the odd unpainted figure and nobody really seems to mind.

I think with a hobby you tend to get out of it what you put into it. So if someone wants to buy an army, put it together and play with it unpainted that is totally their decision because it is their money they are spending.

 Las wrote:

Tycho wrote:

No, he just is prioritizing playing over painting. He is being lazy in that he is skipping over an entire, major part of the hobby in order to play more games. Which is fine, but he is still not fully participating in the hobby.

I work and go to university full time and don't really enjoy painting that much. However I always field fully painted. If you have time for wargaming at all then you have time for painting. It's all about prioritizing the different facets of the hobby. Maybe you play next week instead of this week in order to paint. Or maybe you don't because you're lazy. I don't care but a spade is a spade.

Well, it's not just that you're lazy. You're also having fun the wrong way. I think that's very selfish of you. Perhaps this isn't the hobby for you?

No, he just is prioritizing playing over painting. He is being lazy in that he is skipping over an entire, major part of the hobby in order to play more games. Which is fine, but he is still not fully participating in the hobby.

I work and go to university full time and don't really enjoy painting that much. However I always field fully painted. If you have time for wargaming at all then you have time for painting. It's all about prioritizing the different facets of the hobby. Maybe you play next week instead of this week in order to paint. Or maybe you don't because you're lazy. I don't care but a spade is a spade.

im in the same boat as him, I don't have time to paint, or even play some weeks. so I should skip out on the part that I like, playing, for the part that I cant stand, or do well, otherwise im lazy? wow this reminds me of halo 3 era where people refused to play with others unless you had at least a 2.5 kd ratio, cause your playing the game wrong

I just don't understand why you would even choose wargaming as a hobby if you can't stand painting.

this reminds me of halo 3 era where people refused to play with others unless you had at least a 2.5 kd ratio, cause your playing the game wrong

Exactly.

I just don't understand why you would even choose wargaming as a hobby if you can't stand painting.

Wow ...

Having a good kd ratio is not an inherent part of halo, painting miniatures simply is for wargaming.

 Las wrote:
Having a good kd ratio is not an inherent part of halo, painting miniatures simply is for wargaming.

I enjoy playing the actual table top game, if I could but models prepainted I would, as theyd look better. and I know its not, that's why I used that example. I personally don't feel like painting is as important as others in this thread, and possibly my gaming group, do.

I get what you're saying but you can understand why I view that as kind of an odd choice in a hobby right? Seeing as the minis are meant to be painted and that painting is such a large part of wargaming?

ah but I don't view it truly as a "hobby" involving more than playing. kinda like forge on halo, just to keep the game same, is necessary. sure it makes it more fun for many but not me.



side note I am paying for someone to paint my army as I want them to look cool

That's understandable you can goose to view anything however you wish. However viewing mini wargaming without painting is a bit like viewing basketball without running; sure you can take shots standing still all you like but the game is meant to be done differently.

Again I'm not tellin you or anyone else how to have fun, but wargaming as an activity is what it is. This becomes most glaringly apparent when you realise that not painting your army as a tendency of a player base does not really exist outside of GW games.

 Las wrote:
That's understandable you can goose to view anything however you wish. However viewing mini wargaming without painting is a bit like viewing basketball without running; sure you can take shots standing still all you like but the game is meant to be done differently.

Again I'm not tellin you or anyone else how to have fun, but wargaming as an activity is what it is. This becomes most glaringly apparent when you realise that not painting your army as a tendency of a player base does not really exist outside of GW games.

That analogy doesn't work, because there's nothing cosmetic about the basketball game. I suppose you could say instead that rather then watching it in the stadium, you were watching it at home and that isn't right because it's a slightly different experience.

But all painting is to to actual game itself, is cosmetic and not necessary, and before you trot out the models "not needing to be assembled", it's for WYSIWYG, because it'd be like basketball without the jerseys identifying players on which team is which.

