My best and most well-working solution is to find someone quality, who is local, and is willing to paint his guys for a pretty decent price. Backing this up with suggesting he do it piecemeal and that he'll never have to do it himself (while making them look like what he wants,) normally works for me.
Mebbe I'm just persuasive.
Alternatively, paint them yourself, paint with them, or just stop worrying about it.
If he's not interested in painting, that's entirely up to him. If playing against unpainted models bothers you, find someone else to play. It's not up to you to convince someone that they're doing their hobby wrong.
Also, some folks like to have flexibility in what they field with relation to what they spend on the hobby. Unpainted Space Marine models, for example, give you the option of running whatever chapter you like with the same models - significantly cheaper than having separate painted armies of Ultramarines, Salamanders, etc.
nope nope nope.. tell him I said "Prime them sons of bitches" "then basecoat them with one drop flow improver and two drops of paint" "Then wash them in GW's wash". They look spectacular I was not a believer at one time, I am no artist they look amazing now.
Oh help-he's playing with his toys wrong! Seriously...if he doesn't want to paint, you can't force him to. They're his models-not yours. If you don't like his unpainted models, you can stop playing him. But don't dictate how he has his fun.
If he's not interested in painting, that's entirely up to him. If playing against unpainted models bothers you, find someone else to play. It's not up to you to convince someone that they're doing their hobby wrong.
Kidnap his relatives and return 1 person per army painted. Though, be careful with the army sequence cause you'll spend considerably less ammount of money on food for your hostages if you make him paint orks last.
Rismonite wrote: You should totally take some grots and make him color by number basecoat it
Then, after he's spent his time basecoating.. show him how awesome those gitz look with some wash on 'em
He'll want to paint them again.. and with you to play against a coupole times a week he'll want to paint just to show'em off to you.
Or just find someone who isn't TFG.
He's hardly TFG for not having painted armies is he. Some people don't care about painting and that's fine. You can't make someone paint their army, nor can you call them TFG for having different priorities in THEIR hobby. Either suck it up or find someone who has painted armies to play.
I wouldn't really blame someone for having unpainted models, its a daunting thing, and maybe he thinks he is really bad at painting and isn't even going to try, or maybe he thinks its already expensive as it is just buying models, and that buying all the hundreds of painting supplies as well would just be too much for his budget.
"Models are expensive and I can't practice" and "Unless it's GD standard it looks crappy".
I think that even simple paintjobs look cool. Basecoat, drybrush, wash? Very nice. Basecoat and quickshade dip? Great. You can practise on terrain, or don't worry and practise on your models - you can easily strip the paint off the metal ones, or don't worry anyway, because a beginner's paintjob still looks better than unpainted plastic. (Also, if someone has afforded 4 2000+ point armies, it seems to me that buying one additional squad for painting practice should not be a problem.)
It seems that 10-20 years ago hardly anyone aimed at GD standard, and the armies looked nice anyway - they were colourful and had strong presence on the battlefield.
My usual opponent painted some miniatures when he was 12. They're messy, with little to no details, but with strong colours contrasting with black undercoat they often look better than more carefully painted models, especially at arm's length. We play with them to this day.
Verviedi, so now you can tell your opponent "at least some people on Dakka like simple paintjobs". It's not VERY likely to help, but then, you can still try with the squig.
curran12 wrote: Accept that some people don't value painting as highly as you.
As frustrating as it may be for you, some people simply don't enjoy that aspect of the hobby - they just want to roll dice. I personally like having painted armies but I won't get them done quickly myself.
curran12 wrote: Accept that some people don't value painting as highly as you.
As frustrating as it may be for you, some people simply don't enjoy that aspect of the hobby - they just want to roll dice. I personally like having painted armies but I won't get them done quickly myself.
Or even if they do enjoy painting, maybe their hobby time is limited and they'd rather get games in than paint, which is imo fair enough.
Our club had an escalation league which rewarded having painted and converted models each session with bonus points to spend on apocalypse cards for the campaign final.
We had a mix of people who were brand new (and literally played the first 250pt game with their only models) and people who had been playing for a while but had never really got into painting - at the end of the campaign we had mostly painted armies from pretty much everyone. It was great fun for the gamers and the painters and the converters alike.
See if your local area is running something like that, or if not, start one up
Suggest meeting up and doing a "paint day" where you sit together, paint your miniatures and maybe watch a good TV series or listen to music at the same time to create a welcoming atmosphere.
curran12 wrote: Accept that some people don't value painting as highly as you.
As frustrating as it may be for you, some people simply don't enjoy that aspect of the hobby - they just want to roll dice. I personally like having painted armies but I won't get them done quickly myself.
Or even if they do enjoy painting, maybe their hobby time is limited and they'd rather get games in than paint, which is imo fair enough.
Once upon a time my Space Wolf army was painted.
Then I got new models, and some got cannibalised and/or converted and/or broken and/or chipped.
