Lance845 wrote: For someone who says they understand the paradox of tolerance and that it is not hard you sure don't seem to get it at all.
That you would evoke it in this sort of a context shows massive lack of understanding and respect in your part. Hint: people not wanting to play with you because you didn't paint your toy soldier is not bigotry.
Lance845 wrote: For someone who says they understand the paradox of tolerance and that it is not hard you sure don't seem to get it at all.
Ahh... the philosophy of your argument is invalid because I deem it so. Of course.. sorry how could anyone forget. I guess we cant all be philosophy aficionados..
Comparing Nazi ideas of intolerance to a hobby time preference is a facepalm level of a stretch... You do yourself no favours beating this drum and its pretty cringy by now..
Look, I disagree with the "don't play with people who don't paint" crew, too. But it's their free time. They get to decide how to spend it. I don't own them.
That said I'll gladly play with the people they'll ignore or look down upon.
Not sure why you're arguing against me, I've been saying your exact post for four days now.
AH, I didn't mean it to sound like that. I was more springboarding off what you said. Sorry, man!
I didn't tell you what to do with your time. I told you what impact I feel like gatekeeping has on the community and that the community should protect itself from it.
Crimson wrote:
Lance845 wrote: For someone who says they understand the paradox of tolerance and that it is not hard you sure don't seem to get it at all.
That you would evoke it in this sort of a context shows massive lack of understanding and respect in your part. Hint: people not wanting to play with you because you didn't paint your toy soldier is not bigotry.
The philosophy is not only about bigotry. The philosophy is broad and encompassing and applies to any situation where one group wants to promote acceptance while protecting itself from those that want to build barriers. In this particular case I have seen members of this forums suggest that FLGS's should implement policies that require painted miniatures to play. Which I am opposed to, in accordance with the paradox of tolerance. I didn't say this had to do with biggotry. I said it had to do with toxic behavior. Because it does.
Lance845 wrote: For someone who says they understand the paradox of tolerance and that it is not hard you sure don't seem to get it at all.
Ahh... the philosophy of your argument is invalid because I deem it so. Of course.. sorry how could anyone forget. I guess we cant all be philosophy aficionados..
Comparing Nazi ideas of intolerance to a hobby time preference is a facepalm level of a stretch... You do yourself no favours beating this drum and its pretty cringy by now..
It is full on incredible that a few people on here cannot understand the underlying concept and apply it to a situation.
Melissia wrote: Look, I disagree with the "don't play with people who don't paint" crew, too. But it's their free time. They get to decide how to spend it. I don't own them.
See? You get it.
Melissia wrote: That said I'll gladly play with the people they'll ignore or look down upon.
And don't get it confused, though- no one's being ignored or looked down on. At least in my case.
It's like... well, okay.
I am tired of playing against Eldar. Like, ten people I know have Eldar and I just want to play against something different. I don't look down on Eldar players, I don't look down on them. I just want a different experience.
I also get tired of playing on 'standard rural battlefield' tables. Sometimes I just want to play on the city map.
I get tired of 40k. I wanna do Necromunda, or Sigmar, or Warcry, or another game entirely.
Sometimes, I just want an experience that caters to my preference or breaks the standard.
I know painting isn't easy. I'm usually the first to ask if someone needs help. I can give them tips (I'm mediocre at best) or point them towards a person they can hire. And hey, I love taking a whole saturday just to sit and paint and talk while we listen to the radio or let some movies play. It's good for me, too- because I get lazy if I'm not social.
Or maybe they will tell me why they're not painted "I'm trying out chapter tactics before I settle on something". "I'm considering a few paint schemes but I wanna see how it'd actually look". Well, there- I might be able to help.
But yeah, sometimes... I just wanna look at a table and see all the painted models together and appreciate it.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Lance845 wrote: I didn't tell you what to do with your time. I told you what impact I feel like gatekeeping has on the community and that the community should protect itself from it.
So, you're not telling me what to do.
You're just trying to tell everyone else what to do because you don't like what I do.
The community has a right to protect itself from toxic behavior. If YOU are of the opinion that it's good for the community to gate keep then the community should protect itself from you.
Lance845 wrote: The community has a right to protect itself from toxic behavior. If YOU are of the opinion that it's good for the community to gate keep then the community should protect itself from you.
The community should indeed be protected from YOUR toxic behaviour of lowering standards and gatekeeping people with higher standards.
Lance845 wrote: The community has a right to protect itself from toxic behavior. If YOU are of the opinion that it's good for the community to gate keep then the community should protect itself from you.
"The community" is a group of individuals that are capable of thinking for themselves.
I am not gatekeeping for a community. I am gatekeeping for myself. It's called a 'preference', and you have no right to it. At all.
If me determining how I will spend my time, who I will play with, and what I want to do is considered "toxic" then that's the EXACT type of community I want nothing to do with. That community is overstepping their bounds by attempting to control my personal choices and I'll have nothing to do with it.
But based on the way you're talking to people, and your bizarre delusion that your personal opinions on what is "toxic" is some universal factual standard... I'm not sure you're familiar with being a part of a community.
Lance845 wrote: The community has a right to protect itself from toxic behavior. If YOU are of the opinion that it's good for the community to gate keep then the community should protect itself from you.
The community should indeed be protected from YOUR toxic behaviour of lowering standards and gatekeeping people with higher standards.
Because logic right ?
Thats why the philosophy is called "The Paradox of Tolerance."
attacking people for gate keeping really is pointless, the best way to deal with it is simply not to do it yourself, gate kept portions of a community tend to shrink and siolate themselves over time.
Lance845 wrote: The community has a right to protect itself from toxic behavior. If YOU are of the opinion that it's good for the community to gate keep then the community should protect itself from you.
"The community" is a group of individuals that are capable of thinking for themselves.
Correct. And the community will either accept toxic behavior and becomes more toxic itself or not.
I am not gatekeeping for a community. I am gatekeeping for myself. It's called a 'preference', and you have no right to it. At all.
Correct again. You can feel however you want and suffer all the consequences, good and bad, for your actions.
If me determining how I will spend my time, who I will play with, and what I want to do is considered "toxic" then that's the EXACT type of community I want nothing to do with. That community is overstepping their bounds by attempting to control my personal choices and I'll have nothing to do with it.
But based on the way you're talking to people, and your bizarre delusion that your personal opinions on what is "toxic" is some universal factual standard... I'm not sure you're familiar with being a part of a community.
Lance845 wrote: The community has a right to protect itself from toxic behavior. If YOU are of the opinion that it's good for the community to gate keep then the community should protect itself from you.
The community should indeed be protected from YOUR toxic behaviour of lowering standards and gatekeeping people with higher standards.
Because logic right ?
Thats why the philosophy is called "The Paradox of Tolerance."
Try to keep up.
So you admit to gate keeping and being toxic? Excellent news.
Lance845 wrote: The community has a right to protect itself from toxic behavior. If YOU are of the opinion that it's good for the community to gate keep then the community should protect itself from you.
The community should indeed be protected from YOUR toxic behaviour of lowering standards and gatekeeping people with higher standards.
Because logic right ?
Thats why the philosophy is called "The Paradox of Tolerance."
Lance845 wrote: Correct. And the community will either accept toxic behavior and becomes more toxic itself or not.
A preference that you do not agree with is not 'toxic'. Your standards for 'toxic' are not the universal standard (thank God).
Lance845 wrote: Correct again. You can feel however you want and suffer all the consequences, good and bad, for your actions.
Here's the thing- I've yet to discover some amazing individual that my personal preferences have kept away. None. Do some people disagree? Certainly, because people have different preferences. But we're adults and we can agree to disagree and find something else we both like and enjoy, and still be friends.
I've never seen someone compare a preference for war toy games to the actions of a genocidal fascist regime responsible for the death of millions. Usually, gatekeeping keeps that kind of insane stuff away from civil adults.
I can't wait to tell my Jewish buddies that me not wanting to play against certain armies is just like loading their grandparents up on the train to Dachau.
Lance845 wrote: The community has a right to protect itself from toxic behavior. If YOU are of the opinion that it's good for the community to gate keep then the community should protect itself from you.
The community should indeed be protected from YOUR toxic behaviour of lowering standards and gatekeeping people with higher standards.
Because logic right ?
Thats why the philosophy is called "The Paradox of Tolerance."
I never said those things were the same. I said the philosophy can be applied to more situations then racial bigotry. You carrying it to that is YOU carrying it to that. The comic uses that imagery to illustrate the point for people who have trouble understanding the concept, but I, at no point, stated that they were equivalent.
I DID say, repeatedly, that the community has a right to protect itself from people who bring with it crap behavior. If you want to catastrophize it into race thats on you.
Lance845 wrote: The community has a right to protect itself from toxic behavior. If YOU are of the opinion that it's good for the community to gate keep then the community should protect itself from you.
You're making it sound like he's campaigning to have every store in the country change their policies.. I think everyone here, you included, needs to take a step back and let this thread die.
If his "community" is a close knit bunch of friends that have their own expectations and ultimately "requirements" on how they like to play the game - with house rules, painted models, list restrictions.. whatever it is - and that group is happy to play like that, why does it bother you so much? You don't play with them so who cares.
Lance845 wrote: The community has a right to protect itself from toxic behavior. If YOU are of the opinion that it's good for the community to gate keep then the community should protect itself from you.
You're making it sound like he's campaigning to have every store in the country change their policies.. I think everyone here, you included, needs to take a step back and let this thread die.
If his "community" is a close knit bunch of friends that have their own expectations and ultimately "requirements" on how they like to play the game - with house rules, painted models, list restrictions.. whatever it is - and that group is happy to play like that, why does it bother you so much? You don't play with them so who cares.
Yeah. Basically, 'live and let live'. You do you, baby. I'll do me. And if you don't like it, you don't gotta deal with it.
I find my stance on painting to be justified under Kant's Categorical Imperative. Super compelling, I know.
Lance, stop embarrassing yourself. You're trying to apply a serious moral philosophical concept in a context to which it doesn't belong. Your definition of 'intolerance' is so absurdly broad, that under that logic most of normal customs, manners, traditions and other such everyday behavioural mores would be classified as 'intolerance.' This is both painfully stupid and insulting to victims of actual intolerance.