 Las wrote:


No, there are a variety of reasons why you might have an unpainted army. However choosing to completely ignore painting and make no effort to work towards accomplishing painting goals is laziness.

Wow.

That's a pretty fething elitist statement.

I don't like you. IGNORED

Wow.

That's a pretty fething elitist statement.

I don't like you. IGNORED

Kronk you just restored my faith in humanity. lol I was staring to think I was the only one thinking that way (referring to the "elitist" thing).

 Las wrote:
I get what you're saying but you can understand why I view that as kind of an odd choice in a hobby right? Seeing as the minis are meant to be painted and that painting is such a large part of wargaming?

You do understand that hobbies evolve, right?
I like playing games. I've never been involved in a game where someone - at any time - called me lazy because I didn't paint. And that's from historicals to sci-fi to ... well anything. AK47 was the only one that they didn't want to let me use my non-painted technicals, but that's because they had plenty of painted ones available and the pictures we were taking would look better.

It's a large part of your wargaming experience. It is not, by definition, part of everyone's experience nor must it be.

 infinite_array wrote:
Hey, pal.

That's not very friendly.

I know you're new and all, but do you want to try quoting the right people?

The Edit button is a wonderful thing.

Tycho wrote:

Guy walks in with new unpainted Riptide:Hey guys you don't mind that (Insert stupid long tau name)is unpainted?That's OK.
5 months later:Sets down grey lump of plastic on table.Us:If your going to spend 85 euro on a model and not paint it that's OK.But it. Ruins how good the game looks AND it makes you look like a dumbass for spending so much money on something then making it look stupid.And it makes you look lazy.

OR it makes you and your group look like intolerant "game snobs" because of the amount of unfounded assumptions you make about someone with almost no real basis. I realize the guy with the unpainted Riptide is having fun wrong, and I am also well aware of the fact that you and your group probably have Golden Demon quality paint jobs (because I refuse to play against anyone who has less than GD quality paint - it ruins my immersion and it makes you look like DUMBASSES for spending all that money on and time on those models to have less than Top-of-the Line Pro Quality work), but seriously ... you might be taking your war-dollies too seriously.

While I would rather play against a painted army, I will never turn down a game against a fully assembled but not painted army and I will have just as much fun. It's just a hobby and different people are in it for different reasons. Some people just don't like to paint. It's not fun for them, but they DO like everything else. I'm cool with that.

When did I say anything about Quality?Its nice to try.I wouldn't refuse to play against a unpainted army.I never mentioned that.Personnally I think that if you don't paint then you might as well just play with beercans as a deff dread(Actually a converted killa kan based on a can would be awesome.)Its just insane to spend hundreds on miniatures then just have a pile of plastic that has no soul.(Don't worry stormboyz.Someday You can be real orkz.But not today.next week.When I get more green paint.)And now that I look at it all this writing ended up inside the quote.

There are all sorts of reasons someone may not have painted their army.

Maybe they are just trying out a model without spending several hours getting it ready. I've done this. Maybe their painting skills is about what you would expect a 4 year old to do and they don't want to "ruin" the model

-- side note, my 4 year is starting a Tau army. He's painting it red with gold guns and I'm actually impressed with what he's done so far... of course, he is 4 so.

Maybe they are allergic to paint? Maybe they have kids and one of them drank a bottle of the stuff so the wife banned it from the house? -- I lost superglue privileges for about 6 months when one of my kids glued a couple fingers together; yes, it was put in a place they *shouldn't* have been able to get to...

Maybe, just maybe, they are more interested in the camaraderie and game itself than whether Sergeant Bob is yellow, red or blue.

That said, I would never refuse to play against an unpainted (or even horribly painted) army. Because, for me at least, it's not about who has the prettier toys. It's about having fun with a bunch of like minded individuals.

When you attend a costume party, it's somewhat assumed you'll actually wear a costume. There are likely a zillion reasons why you might attend a costume party without a costume, and I'm sure all of your friends will just be happy you're there, but it doesn't take away from the fact that you still attended a costume party without one.