Now I hardly have any models I'd say were "painted"
Honestly.... I mean to.
But... kid, wife, work, TV, computer, game time, modelling time, and FLASH !!!!! OMFG, cleaning Flash!!!!!
There just never seems to be enough time for painting. Sweet jesus, if only I had time for an actual game!
Rismonite wrote: You should totally take some grots and make him color by number basecoat it
Then, after he's spent his time basecoating.. show him how awesome those gitz look with some wash on 'em
He'll want to paint them again.. and with you to play against a coupole times a week he'll want to paint just to show'em off to you.
Or just find someone who isn't TFG.
Wow I didn't think TFG would start being misused until WAAC fell out of flavour.
OP as said by many others, if he doesn't want to paint then well, deal with it. Trying to force people to do things they don't want to, especially when they have no motivation and don't really get anything out of the task from their POV, tends to not end well.
Sigvatr wrote: Suggest meeting up and doing a "paint day" where you sit together, paint your miniatures and maybe watch a good TV series or listen to music at the same time to create a welcoming atmosphere.
Not a bad idea.
However, if the player's response is that they have no interest, accept that and decide to A. not play against them or B. suck it up and be happy you actually have someone to play with.
Not everyone has the luxury of B for a variety of reasons.
Honestly, I would rather play against a completely unpainted army than an army that's partially painted. I don't really blame the guy - painting multiple armies gets to be ridiculously time-consuming, and some of us would rather spend that time playing.
If you really want to convince him, then have a painting day at your FLGS and help him out. Otherwise, you can just do the very basics: give the army a colored spray paint primer/basecoat, and then give it a quick dip. You can do a 2000 point army in a couple hours, and honestly from a distance it looks just fine.
Explain to him that his lack of painting takes a lot of the fun outof the game for you. Then tell him his lack of effort depresses you and basically ruins your interest in playing. Then tell him you don't want to play anymore. Then start looking for more opponents. They are out there.
DeffDred wrote: Explain to him that his lack of painting takes a lot of the fun outof the game for you. Then tell him his lack of effort depresses you and basically ruins your interest in playing. Then tell him you don't want to play anymore. Then start looking for more opponents. They are out there.
So..Be TFG to try and "motivate" him or something? That second line is way to unnecessary.
I once had a regular opponent who never painted his armies. Sadly your just going to have to decide whether playing against him is important enough to you to put up with the grey. You can't force him to change. Just don't let your opponent spiral down out of unpainted and into unbuilt. The very last game I played against my unpainted friend was against an army of bases (what one was a character/heavy weapon again?), 3 rhino hulls (what was the predator and what was the vindicator?) and a dreadnought base.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Maybe try organising a hobby day with him? Beer, movie and two paint station to chill out and paint models? Might find that painting is something he thinks is boring, so make it interesting to him. I've done that with mates as well.
Sigvatr wrote: Suggest meeting up and doing a "paint day" where you sit together, paint your miniatures and maybe watch a good TV series or listen to music at the same time to create a welcoming atmosphere.
Sigvatr wrote: Suggest meeting up and doing a "paint day" where you sit together, paint your miniatures and maybe watch a good TV series or listen to music at the same time to create a welcoming atmosphere.
I've done this. It really does help you to stay motivated when you're painting with someone else.
Couldn't agree more. Either don't play against him or get over it.
Maybe you sounded more dogmatic than you wanted. In that case I can say what helped with some people for me in the past (though they all were not rejecting painting their army in general, just didn't have skill or time):
- Offer to help with painting or to give an introduction
- Make offers to speedpaint his army, e.g. just bright basecoat with shade/ink
- Find someone with an airbrush to paint masses of models quickly. Especially a metal look is so easy to do: black basecoat, airbrush boltgun metal, airbrush nuln oil/agrax earthshade. Highlight if desired. Finished.
At the end of the day, it's his money spent on his models, it may be annoying to some, but some people just don't enjoy or value painting as much as others, it can be quite irritating, but it's not like he's hurting anyone by not having painted models.
The best advice I can give is to point out the "dip & flick" method of painting. Prime the minis, basecoat them a bit, then brush on a bit of dip (for instance, the Army Painter stuff). It doesn't look GREAT, but it's better than no paint at all.
Failing that, get a leather strap to bite on while you play to keep from grinding your teeth and/or screaming as you stare at his grey plastic hordes. Y'know, like when they amputated limbs during the Civil War. Works great for me.
Eh, I'd just be happy to be getting regular games. Some people just don't like to paint...or can't be bothered...there are many reasons. Don't worry about it.
The only thing more annoying than a guy who hasn't painted any of his models is a guy who painted all of his models to a terrible standard and then acts like that's an accomplishment.
whitehorn wrote: I once had a regular opponent who never painted his armies. Sadly your just going to have to decide whether playing against him is important enough to you to put up with the grey. You can't force him to chang.