There will be plenty of people out there that will disagree with this statement but ultimately you're not wrong and it's your hobby. Outside of tournaments no one should ever feel forced to play against someone or allocate an afternoon to something that will not be enjoyable.
I've got a young family and I've found my free hobby time become increasingly smaller as time passes, whilst I'm sure this will improve later down the track but for now I find myself being more selective myself over who I play and what I'm looking for out of a game.
You've got children it seems, and I can tell you- if you intend to involve your children in your hobbies it is very, very wise to be selective of where you play and who you play with. Kudos to you, I hope you get more free time to enjoy your hobby.
May your children never ask for Tau.
Cheers mate, they are still quite young but I'm intending to introduce them to the hobby later on (telling my wife it's to help develop their motor skills and creativity )
How long will the line "sorry, but they are sold out on Tau today" last?
There will be plenty of people out there that will disagree with this statement but ultimately you're not wrong and it's your hobby. Outside of tournaments no one should ever feel forced to play against someone or allocate an afternoon to something that will not be enjoyable.
I've got a young family and I've found my free hobby time become increasingly smaller as time passes, whilst I'm sure this will improve later down the track but for now I find myself being more selective myself over who I play and what I'm looking for out of a game.
You've got children it seems, and I can tell you- if you intend to involve your children in your hobbies it is very, very wise to be selective of where you play and who you play with. Kudos to you, I hope you get more free time to enjoy your hobby.
May your children never ask for Tau.
Cheers mate, they are still quite young but I'm intending to introduce them to the hobby later on (telling my wife it's to help develop their motor skills and creativity )
How long will the line "sorry, but they are sold out on Tau today" last?
It'll last until they learn to read. Then you'll have to switch to "those are display only".
Your reasons for the wife are really good ones (assuming you didn't already know that of course).
Bullying. The owner, nor any of the employees, nor our regulars have any tolerance for it. At all.
We have a guy that doesn't like playing Imperium vs. Imperium. He won't do it.
We have a dude that doesn't like anything demonic or Satanic, and he doesn't like to play with or against those things. His reasons are his own.
A D&D group does not like people playing evil characters. That's fine, they are within their rights to do so. They enjoy their game and welcome people who do not want to play evil characters.
These individuals never bother anyone. At most, they respectfully decline people. They offer alternatives after politely explaining their preferences.
They are welcome in the FLGS and people generally like them, even if they do not agree with or understand their preferences.
If anyone came in and tried to demand that the other players shun them or push them away- that person would be removed from the store immediately (to loud applause) and banned permanently. Not only that, but their behavior and a description would be forwarded to all the other gaming clubs and FLGS' in the area, which would very likely follow suit.
Even a base primer layer is better than grey plastic. At the very least, it can help achieve a basic theme.
Typically the quality of paint jobs on the tabletop does not concern me. If I show up and the models are actually painted, that makes me world's happier than fighting the grey horde. Unpainted models won't stop me from playing the game though.
One thing that is actually important to me: the models on the other side being at least mostly assembled and effectively representing the gear they are carrying. One time I played a game where the opposing side's devastators were represented by SM legs on bases - and nothing else. At that point it was difficult to ID what I was fighting.
(BTW, I play with a 99% fully painted force. It's a rarity in my area and it does attract attention. It's cool. )
Likewise, painted models will help you make a good impression.
To you.
Let's not forget the poll indicates that paint matters at least a little to over 90% of participants, or that it draws more attention to the game board in a store, that GW advertises with painted models because of that impression, and major tournaments require it.
My Club is pretty decent. Only thing I don't like is I don't attend as much as I would like to!
I'll throw down with everyone really apart form there's only one guy I avoid but that's because he's a very sore looser and gets upset if you take a dig, but of course he gloats obnoxiously to no end if he wins... (We all know the undeveloped man child type). I just cant be dealing with it.
All of the private gaming groups I am a part of have painting requirements. But we also have painting workshops. Usually these take place leading up to league seasons.
If you don't have painted models, it doesn't hurt to say "I don't paint mine because I suck at painting". You might not actually suck. Or, you might find plenty of people willing to help you out and show you what you're doing wrong.
And if you don't want them painted, so be it. It's your property.
When I started playing again a few years ago, I didn't have time to do much painting. I got the some of the base painting done, and a bit of other things- but over all, my army wasn't painted. Someone said they'd help me out if I'd buy them a boxed set (the store limited boxed sets to 1 per customer for the first two weeks after release).
So, yeah. Don't be afraid to ask for help.
Also don't be a harsh critic of yourself. To this very day, I can't edge highlight worth a damn. But I know someone who'll edge a whole squad if you order pizza.
Likewise, painted models will help you make a good impression.
To you.
Let's not forget the poll indicates that paint matters at least a little to over 90% of participants, or that it draws more attention to the game board in a store, that GW advertises with painted models because of that impression, and major tournaments require it.
So maybe not just me.
I remember the poll indicating that 90% of participants had interest in painting their models. Don't recall that poll including anything else in your post.
Major tournaments do what they want. They're private organizations. Notice how many of them have their own rules too?
No one is called lazy though for not going to a major tournament.
As for the part about GW...this has already been discussed. You're still wrong.
Mmmpi wrote: As for the part about GW...this has already been discussed. You're still wrong.
GW doesn't care about what you do with your own stuff, but at least in the GW stores I've been to- any time there's an event they want your models painted to tabletop standards.
I don't agree with it. It looks nice, but then you've got them policing armies for third party bits. A friend of mine got asked to take his models off the table because he had heraldry icons from shapeways.
I remember the poll indicating that 90% of participants had interest in painting their models. Don't recall that poll including anything else in your post.
Also, related to the poll (but can't really compress down to a multiple choice poll) is how quickly do you feel the need to see stuff painted? I mean, I would HOPE that if a newbie comes to the store for their first game of 40k, you'd not expect them to buy and paint models before they play, but how fast do you expect them to work? Or do you just want to see progress?
For me personally, I don't really care about painting at all. While I do like the look of 40k, I'm more invested in having a fun game (even with the rules as bunk as they are) than seeing cool pictures. I do love to see well-painted models, but I barely care if your models are unpainted or badly painted, so long as you're a good sport and we have fun.
And it clearly talks about what sort of progress you want to see from others.
Mmmpi wrote: As for the part about GW...this has already been discussed. You're still wrong.
GW doesn't care about what you do with your own stuff, but at least in the GW stores I've been to- any time there's an event they want your models painted to tabletop standards.
I don't agree with it. It looks nice, but then you've got them policing armies for third party bits. A friend of mine got asked to take his models off the table because he had heraldry icons from shapeways.
I haven't been in a GW store that had a painting standard other than "It's a GW model" in years.
Was in one that had a "models must show improvement in paint jobs" but that got rescinded when people stopped showing up.
I remember the poll indicating that 90% of participants had interest in painting their models. Don't recall that poll including anything else in your post.
Also, related to the poll (but can't really compress down to a multiple choice poll) is how quickly do you feel the need to see stuff painted? I mean, I would HOPE that if a newbie comes to the store for their first game of 40k, you'd not expect them to buy and paint models before they play, but how fast do you expect them to work? Or do you just want to see progress?
For me personally, I don't really care about painting at all. While I do like the look of 40k, I'm more invested in having a fun game (even with the rules as bunk as they are) than seeing cool pictures. I do love to see well-painted models, but I barely care if your models are unpainted or badly painted, so long as you're a good sport and we have fun.
And it clearly talks about what sort of progress you want to see from others.
Except that's not the poll, just a side question he wants answered.
Likewise, painted models will help you make a good impression.
To you.
Let's not forget the poll indicates that paint matters at least a little to over 90% of participants, or that it draws more attention to the game board in a store, that GW advertises with painted models because of that impression, and major tournaments require it.
So maybe not just me.
I remember the poll indicating that 90% of participants had interest in painting their models. Don't recall that poll including anything else in your post.
Major tournaments do what they want. They're private organizations. Notice how many of them have their own rules too?
No one is called lazy though for not going to a major tournament.
As for the part about GW...this has already been discussed. You're still wrong.
Mmmpi wrote: Was in one that had a "models must show improvement in paint jobs" but that got rescinded when people stopped showing up.
Never seen one quite that crazy as a store policy, but I have seen it as a league policy.
I have seen stores that ask that you play painted armies on certain tables (usually the ones near the entrance to catch the eye of customers).
In both situations, though- the league and the store both have painting workshops for people. Where I work, we have an entire room near the wargame tables where people can paint and assemble models. We even have a bunch of primers and paint samples (just a few basic colors) and some cheaper brushes for people to borrow. Our shop owner even sells some really cheap hobby brushes, and he'll throw some in for free if you buy models and paint together. We don't even have a set limit for how much you gotta buy, usually it's just 'if he looks like he might need it'.
Likewise, painted models will help you make a good impression.
To you.
Let's not forget the poll indicates that paint matters at least a little to over 90% of participants, or that it draws more attention to the game board in a store, that GW advertises with painted models because of that impression, and major tournaments require it.
So maybe not just me.
I remember the poll indicating that 90% of participants had interest in painting their models. Don't recall that poll including anything else in your post.
Major tournaments do what they want. They're private organizations. Notice how many of them have their own rules too?
No one is called lazy though for not going to a major tournament.
As for the part about GW...this has already been discussed. You're still wrong.
Title of poll and OP.
Nor did I call you lazy mr. Victim.
You didn't call me lazy. You called everyone who doesn't meet your personal standards lazy.
Insectum7 wrote: We have no painting requirement, but we have many impressive armies done by regulars. I've found that this actually encourages people to paint more.
It usually helps when the regulars are there to show people some tricks and such. Most people just need the encouragement and the 'hacks'.
Mmmpi wrote: Was in one that had a "models must show improvement in paint jobs" but that got rescinded when people stopped showing up.
Never seen one quite that crazy as a store policy, but I have seen it as a league policy.
I have seen stores that ask that you play painted armies on certain tables (usually the ones near the entrance to catch the eye of customers).
In both situations, though- the league and the store both have painting workshops for people. Where I work, we have an entire room near the wargame tables where people can paint and assemble models. We even have a bunch of primers and paint samples (just a few basic colors) and some cheaper brushes for people to borrow. Our shop owner even sells some really cheap hobby brushes, and he'll throw some in for free if you buy models and paint together. We don't even have a set limit for how much you gotta buy, usually it's just 'if he looks like he might need it'.