In the end, it's just a game, it's just a much better one on a nicely terrained table with two well painted armies.

 Las wrote:
None of us freak out about unpainted armies. We DO see them as an indication of laziness, but most of us will still play against you. Stop painting (lolz) us as petty folks freaking out at grey plastic.

The important part of your statement is *MOST OF US*. Not all, but most are that way and I specifically am not refering to those people who would rather face painted armies, but happily play the game anyway no matter what without being jerks about it. I am specifically refering to those who go the extra mile to be jerks to people without painted armies and who DO freak about it. Been there and dealt with that in person at multiple tables, not always as a direct player either. If that isn't you then chill out because people aren't talking about you.

Gauging based on your other follow up posts, though, you actually *are* one of those people...

Skriker

The one thing I find interesting here is that people who will play with opponents with unpainted armies will not judge people for how they enjoy their hobby, but on the other hand attack anyone who dose not want to play an opponent with unpainted armies as elitist, rude, jerk and so forth.

It works both ways, it is how they enjoy their hobby like I stated before I don't care if your army is unpainted only that it is assembled but at the same time if some one dose not want to play me because my army is not fully painted than so be it.

We should Respect how everyone enjoys this hobby

 Las wrote:
Something weird is going on here. So you care enough about painting to spend two hours on a single troop choice mini but not enough to mind fielding grey armies?

So someone is supposed to care enough that they bought the minis, built them and learned the game, but then isn't supposed to care enough to paint well and instead is supposed to paint up their minis to a lousy TT standard that looks like crap up close and personal? Sorry, but you can't have it both ways. I will leave my minis unpainted until the time that I can paint them as I choose and to the standard I want to paint them too. I paint very well and I know plenty of tricks to speed up the process and give good results and I'm not going to paint my minis like crap to appease some judgemental guy at the LGS who assumes everyone who isn't painting is lazy.

Skriker


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Las wrote:
That's understandable you can goose to view anything however you wish. However viewing mini wargaming without painting is a bit like viewing basketball without running; sure you can take shots standing still all you like but the game is meant to be done differently.

Actually no your comparison is off. Mini gaming without painting is like playing basketball with a ball that isn't orange or without the teams wearing uniforms. You still have all the skills, rules and equipment you need to play the game, but you just haven't uniformed up to make it really "look" like a professional basketball game. Your comparison to running is not even remotely close and would be more akin to trying to play mini games without having dice or not having any minis, but not having unpainted minis. To play a miniatures game you need *built* minis for your army, whatever the game is and whatever the army is. Your minis are built whether they are painted or not. Also I've played historicals for a good 10+ years longer than 40k and their are plenty of people who have used unpainted or primered armies through those decades that I kind of laugh at the attitude that unpainted minis only appear in 40k or WFB. The primary difference is that the painting elitists on the historical side are much bigger jerks.

Skriker



Automatically Appended Next Post:

Alpha 1 wrote:
The one thing I find interesting here is that people who will play with opponents with unpainted armies will not judge people for how they enjoy their hobby, but on the other hand attack anyone who dose not want to play an opponent with unpainted armies as elitist, rude, jerk and so forth.

It works both ways, it is how they enjoy their hobby like I stated before I don't care if your army is unpainted only that it is assembled but at the same time if some one dose not want to play me because my army is not fully painted than so be it.

We should Respect how everyone enjoys this hobby

It is not the desire to not play an opponent with unpainted armies that gets people labeled as rude, elitist jerks. It is the attitude that they espouse that people who don't paint MUST be lazy bums lacking in any kind of time management skills because, after all, even though they have a full time job they still found the time to paint *their* army so why doesn't everyone else. Or the attitude that those people are doing the hobby "wrong" in some way. Making such snap judgements with the only evidence being miniatures that are unpainted IS rude and elitist. If people weren't writing this junk in their posts they wouldn't be getting called out on it.

Skriker