Maybe try organising a hobby day with him? Beer, movie and two paint station to chill out and paint models? Might find that painting is something he thinks is boring, so make it interesting to him. I've done that with mates as well.
This is a better explanation of my views from before.
I wasn't trying to insinuate an attitude towards the non-painter, just saying if painting is that much of an important aspect of the hobby to you, you really need to reach out and find like minded players.
The only thing more annoying than a guy who hasn't painted any of his models is a guy who painted all of his models to a terrible standard and then acts like that's an accomplishment.
You do realize everyone has different standards, right?
As for you OP, just accept that not everyone enjoys painting. If you really cannot stand unpainted armies, try looking for different opponents. There's no point forcing your friend to do something he doesn't want to do.
Although I will say a joint paint day might be a good idea, just ask if he's open to the idea. If not, just leave the whole thing alone.
You do realize everyone has different standards, right?
Yes. What of it?
Your 'terrible' might be another person's best work. Not everyone can paint well and those that can't shouldn't be hated just because they aren't good at it.
OldSkoolGoff wrote: I feel like if you have to say 'not to be that guy' you're being that guy.
My point is unless he's paint GD standard, then he doesn't really have room to be giving the other guy gak. It's fine to be annoyed at his unpainted army, but just don't play him.
Ask him if he has ever though about painting his minis or has any interest in having them painted for him. If he says yes, see if you can help him with that. If he says no, that he likes to play his minis the way they are, do not try to force him to change, do not complain, do not make snide comments. He has a right to play the game the way he wants just as much as you do. If you can't come to an agreement, perhaps you should look elsewhere for someone to play.
Its not your army nor your place to tell someone HOW to play and go about their hobby. I can understand where he is coming from wanting the models to look good (I pay people to paint my armies since I have work, school, Military duties, GF, family ect) taking priority. Be happy you have someone to play against.
step 1:pull your head out of your fecal matter chute step 2: accept that this is a game, not an art show step 3: have fun and enjoy your time playing the game and get to know your opponent
99% of my stuff is not painted, i'm a horrible artist so painting one model takes me hours to get half way decent, yet i still have a blast playing my boring primed figs against fellow boring primed figs
I'm going to echo the "they're his models; suck it up or find another opponent" replies.
I'd also suggest not trying to push him to paint his models through antagonising him, or through things such as the previously mentioned "preferred enemy against unpainted models" house rule. That stuff might make him paint his models, but will he enjoy it? Probably not. Will he like you for it? Sure as hell won't. Will it have been worth it? Well that's up to you, since you'll have been the one trying to make somebody else change for your own personal happiness.
Steelmage99 wrote: OMG I really hate when my opponent doesn't put a decent amount of effort into his bases.
This guy I know just quickly slaps on a colour (not even covering it neatly) and then just throws on some sand.
It really destroys the immersion, and sucks the fun out of the game for me.
What is even worse is when they make a base look nice but it doesn't fit the type of the table. Everyone should have separate bases for grass, city fight , lava world and ice world. Otherwise it is not possible to start forging the narrative.
Steelmage99 wrote: OMG I really hate when my opponent doesn't put a decent amount of effort into his bases.
This guy I know just quickly slaps on a colour (not even covering it neatly) and then just throws on some sand.
It really destroys the immersion, and sucks the fun out of the game for me.
What is even worse is when they make a base look nice but it doesn't fit the type of the table. Everyone should have separate bases for grass, city fight , lava world and ice world. Otherwise it is not possible to start forging the narrative.
Or if they don't get into the fluff properly.
I mean how hard can it be to name your commander and sergeants?
This guy I know doesn't even have a battle-cry for his army.
I am tired of his BS excuses. How difficult is it to write a few pages of back-story.
He says that he hasn't got the time and that he isn't a good enough write to do a good job, but we all know that he is just being lazy.
Steelmage99 wrote: OMG I really hate when my opponent doesn't put a decent amount of effort into his bases.
This guy I know just quickly slaps on a colour (not even covering it neatly) and then just throws on some sand.
It really destroys the immersion, and sucks the fun out of the game for me.
What is even worse is when they make a base look nice but it doesn't fit the type of the table. Everyone should have separate bases for grass, city fight , lava world and ice world. Otherwise it is not possible to start forging the narrative.
Or if they don't get into the fluff properly.
I mean how hard can it be to name your commander and sergeants?
This guy I know doesn't even have a battle-cry for his army.
I am tired of his BS excuses. How difficult is it to write a few pages of back-story.
He says that he hasn't got the time and that he isn't a good enough write to do a good job, but we all know that he is just being lazy.
But I do...
My Flyrant is named Flyrant.
My Zoanthrope is named Zoey
My Venomthope is named Venom
And My Tervigon is named Clover.
IMO, EVERY paintjob is better than just plain grey. If you are good painter, try to teach him to just do a proper undercoat and basecoat one day instead of gaming. Then throw some washes. Then do what comes after washes i have no friggin idea xD just look at my 2 gallery pics lol.