Yeah, players had to show the staff a new painted model, or an improvement to a whole unit (built to primed, then primed to base coated, ect). Then most of their customers just went to the two or three LGSs that didn't care about it.
It was completely unrelated to events, which they allowed with any state of paint.
I do work to encourage people to paint their stuff, but at the same time, if they don't want to, there's really no reason to push them into it.
Mmmpi wrote: Yeah, players had to show the staff a new painted model, or an improvement to a whole unit (built to primed, then primed to base coated, ect). Then most of their customers just went to the two or three LGSs that didn't care about it.
It was completely unrelated to events, which they allowed with any state of paint.
Lemme guess, the FLGS owner:
-Didn't have good rapport with the other stores in town, and wasn't a friendly competitor
-Tried to schedule the same events as the other stores
-Worked constantly on publicity, even trying to start big Social Media pages and Youtube Channels
-Attempted to poach customers
-Badmouthed communities at other stores
-Refused to stock certain models/armies
-Had more flashyness than fun
...am I getting this right? On a scale of 1-10, with 1 being 'not even close', and 10 being 'nailed it'... how far past 10 am I?
Insectum7 wrote: We have no painting requirement, but we have many impressive armies done by regulars. I've found that this actually encourages people to paint more.
It usually helps when the regulars are there to show people some tricks and such. Most people just need the encouragement and the 'hacks'.
And we totally do give tips. Several will do comission work as well. Favorite example is a mid-late teen asking about the game one week, showing up with a fully painted UM army two months later, and a year later does commission pieces for others like a boss.
Insectum7 wrote: And we totally do give tips. Several will do comission work as well. Favorite example is a mid-late teen asking about the game one week, showing up with a fully painted UM army two months later, and a year later does commission pieces for others like a boss.
That's the key, man. Some folks just need the guidance.
I was terrible when I started years ago. And someone helped me, showed me a few tricks. It made me feel more satisfied with my work. I still judge myself harshly (to the point where I'm unwilling to share my work with people I don't know very often). However, had it not been for people saying "Lemme show you a trick", I'd probably have given up entirely.
Now I catch myself saying, "Lemme show you a trick". It's pretty normal. What makes me happy is when I hear that person a few months later say, "Lemme show you a trick"... and I can look at one of my old buddies that said that to me, and we both smile at each other and nod.
Yeah I would say the jump from "a one armed hamster could have done a better job of painting this" to " passible table top quality" is very small leap in terms of skills but huge in terms of results if that makes sense. A few tricks and hacks as well as theory explained and just a bit of practice and patience is all it takes.
The jump from "passable table top" to "whats on the box" however is the hard part. I will let you know how hard if I ever get there XD
Mmmpi wrote: Yeah, players had to show the staff a new painted model, or an improvement to a whole unit (built to primed, then primed to base coated, ect). Then most of their customers just went to the two or three LGSs that didn't care about it.
It was completely unrelated to events, which they allowed with any state of paint.
Lemme guess, the FLGS owner:
-Didn't have good rapport with the other stores in town, and wasn't a friendly competitor
-Tried to schedule the same events as the other stores
-Worked constantly on publicity, even trying to start big Social Media pages and Youtube Channels
-Attempted to poach customers
-Badmouthed communities at other stores
-Refused to stock certain models/armies
-Had more flashyness than fun
...am I getting this right? On a scale of 1-10, with 1 being 'not even close', and 10 being 'nailed it'... how far past 10 am I?
No, it was a full on GW store. Red shirts and everything. Generally they were decent guys, but the painting requirements turned a lot of people off. Most of their customers were high schoolers and college kids with very full schedules.
They were very good at passing people off to other stores for non-GW stuff, and coordinated in stock lists with them so if someone was out of something, they could point you to someone who wasn't out of it.
Argive wrote: The jump from "passable table top" to "whats on the box" however is the hard part.
I tell people like this:
"Those models on the box? There's a whole studio that does that. Guys that have been painting since they were old enough to grab the model and a brush. It's their job, their career, and they have nothing better to do all day than practice painting models. For every single model on that box, there's probably ten in some bucket beside a desk that the guy screwed up on- so he just grabbed another one and started all over. Basically, these guys are the NFL and me and you are doing some Saturday morning flag football."
No, it was a full on GW store. Red shirts and everything. Generally they were decent guys, but the painting requirements turned a lot of people off. Most of their customers were high schoolers and college kids with very full schedules.
They were very good at passing people off to other stores for non-GW stuff, and coordinated in stock lists with them so if someone was out of something, they could point you to someone who wasn't out of it.
Yeeesh. I'd be shocked if it were still around under the same management. I've actually sent an email to GW about a store and they do take things pretty seriously if it's pushing away customers.
Stores like the one I was thinking about, and maybe even that GW are using a bad tactic. It's basically the idea that they can cultivate this 'elite' gaming place with high standards, and people will want to be a part of the 'better' group because they have these high standards and thus it's a 'better' place.
...but it has the opposite effect. It overwhelms new players instead of making them want to buy more. They also tend to regret their purchase, and if they don't refund- they just stop buying stuff. The stuff they do end up buying is often stuff they've been made to believe the 'need', rather than stuff they think is cool or fun.
What it leaves behind is actual elitists. Powergamers, WAAC players, and just obnoxious types. And despite what some amatuer store owners may think, the 'competitive, high standard' group doesn't spend a whole lot of money- at least not the way you'd think. Most of them are smart enough to find used models, repurpose what they have, or they have mostly everything they need if they are dedicated to a particular army.
And the 'elite' gamers? They get tired of playing one another. They can usually start to hate each other quite a bit. Then they tend to drift away, leaving the shop with a bad reputation and empty tables... and they try and bring their worst traits to other places and prey on unsuspecting newbies.
...which is actually why I made a book where people can leave their contact info to set up games, and what sort of 'level' they play at. After players meet up, they can fill out surveys on one another in confidence and I can make notes so we'll know when 'Casual Carl' isn't very casual.
That's like if I went to the gym for the first time and leaving upset at the end of the day because I don't look like Henry Carvill(superman/the witcher)...
I really get why people look at what they do and look at the box and get discouraged I think its a normal response. I remember feeling like a failure and still do to a degree. But then logic dictates that learning new skills wont happen in a day.. you have to persevere. Also muscle memory in painting is a thing.
Argive wrote: That's like if I went to the gym for the first time and leaving upset at the end of the day because I don't look like Henry Carvill(superman/the witcher)...
and there are people who do that, they can't go in and be perfect right away so they get dischouraged.
Argive wrote: That's like if I went to the gym for the first time and leaving upset at the end of the day because I don't look like Henry Carvill(superman/the witcher)...
and there are people who do that, they can't go in and be perfect right away so they get dischouraged.
Those people are going to have a tough time at lyfe.
Cutting out sweets after new year has hit hard bros..
Only another 20 kg to go..
\
Good lad.
You know what else helps? Grapefruit. Just plain old grapefruit. No sugar.
You can do grapefruit juice, but not 'Ruby Red' or anything with sweetener. Try it, and consider it punishment for all the bad things you also eat and drink. But it works.
Cutting out sweets after new year has hit hard bros..
Only another 20 kg to go..
\
Good lad.
You know what else helps? Grapefruit. Just plain old grapefruit. No sugar.
You can do grapefruit juice, but not 'Ruby Red' or anything with sweetener. Try it, and consider it punishment for all the bad things you also eat and drink. But it works.
To be fair the poll isn't too clear on whether it's about your own or your enemy's army. The first post clarifies it, but in my experience, people don't read anything but what's above the poll.
To me painting my own army is pretty important (4/5) while my opponent's army barely matters (2/5).
Well, painting can’t be the most important thing, surely assembly is more important otherwise you just end up with a bunch of colourful bits on sprues!
I thought I left a perfectly innocent question when I went to sleep. Turns out that, no, as hobbyists, we have absolutely no right to our own time and choices.
Sounds a lot like gatekeeping, really.
Spoiler:
Lance845 wrote:YOU doing that could encourage OTHERS to do that.
So I should lie instead about how I might actually feel? And I'm not forcing anyone to do what I'm doing. If they also feel the same about "hey, I don't want to play against unpainted models, and I have to right to do what I want with my time", then they should feel comfortable to express that opinion in a polite manner. I'm never going to condone something like "I don't want to play against unpainted models because that means you're WAAC trash and you're scum on this hobby", but if someone doesn't want to play with their models in a certain way, you have no right to expect them to.
You are introducing gatekeeping into your community, as I said.
Not accurate in the slightest. They are just maintaining their own standards - one person is not a community. Or are you suggesting that I should be able to walk into any store, into any game, with any army, to any degree of completion/painting/assembly/etc, and demand that they play against me, or else they're gatekeeping me?
Do I have the *right* to your time and free will as a hobbyist? Can I walk up to you in any environment, and demand you play against me with a top-tier meta list proxied by lumps of coal? Because if not, that's gatekeeping, apparently.
If thats your line, keep it to yourself.
Or, instead of lying to them, I can be honest. As long as I, as you say, provide them with alternatives, and maintain that "you're still welcome to enjoy the hobby, but I want to do something else".
encourage the perpetuation of playing and having a good time in your community.
What if "having a good time in my community" meant painting your models? By that regard, in order to be a "good influence" for the community, one should paint their models.
And here we come to the main point of contention - your idea of "good for the community" is different to other people's ideas of "good for the community". But I don't think anyone agrees with you that you should always drop everything you're doing to play against anyone, anytime, anyhow, and you have no freedom to enjoy yourself how you want.
Let's play a game of Kill Team! "Well, actually, I don't really enjoy playin-" GATEKEEPING
Hey, I'm using my homebrew rules! "Um, these rules seem kinda broken, I'm not I'd enjo-" GATEKEEPING
Face my optimised top tier meta breaking army! "I was actually after a pretty casual-" GATEKEEPING
Here's my mixed list army, it's super casual and relaxed! "Oh, I actually wanted to play a tourney style list so I could practice for-" GATEKEEPING
Neither the person wanting the game, or the person refusing one, are in the wrong. They're just not compatible with eachother. If neither one is able/willing to meet the other (and they shouldn't be forced to - in the same way someone shouldn't be forced to paint their models, or forced to play a game they won't enjoy), then they simply shouldn't play. Don't forget - the community is more than just playing games. They can still talk to eachother, they can still discuss things, they can still hang out together. But demanding their own time? No way.