He will VERY LIKELY get into painting. But if he refuses, don't freak out and throw a fit because then when a third person observes YOU are TFG... good luck
SilverMK2 wrote: Our club had an escalation league which rewarded having painted and converted models each session with bonus points to spend on apocalypse cards for the campaign final.
We had a mix of people who were brand new (and literally played the first 250pt game with their only models) and people who had been playing for a while but had never really got into painting - at the end of the campaign we had mostly painted armies from pretty much everyone. It was great fun for the gamers and the painters and the converters alike.
See if your local area is running something like that, or if not, start one up
Been in leagues where people with painted models were rewarded with bonus points in fights to encourage people to take part in that side of the hobby and learn/improve their painting skills. Instead we found it unfairly rewarded players who bought their stuff fully painted from others who did all the work for them and it was eventually dropped. Painted models as a standard for considering someone a valid opponent is just another form of hubris. "I took the time to paint my army so why can't they?". That level of hubris also has some crazy extremes like those who won't play in an historical game if an opponent doesn't have a perfectly accurate camouflage pattern on their tanks to those who will expect an opponent with an unpainted army to use one of their own fully painted armies for the "privilege" of playing a game with them.
The hobby is definitely different things to different people. I've painted and sold off more armies through the years than many painting elitists have ever owned. Don't have any fully painted 40k armies these days as even my oldest khorne chaos marine army keeps growing and having parts added to it that I just haven't had the time to get painted as my schedule is just too crazy these days. It usually comes down to "I have time for a game!" or "I have time to paint!" and the game will win out every time if I can find an opponent.
Verviedi wrote: My most consistent opponent is often the only person at the game store with me. He has four armies. All monchrome grey.
Grey Chaos, Grey Tau, Grey Nids, and Grey Orks.
I am sick of his BS excuses, and he justifies not painting with "Models are expensive and I can't practice" and "Unless it's GD standard it looks crappy". Since he's my only opponent most of the time, how do I make him paint?
I paint every single one of my models, and I have 3 armies. 4,000 points of Eldar, 2,500 points of Guard, and 2,000 points of Nids. All painted within a week of getting the model.
Show him speed washing. Its a good starting point for learning how to blend. It works really well on guard and nids.
Don't be surprised if he wont do it though, the unpainted purists will use every excuse to get out of it. Even offer to help. If you get more excuses its a lost cause.
1) Ask him to come over and paint some night with you or meet at the hobby shop.
2) Be happy he did not prime in matt black.
3) Try to find / develop other players of 40k at your hobby shop, then give them preference and let it be known why.
4) Say "Humor me, what would it take to get you to paint something?", you may be surprised.
5) Show up a few nights without your army, and say "your not into it anymore".
6) Quit playing since it is not the game you want, play something else with more players with painted armies.
7) Break into his house at night and paint his miniatures.
There.
I figure I would just make steady fun of the person and play anyway till they paint to get me to stop for being TFG.
OldSkoolGoff wrote: I feel like if you have to say 'not to be that guy' you're being that guy.
My point is unless he's paint GD standard, then he doesn't really have room to be giving the other guy gak. It's fine to be annoyed at his unpainted army, but just don't play him.
So, you don't give an opinion on films because you've not produced any oscar winning films I take it?
SilverMK2 wrote: Our club had an escalation league which rewarded having painted and converted models each session with bonus points to spend on apocalypse cards for the campaign final.
We had a mix of people who were brand new (and literally played the first 250pt game with their only models) and people who had been playing for a while but had never really got into painting - at the end of the campaign we had mostly painted armies from pretty much everyone. It was great fun for the gamers and the painters and the converters alike.
See if your local area is running something like that, or if not, start one up
Been in leagues where people with painted models were rewarded with bonus points in fights to encourage people to take part in that side of the hobby and learn/improve their painting skills. Instead we found it unfairly rewarded players who bought their stuff fully painted from others who did all the work for them and it was eventually dropped. Painted models as a standard for considering someone a valid opponent is just another form of hubris. "I took the time to paint my army so why can't they?". That level of hubris also has some crazy extremes like those who won't play in an historical game if an opponent doesn't have a perfectly accurate camouflage pattern on their tanks to those who will expect an opponent with an unpainted army to use one of their own fully painted armies for the "privilege" of playing a game with them.
The hobby is definitely different things to different people. I've painted and sold off more armies through the years than many painting elitists have ever owned. Don't have any fully painted 40k armies these days as even my oldest khorne chaos marine army keeps growing and having parts added to it that I just haven't had the time to get painted as my schedule is just too crazy these days. It usually comes down to "I have time for a game!" or "I have time to paint!" and the game will win out every time if I can find an opponent.
Skriker
It does depend on your playerbase, but our club is very relaxed and informal so we had no issues with people "abusing" the system.
I think some of you are being way too hard on the OP.
Yes, none of us can make people do parts of the hobby they don't enjoy.
However, we have to realize that this isn't a hobby enjoyed in a vacuum, atleast usually. When you put models down on the table to play a game, you usually spend just as much time looking at your opponents models as you do your own. For those of us who really like the painting and fluff aspects of the hobby, seeing armies on the table that actually look like armies and not like grey paste-men is a big deal. It does alot for the immersion into these grimdark worlds if both armies actually look like they are real participants. By that logic, you could make the argument that people that refuse to paint their armies are hurting other people's hobby experience just as much as we would be by demanding another player to paint all their stuff. It sucks when you get all your guys painted, get them on a table to battle in a dark fantasy or sci fi setting, and then see that they aren't actually fighting other people from that setting, but rather grey blob men. You put in the work in the hopes that you better the experience of your opponent. It isn't ridiculous to expect the same.
EddieJA wrote: I think some of you are being way too hard on the OP.
Yes, none of us can make people do parts of the hobby they don't enjoy.
However, we have to realize that this isn't a hobby enjoyed in a vacuum, atleast usually. When you put models down on the table to play a game, you usually spend just as much time looking at your opponents models as you do your own. For those of us who really like the painting and fluff aspects of the hobby, seeing armies on the table that actually look like armies and not like grey paste-men is a big deal. It does alot for the immersion into these grimdark worlds if both armies actually look like they are real participants. By that logic, you could make the argument that people that refuse to paint their armies are hurting other people's hobby experience just as much as we would be by demanding another player to paint all their stuff. It sucks when you get all your guys painted, get them on a table to battle in a dark fantasy or sci fi setting, and then see that they aren't actually fighting other people from that setting, but rather grey blob men. You put in the work in the hopes that you better the experience of your opponent. It isn't ridiculous to expect the same.
OldSkoolGoff wrote: I feel like if you have to say 'not to be that guy' you're being that guy.
My point is unless he's paint GD standard, then he doesn't really have room to be giving the other guy gak. It's fine to be annoyed at his unpainted army, but just don't play him.
So, you don't give an opinion on films because you've not produced any oscar winning films I take it?
Thanks Silver if I was talking to a film director, I wouldn't spend the entire time going "God your films suck! When are you going to learn to be a better film director?"
EddieJA wrote: I think some of you are being way too hard on the OP.
Yes, none of us can make people do parts of the hobby they don't enjoy.
However, we have to realize that this isn't a hobby enjoyed in a vacuum, atleast usually. When you put models down on the table to play a game, you usually spend just as much time looking at your opponents models as you do your own. For those of us who really like the painting and fluff aspects of the hobby, seeing armies on the table that actually look like armies and not like grey paste-men is a big deal. It does alot for the immersion into these grimdark worlds if both armies actually look like they are real participants. By that logic, you could make the argument that people that refuse to paint their armies are hurting other people's hobby experience just as much as we would be by demanding another player to paint all their stuff. It sucks when you get all your guys painted, get them on a table to battle in a dark fantasy or sci fi setting, and then see that they aren't actually fighting other people from that setting, but rather grey blob men. You put in the work in the hopes that you better the experience of your opponent. It isn't ridiculous to expect the same.
So is someone forcing you to play against grey armies? I don't understand how it could possibly hurt your experience unless you let it. If it hurts your experience, don't do it.
However, we have to realize that this isn't a hobby enjoyed in a vacuum, atleast usually. When you put models down on the table to play a game, you usually spend just as much time looking at your opponents models as you do your own. For those of us who really like the painting and fluff aspects of the hobby, seeing armies on the table that actually look like armies and not like grey paste-men is a big deal. It does alot for the immersion into these grimdark worlds if both armies actually look like they are real participants. By that logic, you could make the argument that people that refuse to paint their armies are hurting other people's hobby experience just as much as we would be by demanding another player to paint all their stuff. It sucks when you get all your guys painted, get them on a table to battle in a dark fantasy or sci fi setting, and then see that they aren't actually fighting other people from that setting, but rather grey blob men. You put in the work in the hopes that you better the experience of your opponent. It isn't ridiculous to expect the same.
Except where does it end? I could just as easily take your "real participants" comment and say "You painted all your bloodthirsters bubblegum pink with a dark blue wash (yes, that's something I've played against). The color is inappropriate/unrealiztic for Khorne and ruins my immersion in the grimdark. How about we get together this weekend, eat some chips and salsa, and I'll show you what colors your army SHOULD be ..."
Or how about if player A paints to a very high standard while player B paints, but is terrible at it. If player A says, "You don't paint to my standard, I will not play you", jerk move right?
The OP (as already mentioned) is basically accusing his opponent of having fun wrong and that's silly imo. He didn't phrase the question as "Advice for helping someone enjoy painting in a friendly way" or something like that. No. He said "HELP! etc etc".