And before anyone decides to call THAT gatekeeping, your talking about the paradox of intolerance. It is not intolerant to be intolerant of intolerance. Every community has a right if not a responsibility to protect itself from those kinds of practices.
Ah, this old chestnut. It's already been torn to shreds, but I'll throw my hat in:
As someone who's very fond of using the paradox of intolerance to promote the protection of people who are genuinely at risk in the world (myself included), your use of it here is, at best, simple ignorance, or at worst, genuinely patronising or insulting.
But, to indulge your misuse of the paradox, let's examine this:
A person who's genuinely intolerant of painting models (ie, not someone who genuinely *cannot*, but someone who simply chooses not to). Why should I tolerate their intolerance of painting, and play against them? If they don't put the time/effort in, why should I put time/effort in for them?
A person who is racist, sexist, homophobic, etc etc. Are they entitled to my time in the hobby - if I turn them away, am I not gatekeeping?
Lance845 wrote:The paradox of tolerance is my stance here. Games are all inclusive.
The game is. My time is not.
If I turned someone away from the HOBBY for not painting, then I would be gatekeeping, that's true. If I turned someone away from playing with ME, and me alone, that's not gatekeeping. That's me managing my time how I want.
And I will protect their inclusiveness in my community from toxic elements that want to put up artificial elitist barriers to keep those out that don't meet their "standards".
But you're also creating standards - your standard is that "everyone is required to play against someone else on demand, and you have no excuse not to play against absolutely anyone". That's just as toxic as "sorry, I'm not happy playing against unpainted models, even though I'm sure I can engage with you in other ways, without gaming".
You're creating unreasonable standards by which nobody has freedom of their own time and effort, because at the drop of a hat, you must be ready to play against anyone else, lest you be accused to gatekeeping.
I called it gatekeeping because it is. I called it rude because it is. I called it toxic because it is.
In the same vein, I can call your expectation to other people's time gatekeeping, rude and toxic "because they are".
The whole "because it is" only works if you have some authority to prove it. You have none.
You 100% have a right to feel how you do. Go home, invite others like you to your house, and keep it over there.
So, you're saying that the moment I'm in a public space, my time and preferences don't matter, and that I can, at any time, be forced into doing something I don't want to, until I'm in my own four walls?
And what if it's my venue?
The community doesn't need you.
And you speak for "the community", do you?
I didn't vote for you.
You're more than welcome to have that opinion that "refusing to play unpainted armies is toxic!", but that's just your opinion, and your standard. You have every right to refuse to play against someone with that belief. You have no right, however, to pretend that your opinion is anything more than just that.
If I genuinely did hold that belief of "I won't play against unpainted armies", then I still wouldn't pretend it was some kind of baseline requirement, or meant anything else beyond my own preferences. I would obviously make it clear that it was just my preference, in the same way I prefer not to play against tourney lists, and that there's plenty of fish in the sea for someone who actually wants a game.
People are obviously entitled to be in the hobby and to enjoy it however they want to. They are not entitled to me.
nareik wrote: Well, painting can’t be the most important thing, surely assembly is more important otherwise you just end up with a bunch of colourful bits on sprues!
I regret priming sprues... (spoiler.. there are effin mold lines innit )
Lance845 wrote: The only standard that matters in the game is good sportsmanship.
So having a standard is fine if it is in an area you agree with - and obviously not gate-keeping in that case - but is a problem if it is in an area you disagree with?
nareik wrote: Well, painting can’t be the most important thing, surely assembly is more important otherwise you just end up with a bunch of colourful bits on sprues!
I regret priming sprues... (spoiler.. there are effin mold lines innit )
I don't. my eyes are so bad, I don't see mold lines anyways
If people have absolutely no interest in having painted models they are in the wrong hobby, let's be honest. Not your top priority? That's perfectly understandable.
Priorities are different for everyone, no question about that, but if you literally don't intend or even desire to have a painted army I question why you would chose this very particular, visuals focused game?
Ishagu wrote: If people have absolutely no interest in having painted models they are in the wrong hobby, let's be honest. Not your top priority? That's perfectly understandable.
Priorities are different for everyone, no question about that, but if you literally don't intend or even desire to have a painted army I question why you would chose this very particular, visuals focused game?
So, when you go and say this to people, and they laugh in your face, what do you do then?
And I certainly won't engage in a game with someone who's made no effort and dis-respects the intent behind this hobby.
Are you one of these people who can't paint or refuses to paint their models? Enjoy playing by yourself or in a really limited "Hermit Group"
This game has a strong focus on visuals and the social contract, don't take away from people's experience.
And I certainly won't engage in a game with someone who's made no effort and dis-respects the intent behind this hobby.
Are you one of these people who can't paint or refuses to paint their models? Enjoy playing by yourself or in a really limited "Hermit Group"
This game has a strong focus on visuals and the social contract, don't take away from people's experience.
Prove that it's the intent behind the hobby.
Remember, people have spent days and pages failing at that. I hope you can come up with something better than what they did.
I've already said my preferences. You can go back and read them if you like.
And by visuals you mean 3d tokens to represent game pieces. And by social contract you mean not being a jerk and following the rules. None of which involve paint. Unless you care to quote a page in the rules. So far no one else has been able to.
If you don't like playing against unpainted models don't. But don't think that your preference means anything to anyone else. Someone who doesn't care a whit about painting is just as much a part of this hobby as you are.
Games Workshop don't advertise unpainted models. They don't show people playing with grey miniatures in their promotional material for 40k.
They advertise beautiful, painted models and sell lots of paints, and a massive range of hobby supplies. There is a strong visual impact to a painted army on a well modelled battlefield.
Your selfish attitude, centred on yourself and not the enjoyment of your opponent, shows a failure to grasp the reality of the social contract and the spirit of the hobby. Thankfully you are a minority and not really worth consideration. And make no mistake, I will never agree to play against you.
Ishagu wrote: Games Workshop don't advertise unpainted models. They don't show people playing with grey miniatures in their promotional material for 40k.
They advertise beautiful, painted models and sell lots of paints, and a massive range of hobby supplies.
So? That's a marketing tool, not an intent. You flat out said why they show painted models. If the intent was for people to use painted models, it would be in the rules.
I honestly expected something new, not something dredged up from the last few days.
Ishagu wrote: They don't allow unpainted models in their gaming events.
Now you prove to me that they want us to play with unpainted models.
Neither does ITC. What's your point?
My proof that they don't?
The models are unpainted, they don't give painting instructions, there's no rule about paint in the book.
Three reasons.
Such a selfish attitude, no interest in creating an enjoyable playing experience for your opponent.
I'm not the one forcing my attitude onto other people. You're the selfish jerk. Sorry you're incapable of enjoying 40K. Have you considered selling all of your stuff and buying gundam kits? Then you wouldn't have to 'worry' about what other people do with their hobby time.
The game is a social contract between players. This is not a video game. The participants are responsible not just for their own enjoyment, but the enjoyment of their opponent.
Your crappy looking army put together with no effort and no intent for future improvement, and your clearly selfish attitude, would not give me any enjoyment. Doing the absolute minimum and expecting to be applauded.
Also you've just pointed out, you would not be allowed in a competitive event, and I would also avoid you in a casual setting as well.
"Models require assembly and painting" it says so on the box I have right in front of me. And they also have a bunch of color schemes and paints on the box as well. They have been selling a hobby magazine for decades with instructions on how to paint btw.
If painting wasnt part of the intent of the hobby they would probably sell cheap soft plastic that comes prepainted like heroclix or the old star wars miniature game. Could make a killing selling them in expensive boosters making their current 30$ characters look cheap.
They come unpainted so you can paint them in whatever color you want. It is so you have more artistic freedom.
If the intent wasnt to get them painted they wouldnt spend so much time making the models highly detailed. They could just as well stopped updating the space marine sculpts after the first plastic kit. Unless you actually paint the models you dont really see most of the details that newer kits have.
Ishagu wrote: The game is a social contract between two people. This is not a video game. The participants are responsible not just for their own enjoyment, but the enjoyment of their opponent.
Your crappy looking army put together with no effort and no intent for future improvement, and your clearly selfish attitude, would not give me any enjoyment.
There is a social contact between 2+ people. Follow the rules. Let me know which rule in the book that is.
My repsonsibility for my other person's enjoyment begins and ends with following the rules and not being a jerk. If they don't like unpainted models, they don't have to play me if I'm using any. But the minute they decide that a layer of colored water makes them better than anyone else, it's the minute they get treated the way they should for breaking said contract.
You haven't seen my armies, so you have no basis for comparison to your own shoddy work. You probably just pay someone to paint them anyway.
Which rule says I need to paint again? You have yet to give me a page.
You keep using that word, selfish. I'm certain that you don't know what that means. Should I link you a definition?
While I don't know you, I'm sure your attitude would be ample warning enough that I should avoid playing a game with you. I play for fun, not to show off my beautifully painted miniatures.
Why would I play a jerk like you?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Klickor wrote: "Models require assembly and painting" it says so on the box I have right in front of me. And they also have a bunch of color schemes and paints on the box as well. They have been selling a hobby magazine for decades with instructions on how to paint btw.
If painting wasnt part of the intent of the hobby they would probably sell cheap soft plastic that comes prepainted like heroclix or the old star wars miniature game. Could make a killing selling them in expensive boosters making their current 30$ characters look cheap.
They come unpainted so you can paint them in whatever color you want. It is so you have more artistic freedom.
If the intent wasnt to get them painted they wouldnt spend so much time making the models highly detailed. They could just as well stopped updating the space marine sculpts after the first plastic kit. Unless you actually paint the models you dont really see most of the details that newer kits have.
None of my boxes say that. Mine all say they come unassembled and unpainted.
Are those color schemes paint instructions, or are they just a list of more stuff they want you to buy? I mean, I have a box somewhere with a chimera in the background. Does that mean I have to buy a chimera for my guard army?
You mean the optional magazine that's half ads?
Giving artistic freedom is different than requiring an art investment. Why is this so difficult for you?
Remember, people have spent days and pages failing at that. I hope you can come up with something better than what they did.
It is completely obvious and it has been proven beyond any reasoanble doubt several times. But it is impossible to engage with someone who refuses to engage with the reality, so no one can prove it to you.