To the OP: As others have said, you could politely suggest helping him, or ask if there's anything you can do to help him enjoy the hobby side more, but at the end of it all remember, he's your ONLY opponent right now. What's better? A grey plastic army across the table, or NO army across the table?
Personally, I prefer to play against painted armies for sure, and my own armies will typically all be painted, but I will also happily play someone who had non-painted armies as well. I just can't bring myself to take my war-dollies that seriously ...
EddieJA wrote: I think some of you are being way too hard on the OP.
Yes, none of us can make people do parts of the hobby they don't enjoy.
However, we have to realize that this isn't a hobby enjoyed in a vacuum, atleast usually. When you put models down on the table to play a game, you usually spend just as much time looking at your opponents models as you do your own. For those of us who really like the painting and fluff aspects of the hobby, seeing armies on the table that actually look like armies and not like grey paste-men is a big deal. It does alot for the immersion into these grimdark worlds if both armies actually look like they are real participants. By that logic, you could make the argument that people that refuse to paint their armies are hurting other people's hobby experience just as much as we would be by demanding another player to paint all their stuff. It sucks when you get all your guys painted, get them on a table to battle in a dark fantasy or sci fi setting, and then see that they aren't actually fighting other people from that setting, but rather grey blob men. You put in the work in the hopes that you better the experience of your opponent. It isn't ridiculous to expect the same.
So If I don't like to paint, I never did it and don't have the cash and time and space to do it, and my opponent wants to paint. It is ok for him to force me to, but It is not ok for me not to? Suddenly somehow his enjoyment of the game is more important, because he is spending more cash on the hobby ?
And if someone needs to get in to a world of green hooligans and muscle super man, then there is medicin for it.
Seriously, it's HIS army and you cannot make him paint it against his will. If he is fine with buying and modeling the models, who are you to tell him he isn't playing the hobby right?
What is it with people who almost take it as a personal insult that their opponent brings an unpainted army.
EddieJA wrote: By that logic, you could make the argument that people that refuse to paint their armies are hurting other people's hobby experience just as much as we would be by demanding another player to paint all their stuff.
Only if you're being forced to play against them.
You're not. If your hobby enjoyment relies on playing against painted armies, then don't play people with unpainted armies. Their army being unpainted has zero impact on your hobby.
It sucks when you get all your guys painted, get them on a table to battle in a dark fantasy or sci fi setting, and then see that they aren't actually fighting other people from that setting, but rather grey blob men. You put in the work in the hopes that you better the experience of your opponent. It isn't ridiculous to expect the same.
Except, as others have pointed out, where do you draw the line there?
Is fighting against unpainted grey miniatures more immersion-destroying that playing against badly-painted miniatures that have no details left due to having 7 layers of housepaint on them? Does it completely destroy the atmosphere if your opponent's Tactical squad doesn't have shoulder pad markings? Or if they're on crooked?
What if my enjoyment of the hobby requires us to spend 3 hours before the game praying to the God Emperor and painting our toenails with crushed up snails? I put in all that work catching all those damn snails, and now you say you don't want to? How the hell am I supposed to enjoy my game? Why won't everybody else just think of me?
Or, you know, just don't play people you don't want to play.
EddieJA wrote: By that logic, you could make the argument that people that refuse to paint their armies are hurting other people's hobby experience just as much as we would be by demanding another player to paint all their stuff. It sucks when you get all your guys painted, get them on a table to battle in a dark fantasy or sci fi setting, and then see that they aren't actually fighting other people from that setting, but rather grey blob men.
Try replacing your references to painting with references to being very fluffy or making lots of conversions or writing back-story or simply not playing well.
Notice how odd those "demands" sound.
Realize that that is exactly how "demands" of painting sound to some of us.
Also keep in mind that those models you opponent indeed have painted might not really fit into your vision of dark fantasy or sci fi.
These don't ruin your immersion in the "dark sci fi" as they are painted, right?
EddieJA wrote: By that logic, you could make the argument that people that refuse to paint their armies are hurting other people's hobby experience just as much as we would be by demanding another player to paint all their stuff. It sucks when you get all your guys painted, get them on a table to battle in a dark fantasy or sci fi setting, and then see that they aren't actually fighting other people from that setting, but rather grey blob men.
Try replacing your references to painting with references to being very fluffy or making lots of conversions or writing back-story or simply not playing well.
Notice how odd those "demands" sound.
Realize that that is exactly how "demands" of painting sound to some of us.
Also keep in mind that those models you opponent indeed have painted might not really fit into your vision of dark fantasy or sci fi.
These don't ruin your immersion in the "dark sci fi" as they are painted, right?
Spoiler:
That's a pretty textbook slippery slope fallacy. Admitting that you like painted armies because they help in the immersion doesn't automatically mean you want those painted armies to have Hello Kitty heads. It's totally unrelated, and the majority of painted armies don't have Hello Kitty Heads.
And sure, to everyone else, it's not a perfect analogy. And yes, obviously, if I didn't want to play games against people with painted armies, I wouldn't. However, when I do play against someone with an unpainted army, I'm making a sacrifice and putting their happiness and hobby preferences above my own, and yet, we are in no way allowed to expect that people who hate painting don't ever have to think about us for a change?
To be honest, while playing unpainted armies does suck a little, I've no objection to it. A mate of mine is so busy these days, that it's a struggle for him to get anything done paint wise.
And sure, to everyone else, it's not a perfect analogy. And yes, obviously, if I didn't want to play games against people with painted armies, I wouldn't. However, when I do play against someone with an unpainted army, I'm making a sacrifice and putting their happiness and hobby preferences above my own, and yet, we are in no way allowed to expect that people who hate painting don't ever have to think about us for a change?
Unless you run into people that demand that you refrain from painting your models and thinks less of you if you do, the comparison doesn't really fly.
There is plenty room for both of you. You can both paint your models to your heart's content, and nobody is making demands of the other.
What I tried to illustrate was the unreasonableness of making those kinds of demands.
Suppose I felt that your game-play was below my expectations, and I therefore felt that the game was less fun for me. This let to me bringing the subject up on Dakka.
Would you consider that reasonable, or would you use another word to describe my behaviour?
Everyone's jumping to OP's friend's defence with some fairly presumptuous arguments. Yes painting is time consuming, but so is buying, building and learning to play 5 armies. I think they could have gotten a base coat and dip in there somewhere.
OP's not asking for GD winning armies to play against. They're asking for their friend to participate in wargaming and paint their models. It's really the bare minimum.
EddieJA wrote: However, when I do play against someone with an unpainted army, I'm making a sacrifice and putting their happiness and hobby preferences above my own, and yet, we are in no way allowed to expect that people who hate painting don't ever have to think about us for a change?
That's correct. The fact that you are prepared to 'make a sacrifice' in no way entitles you to expect that someone else will also want to do so.
bubz wrote: Everyone's jumping to OP's friend's defence with some fairly presumptuous arguments. Yes painting is time consuming, but so is buying, building and learning to play 5 armies. I think they could have gotten a base coat and dip in there somewhere..
They could have. But that assumes that they want to.
I've had my Monopoly set for more than a decade. I haven't yet felt any driving need to paint the miniatures in it.
For many players, 40K miniatures are no different to those Monopoly tokens. Painting is something you do if you want to.
bubz wrote: Everyone's jumping to OP's friend's defence with some fairly presumptuous arguments. Yes painting is time consuming, but so is buying, building and learning to play 5 armies. I think they could have gotten a base coat and dip in there somewhere.
OP's not asking for GD winning armies to play against. They're asking for their friend to participate in wargaming and paint their models. It's really the bare minimum.
By your standards, perhaps, but your standards count for absolutely nothing when it comes to someone else's hobby. We are "jumping to OP's friend's defence" because he is fully within his rights to not paint his army. He's fully within his rights to use bits of cardboard and pocket lint to represent models if he wants to, and why? Because you are also fully within your right to decline a game against an unpainted army, or an army of cardboard and pocket lint. If he doesn't want to paint his models, then you're SOOL; find a different opponent, or suck it up.
EddieJA wrote: However, when I do play against someone with an unpainted army, I'm making a sacrifice and putting their happiness and hobby preferences above my own, and yet, we are in no way allowed to expect that people who hate painting don't ever have to think about us for a change?
That's correct. The fact that you are prepared to 'make a sacrifice' in no way entitles you to expect that someone else will also want to do so.
bubz wrote: Everyone's jumping to OP's friend's defence with some fairly presumptuous arguments. Yes painting is time consuming, but so is buying, building and learning to play 5 armies. I think they could have gotten a base coat and dip in there somewhere..
They could have. But that assumes that they want to.
I've had my Monopoly set for more than a decade. I haven't yet felt any driving need to paint the miniatures in it.
For many players, 40K miniatures are no different to those Monopoly tokens. Painting is something you do if you want to.
Monopoly pieces aren't meant to be painted, wargame miniatures are. That's just the way it is.
If you don't feel like painting your minis then fine. I don't get the need to frantically pull out all these wild excuses and rationalizations. If you don't want to go all the way with wargaming that's okay, just admit it. A spades a spade.
OP, your models look great, better than my own I must say.
For tournament and fluff matches, its fine to want painted models. When you're being condescending, you can no longer call it a "Friendly game".
I've spent over $400 on paints, primers, and cheap walmart brushes plus 1 insane detail brush. Maybe he doesn't want to make that investment?
Most of my space wolves I've painted look terrible, because I started with them. I have 11 armies until I finally sell off all my Nids, then I'll have 10. And only recently in almost 3 years of painting has anything ive done started looking good. I now wish I started painting them last.
Anyways, lost track of where I was going. I personally think that I would want to stop playing against you, as you sound like an elitist over a hobby. If you're unpainted buddy is listening, I'd tell him/her to find a nicer person to play against.