Remember, people have spent days and pages failing at that. I hope you can come up with something better than what they did.
It is completely obvious and it has been proven beyond any reasoanble doubt several times. But it is impossible to engage with someone who refuses to engage with the reality, so no one can prove it to you.
Not really that obvious. I mean, you might think it is, but you, by your own admission, lack the imagination to think why someone might not like the same things as you.
But you're right, I shouldn't engage with you. At least until you reengage with reality.
Remember that Social Contract I told you about? Clearly you don't understand the spirit of this hobby.
You're not a tournament player - you aren't allowed to enter most of them. You're not a lover of the hobby - you have no intention of even trying to get your army painted or to look nice. You probably don't even play the game, demonstrated by not understanding that the game, at it's best, relies on players making an effort for their opponent to have an enjoyable experience. Enjoy being a hermit lol
Ishagu wrote: Remember that Social Contract I told you about? Clearly you don't understand the spirit of this hobby.
You're not a tournament player. You're not a lover of the hobby. You probably don't even play the game. Enjoy being a hermit lol
The social contract that you got wrong?
You've yet to show that you're right about anything, and yet to prove that you're someone worth playing. Or drinking a beer next to.
Apparently I understand it better than you do, because at least I treat it as a hobby, and not some weird geek-religion.
I'm not a tournament player. If other people like them, more power to them. I could care less.
I love this hobby. I have longer than you've been alive. (you sound like you're 15)
Played last Monday, and going to a 'convention' on the 23rd of February. Don't really care if you believe me.
You should probably look up the definition of hermit. It doesn't mean what you think it does.
--
Quick question? Why are you so triggered by other people not enjoying things the exact way you do?
Now to see if you ninja edited in more insults.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ishagu wrote: Remember that Social Contract I told you about? Clearly you don't understand the spirit of this hobby.
You're not a tournament player - you aren't allowed to enter most of them. You're not a lover of the hobby - you have no intention of even trying to get your army painted or to look nice. You probably don't even play the game. Enjoy being a hermit lol
There it is, there's the ninja insults.
How many tournaments have you been banned from again? All of them? See? I can make unfounded comments too. While we're at it, why do you have sex with chickens?
My army looks nicer than yours. Prove me wrong. Or I should say, the stuff I painted looks better than the stuff you painted.
Your hobby attitude is not shared by most, and your choices have excluded you from both competitive and narrative gaming (the most popular ways people generally play), so yes - that would make you a hobby hermit lol.
Don't paint your army, I'll never play against it.
We're getting into a weird space if we're gonna use the rules of the game as the sole basis of what standard of experience people might want out of 40k because, to use a previous post to illustrate the point, iirc nothing in the rules requires a player to not behave like a jerk.
1. GW expects most people will want to paint their models, and require them in offical tournaments or stores because they look better and are more enticing, but they are certainly more than happy to sell to people who have no interest in painting. It's important to remember that everything they do involving models is aimed partly at people who only do the modelling/painting side of the hobby and may never role a dice.
2. Painted models look better than unpainted models, even when the models are badly painted and everybody should be encouraged to paint their models when participating at gaming clubs/stores etc because it does genuinely make the experience a bit more enjoyable
3. I'd rather play someone that had grey plastic because they have no interest in painting, than someone who had painted everything but had the sort of personality where they think others are being selfish if they don't or think someone can't be a fan of the hobby if they don't paint. It's just a game, it's not that serious.
I'm not triggered at all. I love exposing people lacking social aptitude. You clearly don't understand how most people in the hobby think, and what people can do to create an enjoyable experience for those they engage with.
Ishagu wrote: I'm not triggered at all. I love exposing people lacking social aptitude. You clearly don't understand how most people in the hobby think, and what people can do to create an enjoyable experience for those they engage with.
You're so triggered you don't even realize it.
So far I've shown a clearer idea than you have. I mean, I'm not forcing my idea of a good time onto other people, you are.
To help my opponent play a game, I follow the rules, and I don't act like a jerk. I mean act like an Ishagu.
nurgle5 wrote: We're getting into a weird space if we're gonna use the rules of the game as the sole basis of what standard of experience people might want out of 40k because, to use a previous post to illustrate the point, iirc nothing in the rules requires a player to not behave like a jerk.
True, but if someone acts like a jerk, I'm not required to play them. I can just say no and go on with life. Same with paint. If I don't want to play someone who doesn't paint their stuff, I don't have to. But I have no right to tell them they can't play other people.
You might be better off arguing that someone telling other people what they can use on the tabletop (unpainted minis, etc) against a consenting opponent is behaving like a jerk, rather than arguing that painting miniatures isn't an intended part of the hobby IMHO.
Remember, just because painting is an intended part of the hobby, doesn't mean it's necessarily mandatory, particularly for two consenting people playing the game.
To follow the core rules and not act like a jerk is the absolute minimum one has to do.
This discussion is not about behaviour anyway, it was the statement made by Mmmpi that apparently GW don't intend for hobbyists to paint their armies. That's clearly not the case.
Unpainted armies don't have to be accepted by anyone.
nurgle5 wrote: We're getting into a weird space if we're gonna use the rules of the game as the sole basis of what standard of experience people might want out of 40k because, to use a previous post to illustrate the point, iirc nothing in the rules requires a player to not behave like a jerk.
True, but if someone acts like a jerk, I'm not required to play them. I can just say no and go on with life. Same with paint. If I don't want to play someone who doesn't paint their stuff, I don't have to. But I have no right to tell them they can't play other people.
You might be better off arguing that someone telling other people what they can use on the tabletop (unpainted minis, etc) against a consenting opponent is behaving like a jerk, rather than arguing that painting miniatures isn't an intended part of the hobby IMHO.
Remember, just because painting is an intended part of the hobby, doesn't mean it's necessarily mandatory, particularly for two consenting people playing the game.
I have argued that. It's been discussed.
As I've said, nothing about painting is an intended part of the hobby. Most people who participate paint, either because they like the results, or because they like to paint (or are the rare few who get brow beaten into it), but it's not intended.
As was pointed out earlier, no one is beating down the doors of people who only paint, or only read the books, but avoid the game aspect. So why the hypocrisy over paint?
You did change the topic, making it about perceived attitude, thus moving the goalpost. A clear indicator of an argument lost.
You literally made a statement asking for proof that painting your army is an intended part of the hobby. It was one of the most ridiculous statements on this forum I've seen in a while lol
Ishagu wrote: To follow the core rules and not act like a jerk is the absolute minimum one has to do.
This discussion is not about behaviour anyway, it was the statement made by Mmmpi that apparently GW don't intend for hobbyists to paint their armies. That's clearly not the case.
Unpainted armies don't have to be accepted by anyone.
They're pretty big minimums though.
Myself and about nine other people.
If it's not the case prove it.
Link my post where I said you have to accept another person's army for a game. I've literally been saying the opposite for 23 pages.
I'll wait.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ishagu wrote: You did change the topic, making it about perceived attitude, thus moving the goalpost. A clear indicator of an argument lost.
Nope. Nice try moving the goal posts though. Do you really not see yourself doing it?
You literally made a statement asking for proof that painting your army is an intended part of the hobby. It was one of the most ridiculous statements on this forum I've seen in a while lol
You literally made a statement asking for proof that painting your army is an intended part of the hobby. It was one of the most ridiculous statements on this forum I've seen in a while lol
I did! Because you're acting like it's a fact. Which means you can prove it.
Now if you said that it was your opinion, I probably wouldn't even have replied to you.
If I had said GW enforces painting of armies, I would be wrong. I said GW intends for people to paint their armies.
Of course it's hard to be wrong when I'm right.
Since you're claiming that it's a fact about GW and paint, you can provide proof right? Maybe a rule, or a mission statement from GW? Something from their corporate office talking about it?
As I've said, nothing about painting is an intended part of the hobby. Most people who participate paint, either because they like the results, or because they like to paint (or are the rare few who get brow beaten into it), but it's not intended.
As was pointed out earlier, no one is beating down the doors of people who only paint, or only read the books, but avoid the game aspect. So why the hypocrisy over paint?
I suppose it's because the game is where one person's preferences in terms of things like visual spectacle or amiability will immediately impact the enjoyment of the other player. Someone who only reads the books won't find themselves in that situation.
If you look at GW's introductory article to the hobby, the four things listed are: collecting miniatures, building miniatures, painting miniatures and playing the game. Painting is absolutely an intended part of the hobby. As I've said, it's not always a mandatory part of the hobby. You can argue that the rules of the game don't require painted miniatures, but I've already pointed out how that approach has its problems.
If I had said GW enforces painting of armies, I would be wrong. I said GW intends for people to paint their armies.
While I do think GW wants you to paint, I don’t know if it’s the intent of the game. Also you’re coming across fairly rude in this thread man, dial it back a little bit.
Ishagu wrote: Prove to me that Games Workshop don't want you to paint your army.
Your argument is one of a child.
Prove to me that they do require it.
I'm not the one pushing opinion as fact.
Come on Cupcake, you can do it.
You are pushing opinion as fact right now. You are stating that GW, a miniature painting and hobby company, do not intend for anyone who purchases their models to actually paint them.
GW expects that most people will paint (or at least want to paint) their models, strongly encourages them to do so, and provides all the necessary guidance and tools needed to do so.
There certainly isn't the expectation from GW that every model they sell will be painted, just as there isn't the expectation from them that every model they sell will be gamed with, despite that being part of the 'intention' of the hobby.
As I've said, nothing about painting is an intended part of the hobby. Most people who participate paint, either because they like the results, or because they like to paint (or are the rare few who get brow beaten into it), but it's not intended.
As was pointed out earlier, no one is beating down the doors of people who only paint, or only read the books, but avoid the game aspect. So why the hypocrisy over paint?
I suppose it's because the game is where one person's preferences in terms of things like visual spectacle or amiability will immediately impact the enjoyment of the other player. Someone who only reads the books won't find themselves in that situation.
If you look at GW's introductory article to the hobby, the four things listed are: collecting miniatures, building miniatures, painting miniatures and playing the game. Painting is absolutely an intended part of the hobby. As I've said, it's not always a mandatory part of the hobby. You can argue that the rules of the game don't require painted miniatures, but I've already pointed out how that approach has its problems.
And if that visual specticle is important to you, good. No one is making you play other people. And I'm not saying you're a jerk for not doing it like another person suggested. But then, if the game is only good when both armies are painted, perhaps that person should find another game. One that does require paint. Or if they can't find enough people with painted armies, then find new opponents. If something is happening that you don't like, and it's not illegal, then it's up to you to change/move, not the other person.
It's part of the hobby, no one is denying that. But it's not part of the game. If that were the case, anyone who got their miniatures commission painted would be cheating.
You think the game is only good when both armies are painted. I and many other people could care less what state of paint is on our opponents army. You're the one who has the issue, not the other person. If you don't want to play that person, don't. Just don't treat it as anything more than your own personal preference, because brother, they've done nothing wrong. (Rhetorical you btw)
Ishagu wrote: Prove to me that Games Workshop don't want you to paint your army.
Your argument is one of a child.
Prove to me that they do require it.
I'm not the one pushing opinion as fact.
Come on Cupcake, you can do it.
You are pushing opinion as fact right now. You are stating that GW, a miniature painting and hobby company, do not intend for anyone who purchases their models to actually paint them.
Why are you using insults? Did you get triggered?
Nope, I'm asking you to prove that your claim is true. I've provided evidence that backs up why your claim is false.
I'm stating that GW, a miniature, hobby tool, and paint company doesn't care what anyone does with the stuff they sell, just as long as they buy it, and don't kill anyone with it.
You've been insulting me in every post you've made. So maybe you should point that finger back at yourself, Princess.
Never said that you can only buy models if you intend to paint them.
I said that GW, a painting and modelling company, intend for the people who purchase their models to also paint their models.
I was careful to use the word "Intend"
Defintion: a thing intended; an aim or plan.
Apparently GW don't want people to buy models and paints, and to paint those models. This is why this discussion is ridiculous, with comical statements from people like Mmmpi. If GW didn't intend for people to paint their armies, they wouldn't be selling paints and marketing panted armies lol. There is a section on their website called "Painting and Modelling" This is the most basic common sense lol
@Mmmpi You asked for proof that GW want people to paint their models. It's a really, really silly thing to ask for lol. And next time stop trowing insults around, if you get triggered take a step back, relax and come back later.
Ishagu wrote: Never said that you can only buy models if you intend to paint them.
I said that GW, a painting and modelling company, intend for the people who purchase their models, to also paint their models.
I was careful to use the word "Intend"
Defintion: a thing intended; an aim or plan.
Apparently GW don't want people to buy models and paints, and to paint those models. This is why this discussion is ridiculous, with comical statements from people like Mmmpi.
@Mmmpi You asked for proof that GW want people to paint their models. It's a really, really silly thing to ask for lol. And next time stop trowing insults around, if you get triggered take a step back, relax and come back later.
You said that if people didn't want to paint, they should find a different hobby. So yes, you did say that. Just not word for word.
You did say intend a lot. But you also have been treating it like it's a fact.
Oh good you can google definitions of things.
You do realize I flat out said the opposite right? I mean, you do read my posts?
I still ask for proof that GW wants everyone to paint their models. If you think it's a silly thing to ask for, remember, I think it's a silly thing to take as fact.
If you don't want to be insulted, stop throwing out insults. I can go and quote the ones you left me if you really want to see.
As for triggered, you should find a safe space. You really need it.
The proof is the giant tab on the official GW website that says "Painting and Modelling" lol
You haven't provided proof that GW want us to keep our armies as grey plastic and not paint them lol Move on dude, you made a silly statement. I forgive you.
Ishagu wrote: Oh my Goodness. Are you still going on?
The proof is the giant tab on the official GW website that says "Painting and Modelling" lol
You haven't provided proof that GW want us to keeo our armies as grey plastic and not paint them lol Move on dude, you made a silly statement. I forgive you.
It's hobby supplies and paint that they sell. So what?
I'm not trying to prove they want everything grey and unpainted. I'm claiming they don't care. Is there a reason you're trying to build a strawman? Because that just tells me that somehow I managed to win a 'conversation'.
Proof that GW doesn't care if you paint your models? No. I have however provided evidence that supports that opinion.
To be fair, the fact that they sell paints, hire staff to teach people how to paint, provide painting guides through articles and videos, display painted miniatures at the stores, display miniatures painted by the community on their website, hold an annual event about fully painted armies and advertise the game through pics of painted miniatures are probably all evidence that supports the opinion that GW cares if you paint your miniatures.
Ishagu wrote: Lol they want you to paint so they make more money, as one reason. That's stronger evidence.
They want you to buy paint. They don't care what you do with it.
Just like McDonalds wants you to buy burgers, but don't care if you just lob them in the trash right after paying.
GW sells paint because they know enough of their customer base likes/wants to paint to turn a profit. Seeing as GW likes money, they provide to that group.
It's rather strange that I have to explain basic economics in a 'paint' thread.
Just gonna throw this out there:
1. GW recommends for its Warhammer World events that armies are painted to battlefield ready standard. (They don’t state that unpainted Armies are disqualified or not allowed.)
2. GW has invested hundreds of thousands of dollars to assist people in learning how to paint. (Painting App, YouTube, on their website when you pick the model you want to buy, on the box)
3. GW has a massive stock of paints, brushes, and other accessories to ensure that anyone who wants to collect their models doesn’t have to go elsewhere to buy the supplies they need to build and paint them.
How can an argument be made that GW doesn’t want their models to be painted?
Proof that GW doesn't care if you paint your models? No. I have however provided evidence that supports that opinion.
To be fair, the fact that they sell paints, hire staff to teach people how to paint, provide painting guides through articles and videos, display painted miniatures at the stores, display miniatures painted by the community on their website, hold an annual event about fully painted armies and advertise the game through pics of painted miniatures are probably all evidence that supports the opinion that GW cares if you paint your miniatures.
Yeah, that's been the general consensus as of like page 18. The only people not agreeing with that are the odd holdouts like Crimson and Ishagu.
I maintain that they provide those because they know a profitable amount of their customer are willing to buy it. Everything sells better when it's shown at it's best, and I can't deny that most of their customers like at least seeing painted models, even if a sizable chunk of those don't care enough to actually finish painting a whole army themselves.
So for GW, paint is just another thing they can sell. If people in large enough numbers didn't buy their paints, but still bought their models, I'm willing to bet we'd see those paints disappear from the website. Again, GW doesn't care what you do, but wants to make money off of those that do want to paint.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Jjohnso11 wrote: Just gonna throw this out there:
1. GW recommends for its Warhammer World events that armies are painted to battlefield ready standard. (They don’t state that unpainted Armies are disqualified or not allowed.)
2. GW has invested hundreds of thousands of dollars to assist people in learning how to paint. (Painting App, YouTube, on their website when you pick the model you want to buy, on the box)
3. GW has a massive stock of paints, brushes, and other accessories to ensure that anyone who wants to collect their models doesn’t have to go elsewhere to buy the supplies they need to build and paint them.
How can an argument be made that GW doesn’t want their models to be painted?
As I've said above, they don't care. But they can make money profiting off of those who do want to. Those people who want their own stuff painted are the majority, even if they don't actually finish painting everything...or anything. If enough people didn't want to, GW would stop selling paint/providing things that advertise paints/tools. Those how to paint videos are just as much ads as they are hobby tips. GW makes them because it makes them money.
If you want to participate in the AoS Grand Tournament or the 40k Grand Tournament both hosted by Games Workshop the downloadable event pamphlet stipulates that your armies must be painted.
I have never participated in an event at Warhammer World but I vaguely remember discussion that you earn points for a tiebreaker if your army is well painted.
I’m pretty sure this is proof that Games Workshop wants your armies painted.
Jjohnso11 wrote: If you want to participate in the AoS Grand Tournament or the 40k Grand Tournament both hosted by Games Workshop the downloadable event pamphlet stipulates that your armies must be painted.
I have never participated in an event at Warhammer World but I vaguely remember discussion that you earn points for a tiebreaker if your army is well painted.
I’m pretty sure this is proof that Games Workshop wants your armies painted.
It's proof that they want them painted at their events at least.
Ishagu wrote: That box doesn't say it. Most do say it.
This is one of the newest boxes they make.
I'm not talking about something from 1997. This is 2019 product.
My Intercessors and Custodes boxes I have on hand say that they require painting and assembly (on the bottom, next to the QR code). My Skaven battalion box from several years ago says the same (obviously with no QR code). However, to your credit, my Know No Fear box only says "unpainted miniatures, assembly required". What I'd be willing to bet is that all older kits that were in proper retail boxes (not the white supply ones) all say "painting and assembly required", but now, it's only the single unit boxes that carry that.
Basically, Ishagu (despite being pretty aggressive in this thread) is right in that most boxes do actually call for painting. The fact that they come with paints literally on the boxes, that they sold paint pots with Conquest alongside the models, and in the larger faction boxes with the full colour guides (like Shadowspear) come with guides on how to paint, I think it's definitely GW's INTENTION that you paint. You're obviously not forced to, unless you want to play at GW's events, but in the same vein, anyone can reject a game for whatever reason (be that what you've taken in your army, your painting or lack thereof, or simply not really wanting to play right now), which I think we've all asserted is absolutely fine.
GW wants to sell paint.
They also want you to buy their glue as well. Should we take that to mean we don't need to assemble our models, because that's just GW's way of making more money from us? I mean, there's push-fit models, just like how there's coloured sprue models, sure, so does that mean we don't need to assemble our squads, because if they needed to be assembled, it would mention that in the core rules. (It doesn't mention anything about them being built, only that they need to be Citadel Miniatures - funnily enough, there's actually more mentions of painted models than fully built ones: there's a reference to painted models on the Wobbly Model Syndrome tab!)
Just to make sure that we're on the same page here.
nurgle5 wrote:
Mmmpi wrote:If you don't want to play that person, don't.
This should probably be the key take away from this thread imho.
Agreed. I think the main thing to learn, if anything, is that it's okay to just take a step back and not play. If you're not willing to accommodate your opponent's preferences, and vice versa, just play someone else. This applies for literally everything - count as, proxying, competitive play, house rules, etc etc. If your enjoyment is going to be threatened by playing them, don't play them. Don't be rude to them, but know that you should prioritise your own happiness. If they were worth playing against in the first place, they should understand that, and if they don't, then they weren't worth playing against.
There really shouldn't be any stigma involved if you're mature about it.
Proof that GW doesn't care if you paint your models? No. I have however provided evidence that supports that opinion.
To be fair, the fact that they sell paints, hire staff to teach people how to paint, provide painting guides through articles and videos, display painted miniatures at the stores, display miniatures painted by the community on their website, hold an annual event about fully painted armies and advertise the game through pics of painted miniatures are probably all evidence that supports the opinion that GW cares if you paint your miniatures.
Yeah, saying that they don't care when they offer all those services is like saying that they don't care if you assemble them or even play the same. Obviously, they're not going to go round and force you into assembling, painting, and playing with your army, but they definitely have a "this is what we strongly encourage you do - but you don't HAVE to".
I mean, considering they offer so much on the painting front, it actually makes more sense that they'd rather you paint your models than build them!
To use the burger analogy above - what you do with your McDondalds burger is up to you, but considering it's food, and is designed to taste vaguely nice, there's definitely an intention behind what you do with it. To suggest that there's no intention in any purchase would realistically mean that McDonalds shouldn't be called fast food, it should be called fast product.
Ishagu wrote: That box doesn't say it. Most do say it.
This is one of the newest boxes they make.
I'm not talking about something from 1997. This is 2019 product.
My Intercessors and Custodes boxes I have on hand say that they require painting and assembly (on the bottom, next to the QR code). My Skaven battalion box from several years ago says the same (obviously with no QR code). However, to your credit, my Know No Fear box only says "unpainted miniatures, assembly required". What I'd be willing to bet is that all older kits that were in proper retail boxes (not the white supply ones) all say "painting and assembly required", but now, it's only the single unit boxes that carry that.
Basically, Ishagu (despite being pretty aggressive in this thread) is right in that most boxes do actually call for painting. The fact that they come with paints literally on the boxes, that they sold paint pots with Conquest alongside the models, and in the larger faction boxes with the full colour guides (like Shadowspear) come with guides on how to paint, I think it's definitely GW's INTENTION that you paint. You're obviously not forced to, unless you want to play at GW's events, but in the same vein, anyone can reject a game for whatever reason (be that what you've taken in your army, your painting or lack thereof, or simply not really wanting to play right now), which I think we've all asserted is absolutely fine.
GW wants to sell paint.
They also want you to buy their glue as well. Should we take that to mean we don't need to assemble our models, because that's just GW's way of making more money from us? I mean, there's push-fit models, just like how there's coloured sprue models, sure, so does that mean we don't need to assemble our squads, because if they needed to be assembled, it would mention that in the core rules. (It doesn't mention anything about them being built, only that they need to be Citadel Miniatures - funnily enough, there's actually more mentions of painted models than fully built ones: there's a reference to painted models on the Wobbly Model Syndrome tab!)
Just to make sure that we're on the same page here.
nurgle5 wrote:
Mmmpi wrote:If you don't want to play that person, don't.
This should probably be the key take away from this thread imho.
Agreed. I think the main thing to learn, if anything, is that it's okay to just take a step back and not play. If you're not willing to accommodate your opponent's preferences, and vice versa, just play someone else. This applies for literally everything - count as, proxying, competitive play, house rules, etc etc. If your enjoyment is going to be threatened by playing them, don't play them. Don't be rude to them, but know that you should prioritise your own happiness. If they were worth playing against in the first place, they should understand that, and if they don't, then they weren't worth playing against.
There really shouldn't be any stigma involved if you're mature about it.
Proof that GW doesn't care if you paint your models? No. I have however provided evidence that supports that opinion.
To be fair, the fact that they sell paints, hire staff to teach people how to paint, provide painting guides through articles and videos, display painted miniatures at the stores, display miniatures painted by the community on their website, hold an annual event about fully painted armies and advertise the game through pics of painted miniatures are probably all evidence that supports the opinion that GW cares if you paint your miniatures.
Yeah, saying that they don't care when they offer all those services is like saying that they don't care if you assemble them or even play the same. Obviously, they're not going to go round and force you into assembling, painting, and playing with your army, but they definitely have a "this is what we strongly encourage you do - but you don't HAVE to".
I mean, considering they offer so much on the painting front, it actually makes more sense that they'd rather you paint your models than build them!
To use the burger analogy above - what you do with your McDondalds burger is up to you, but considering it's food, and is designed to taste vaguely nice, there's definitely an intention behind what you do with it. To suggest that there's no intention in any purchase would realistically mean that McDonalds shouldn't be called fast food, it should be called fast product.
The only one Ishagu is right about is the glue part. But then the rules say flat out that you need to assemble models.
Yeah, that's been the general consensus as of like page 18.
Some things are worth reiterating
Mmmpi wrote: I maintain that they provide those because they know a profitable amount of their customer are willing to buy it. Everything sells better when it's shown at it's best, and I can't deny that most of their customers like at least seeing painted models, even if a sizable chunk of those don't care enough to actually finish painting a whole army themselves.
So for GW, paint is just another thing they can sell. If people in large enough numbers didn't buy their paints, but still bought their models, I'm willing to bet we'd see those paints disappear from the website. Again, GW doesn't care what you do, but wants to make money off of those that do want to paint.
I'm a bit confused by your stance on whether GW intends or wants people to paint their miniatures tbh. To paraphrase a bit:
"It isn't in the rules" isn't very convincing, since it doesn't relate directly to gameplay, but the experience of playing the game.
"GW only encourages painting to sell paint products" seems self defeating, since they would care about you painting stuff because they will sell more products if you do.
Ishagu wrote: That box doesn't say it. Most do say it.
This is one of the newest boxes they make.
I'm not talking about something from 1997. This is 2019 product.
My Intercessors and Custodes boxes I have on hand say that they require painting and assembly (on the bottom, next to the QR code). My Skaven battalion box from several years ago says the same (obviously with no QR code). However, to your credit, my Know No Fear box only says "unpainted miniatures, assembly required". What I'd be willing to bet is that all older kits that were in proper retail boxes (not the white supply ones) all say "painting and assembly required", but now, it's only the single unit boxes that carry that.
Basically, Ishagu (despite being pretty aggressive in this thread) is right in that most boxes do actually call for painting. The fact that they come with paints literally on the boxes, that they sold paint pots with Conquest alongside the models, and in the larger faction boxes with the full colour guides (like Shadowspear) come with guides on how to paint, I think it's definitely GW's INTENTION that you paint. You're obviously not forced to, unless you want to play at GW's events, but in the same vein, anyone can reject a game for whatever reason (be that what you've taken in your army, your painting or lack thereof, or simply not really wanting to play right now), which I think we've all asserted is absolutely fine.
GW wants to sell paint.
They also want you to buy their glue as well. Should we take that to mean we don't need to assemble our models, because that's just GW's way of making more money from us? I mean, there's push-fit models, just like how there's coloured sprue models, sure, so does that mean we don't need to assemble our squads, because if they needed to be assembled, it would mention that in the core rules. (It doesn't mention anything about them being built, only that they need to be Citadel Miniatures - funnily enough, there's actually more mentions of painted models than fully built ones: there's a reference to painted models on the Wobbly Model Syndrome tab!)
Just to make sure that we're on the same page here.
nurgle5 wrote:
Mmmpi wrote:If you don't want to play that person, don't.
This should probably be the key take away from this thread imho.
Agreed. I think the main thing to learn, if anything, is that it's okay to just take a step back and not play. If you're not willing to accommodate your opponent's preferences, and vice versa, just play someone else. This applies for literally everything - count as, proxying, competitive play, house rules, etc etc. If your enjoyment is going to be threatened by playing them, don't play them. Don't be rude to them, but know that you should prioritise your own happiness. If they were worth playing against in the first place, they should understand that, and if they don't, then they weren't worth playing against.
There really shouldn't be any stigma involved if you're mature about it.
Proof that GW doesn't care if you paint your models? No. I have however provided evidence that supports that opinion.
To be fair, the fact that they sell paints, hire staff to teach people how to paint, provide painting guides through articles and videos, display painted miniatures at the stores, display miniatures painted by the community on their website, hold an annual event about fully painted armies and advertise the game through pics of painted miniatures are probably all evidence that supports the opinion that GW cares if you paint your miniatures.
Yeah, saying that they don't care when they offer all those services is like saying that they don't care if you assemble them or even play the same. Obviously, they're not going to go round and force you into assembling, painting, and playing with your army, but they definitely have a "this is what we strongly encourage you do - but you don't HAVE to".
I mean, considering they offer so much on the painting front, it actually makes more sense that they'd rather you paint your models than build them!
To use the burger analogy above - what you do with your McDondalds burger is up to you, but considering it's food, and is designed to taste vaguely nice, there's definitely an intention behind what you do with it. To suggest that there's no intention in any purchase would realistically mean that McDonalds shouldn't be called fast food, it should be called fast product.
The only one Ishagu is right about is the glue part. But then the rules say flat out that you need to assemble models.
Which rules? The ones on the box, that sometimes also call for the models to be painted? Or the rulebook? Because I don't see any mention of assembled models in mine.
Yeah, that's been the general consensus as of like page 18.
Some things are worth reiterating
Mmmpi wrote: I maintain that they provide those because they know a profitable amount of their customer are willing to buy it. Everything sells better when it's shown at it's best, and I can't deny that most of their customers like at least seeing painted models, even if a sizable chunk of those don't care enough to actually finish painting a whole army themselves.
So for GW, paint is just another thing they can sell. If people in large enough numbers didn't buy their paints, but still bought their models, I'm willing to bet we'd see those paints disappear from the website. Again, GW doesn't care what you do, but wants to make money off of those that do want to paint.
I'm a bit confused by your stance on whether GW intends or wants people to paint their miniatures tbh. To paraphrase a bit:
"It isn't in the rules" isn't very convincing, since it doesn't relate directly to gameplay, but the experience of playing the game.
"GW only encourages painting to sell paint products" seems self defeating, since they would care about you painting stuff because they will sell more products if you do.
The reiteration helps.
My point is that they want to sell stuff, but don't care what you do with it. However, they sell paint because they know there's a market, not because they created a market. My assertion is that if somehow that market disappeared, then GW would stop selling paint and hobby supplies.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Sgt_Smudge wrote: Which rules? The ones on the box, that sometimes also call for the models to be painted? Or the rulebook? Because I don't see any mention of assembled models in mine.
The ones in that big book that hold the rules of the game. The only time the box contains rules is when it has a slip inside that says "Rules", such as the one that came with the special edition Verydian model.
Mmmpi wrote: My point is that they want to sell stuff, but don't care what you do with it. However, they sell paint because they know there's a market, not because they created a market. My assertion is that if somehow that market disappeared, then GW would stop selling paint and hobby supplies.
Can the same not be said about assembling your models though? They sell glue and mould line removers and clippers and cutters and so on - why aren't they just selling those because there's a market, not because they created it?
I'm not disagreeing that they want to sell stuff, but won't force you into anything - but that would also apply to glue and assembling your models too.
I'm sitting in GW right now, and I've shown this conversation to GW employees.
They are laughing. GW does fully intent for people to paint their armies, ideally. They are not just selling the models, they are trying to sell an entire hobby.
I've been told this is their company goal, literally just now.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: I think the main thing to learn, if anything, is that it's okay to just take a step back and not play. If you're not willing to accommodate your opponent's preferences, and vice versa, just play someone else. This applies for literally everything - count as, proxying, competitive play, house rules, etc etc. If your enjoyment is going to be threatened by playing them, don't play them. Don't be rude to them, but know that you should prioritise your own happiness. If they were worth playing against in the first place, they should understand that, and if they don't, then they weren't worth playing against.
There really shouldn't be any stigma involved if you're mature about it.
This is a neat encapsulation of the "social contract" aspect of tabletop wargaming. Well said.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: Which rules? The ones on the box, that sometimes also call for the models to be painted? Or the rulebook? Because I don't see any mention of assembled models in mine.
The ones in that big book that hold the rules of the game.
Got a quote on that? I can't find them.
Oooh, here's one!
8th Edition Rulebook, page 16 wrote:Most Citadel Miniatures do not come as a single, pre-built piece. Rather, they are intended to be assembled using modelling tools and glue, and then painted in the colours and schemes that you choose
Mmmpi wrote: My point is that they want to sell stuff, but don't care what you do with it. However, they sell paint because they know there's a market, not because they created a market. My assertion is that if somehow that market disappeared, then GW would stop selling paint and hobby supplies.
Can the same not be said about assembling your models though? They sell glue and mould line removers and clippers and cutters and so on - why aren't they just selling those because there's a market, not because they created it?
I'm not disagreeing that they want to sell stuff, but won't force you into anything - but that would also apply to glue and assembling your models too.
My only point on the assembly part is that the rules say to use assembled models.
If someone wants to skip that step, they're free to do it though.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ishagu wrote: I'm sitting in GW right now, and I've shown this conversation to GW employees.
They are laughing. GW does fully intent for people to paint their armies, ideally. They are not just selling the models, they are trying to sell an entire hobby.
I've been told this is their company goal, literally just now.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: Which rules? The ones on the box, that sometimes also call for the models to be painted? Or the rulebook? Because I don't see any mention of assembled models in mine.
The ones in that big book that hold the rules of the game.
Got a quote on that? I can't find them.
Oooh, here's one!
8th Edition Rulebook, page 16 wrote:Most Citadel Miniatures do not come as a single, pre-built piece. Rather, they are intended to be assembled using modelling tools and glue, and then painted in the colours and schemes that you choose
Emphasis mine.
Honestly, I'll have to look. I was going off of what someone else said. But that's not a rule that you quoted either.
Keep in mind, color scheme that you choose can also be no paint.
Mmmpi wrote: My point is that they want to sell stuff, but don't care what you do with it. However, they sell paint because they know there's a market, not because they created a market. My assertion is that if somehow that market disappeared, then GW would stop selling paint and hobby supplies.
Can the same not be said about assembling your models though? They sell glue and mould line removers and clippers and cutters and so on - why aren't they just selling those because there's a market, not because they created it?
I'm not disagreeing that they want to sell stuff, but won't force you into anything - but that would also apply to glue and assembling your models too.
My only point on the assembly part is that the rules say to use assembled models.
If someone wants to skip that step, they're free to do it though.
But where's the quote that says they must be? I've just provided one that says they're INTENDED to be built and painted, but not required.
ah, back just in time to be called wrong for how I view things again. lovely. good news, i will likely not be at those doors anyway.
is this tug of war actually going anywhere? seems standard for this place. ill be extra mindful that whatever i do is somehow viewed as wrong.
...are we really going back and forth on GW's intent to make more money somehow making this stuff be more correct? yeah, GW would like you to paint any model played in their stores. they'd also like you to use only their bits, even if they are the bad ones. lets not use them as a basis of this "social contract".
Mmmpi wrote: My point is that they want to sell stuff, but don't care what you do with it. However, they sell paint because they know there's a market, not because they created a market. My assertion is that if somehow that market disappeared, then GW would stop selling paint and hobby supplies.
Can the same not be said about assembling your models though? They sell glue and mould line removers and clippers and cutters and so on - why aren't they just selling those because there's a market, not because they created it?
I'm not disagreeing that they want to sell stuff, but won't force you into anything - but that would also apply to glue and assembling your models too.
My only point on the assembly part is that the rules say to use assembled models.
If someone wants to skip that step, they're free to do it though.
But where's the quote that says they must be? I've just provided one that says they're INTENDED to be built and painted, but not required.
I'm not going to look it up right now, but if it's not in there as a rule, then it's not a rule. Feel free to play with unassembled models. Not that I was stopping anyone from doing that anyway. Though I wouldn't play them either, barring a few specific circumstances.
8th Edition Rulebook, page 16 wrote:Most Citadel Miniatures do not come as a single, pre-built piece. Rather, they are intended to be assembled using modelling tools and glue, and then painted in the colours and schemes that you choose
Emphasis mine.
Honestly, I'll have to look. I was going off of what someone else said. But that's not a rule that you quoted either.
Not a rule, but it's in the rulebook. So far, that's more evidence on what GW "intended", and absolutely none on your part that models need to be assembled.
I'll keep looking, but I'm not expecting to find what you say there is.
Keep in mind, color scheme that you choose can also be no paint.
It specifically calls for "painted". You can paint them in the same shade of grey as if they were unpainted, but you still have to paint them that colour, by the use of that verb.
8th Edition Rulebook, page 16 wrote:Most Citadel Miniatures do not come as a single, pre-built piece. Rather, they are intended to be assembled using modelling tools and glue, and then painted in the colours and schemes that you choose
Emphasis mine.
Honestly, I'll have to look. I was going off of what someone else said. But that's not a rule that you quoted either.
Not a rule, but it's in the rulebook. So far, that's more evidence on what GW "intended", and absolutely none on your part that models need to be assembled.
I'll keep looking, but I'm not expecting to find what you say there is.
Keep in mind, color scheme that you choose can also be no paint.
It specifically calls for "painted". You can paint them in the same shade of grey as if they were unpainted, but you still have to paint them that colour, by the use of that verb.
I'm not going to debate verbage with you, but I disagree with your take on it.
As for the first part, again, preference and intended are two different things. If they intended you to have all of your stuff painted, there would be a rule about it.
Mmmpi wrote: My point is that they want to sell stuff, but don't care what you do with it. However, they sell paint because they know there's a market, not because they created a market. My assertion is that if somehow that market disappeared, then GW would stop selling paint and hobby supplies.
Can the same not be said about assembling your models though? They sell glue and mould line removers and clippers and cutters and so on - why aren't they just selling those because there's a market, not because they created it?
I'm not disagreeing that they want to sell stuff, but won't force you into anything - but that would also apply to glue and assembling your models too.
My only point on the assembly part is that the rules say to use assembled models.
If someone wants to skip that step, they're free to do it though.
But where's the quote that says they must be? I've just provided one that says they're INTENDED to be built and painted, but not required.
I'm not going to look it up right now, but if it's not in there as a rule, then it's not a rule.
So why did you make the claim that the rules claimed it?
I'm not claiming that my quote about GW's intention for you to assemble and paint your models was a rule. Only that they seem to have placed equal emphasis on painting and assembly.
Feel free to play with unassembled models.
But you literally just said that "the rules say to use assembled models"!
Not that I was stopping anyone from doing that anyway. Though I wouldn't play them either, barring a few specific circumstances.
I never said for a moment that you were stopping them, or that you would be wrong to not play them.
I'm just making sure that you're not creating some kind of double standard between assembly and painting.
Too bad. You probably don't have a local Warhammer shop.
No, Osaka's store in the Namba district is the closest, and it's over 450km from where I live. I do however have a nice shop in Oita prefecture that I go to. It's just not a GW only shop.
As for your presence at a GW shop, outside of doxing yourself, there really isn't any way for you to prove that you're telling the truth.
Mmmpi wrote: As for the first part, again, preference and intended are two different things. If they intended you to have all of your stuff painted, there would be a rule about it.
If they intended my models to be built, there'd be a rule about it too. So far, I don't see one.
Mmmpi wrote: My point is that they want to sell stuff, but don't care what you do with it. However, they sell paint because they know there's a market, not because they created a market. My assertion is that if somehow that market disappeared, then GW would stop selling paint and hobby supplies.
Can the same not be said about assembling your models though? They sell glue and mould line removers and clippers and cutters and so on - why aren't they just selling those because there's a market, not because they created it?
I'm not disagreeing that they want to sell stuff, but won't force you into anything - but that would also apply to glue and assembling your models too.
My only point on the assembly part is that the rules say to use assembled models.
If someone wants to skip that step, they're free to do it though.
But where's the quote that says they must be? I've just provided one that says they're INTENDED to be built and painted, but not required.
I'm not going to look it up right now, but if it's not in there as a rule, then it's not a rule.
So why did you make the claim that the rules claimed it?
I'm not claiming that my quote about GW's intention for you to assemble and paint your models was a rule. Only that they seem to have placed equal emphasis on painting and assembly.
Feel free to play with unassembled models.
But you literally just said that "the rules say to use assembled models"!
Not that I was stopping anyone from doing that anyway. Though I wouldn't play them either, barring a few specific circumstances.
I never said for a moment that you were stopping them, or that you would be wrong to not play them.
I'm just making sure that you're not creating some kind of double standard between assembly and painting.
I made the claim because I took someone else at face value.
)
)
)