Las wrote: I don't get the need to frantically pull out all these wild excuses and rationalizations..
Absolutely - there is no 'rationalisation' needed. But seem people seem to want those who don't want to paint to offer some sort of 'valid' reason for not doing so, beyond 'I don't want to'... as if it's any of their business.
bubz wrote: Everyone's jumping to OP's friend's defence with some fairly presumptuous arguments. Yes painting is time consuming, but so is buying, building and learning to play 5 armies. I think they could have gotten a base coat and dip in there somewhere.
OP's not asking for GD winning armies to play against. They're asking for their friend to participate in wargaming and paint their models. It's really the bare minimum.
By your standards, perhaps, but your standards count for absolutely nothing when it comes to someone else's hobby. We are "jumping to OP's friend's defence" because he is fully within his rights to not paint his army. He's fully within his rights to use bits of cardboard and pocket lint to represent models if he wants to, and why? Because you are also fully within your right to decline a game against an unpainted army, or an army of cardboard and pocket lint. If he doesn't want to paint his models, then you're SOOL; find a different opponent, or suck it up.
Ok but that's not what 40k is. Your within your rights to do a lot of things but they don't impact on wargaming. That's what we're talking about. That's what this forum is for.
Wargaming as a hobby entails painted models. They don't have to be good. But they should be painted.
Las wrote: I don't get the need to frantically pull out all these wild excuses and rationalizations..
Absolutely - there is no 'rationalisation' needed. But seem people seem to want those who don't want to paint to offer some sort of 'valid' reason for not doing so, beyond 'I don't want to'... as if it's any of their business.
Except people's usual response is to attack someone for daring to pose the question.
"Why didn't you paint your army?" Is literally as valid a question as "why didn't you glue the heads on any of your space marines?"
bubz wrote: Everyone's jumping to OP's friend's defence with some fairly presumptuous arguments. Yes painting is time consuming, but so is buying, building and learning to play 5 armies. I think they could have gotten a base coat and dip in there somewhere.
OP's not asking for GD winning armies to play against. They're asking for their friend to participate in wargaming and paint their models. It's really the bare minimum.
By your standards, perhaps, but your standards count for absolutely nothing when it comes to someone else's hobby. We are "jumping to OP's friend's defence" because he is fully within his rights to not paint his army. He's fully within his rights to use bits of cardboard and pocket lint to represent models if he wants to, and why? Because you are also fully within your right to decline a game against an unpainted army, or an army of cardboard and pocket lint. If he doesn't want to paint his models, then you're SOOL; find a different opponent, or suck it up.
Ok but that's not what 40k is. Your within your rights to do a lot of things but they don't impact on wargaming. That's what we're talking about. That's what this forum is for.
Wargaming as a hobby entails painted models. They don't have to be good. But they should be painted.
Once again, none of this is objective, and you're projecting your own person opinions. You have no right to dictate what this hobby is to another person, never mind what should or should not be done with their own models.
Las wrote: Except people's usual response is to attack someone for daring to pose the question.
From my experience, this is rarely the case.
People's usual response to being asked why they don't paint is to reply that they don't want to, or that they don't have time, or that they haven't got around to it yet.
Most, again, from my experience, only get hot under the collar about it when people try to tell them that it's some sort of requirement carved in stone and handed down from the mountain, and that they're destroying everyone else's hobby by not doing so.
It's a big hobby. There's room for those who do paint, and for those who don't.
bubz wrote: Everyone's jumping to OP's friend's defence with some fairly presumptuous arguments. Yes painting is time consuming, but so is buying, building and learning to play 5 armies. I think they could have gotten a base coat and dip in there somewhere.
OP's not asking for GD winning armies to play against. They're asking for their friend to participate in wargaming and paint their models. It's really the bare minimum.
By your standards, perhaps, but your standards count for absolutely nothing when it comes to someone else's hobby. We are "jumping to OP's friend's defence" because he is fully within his rights to not paint his army. He's fully within his rights to use bits of cardboard and pocket lint to represent models if he wants to, and why? Because you are also fully within your right to decline a game against an unpainted army, or an army of cardboard and pocket lint. If he doesn't want to paint his models, then you're SOOL; find a different opponent, or suck it up.
Ok but that's not what 40k is. Your within your rights to do a lot of things but they don't impact on wargaming. That's what we're talking about. That's what this forum is for.
Wargaming as a hobby entails painted models. They don't have to be good. But they should be painted.
Once again, none of this is objective, and you're projecting your own person opinions. You have no right to dictate what this hobby is to another person, never mind what should or should not be done with their own models.
Ok but that's not what 40k is. Your within your rights to do a lot of things but they don't impact on wargaming. That's what we're talking about. That's what this forum is for.
Wargaming as a hobby entails painted models. They don't have to be good. But they should be painted.
Once again, none of this is objective, and you're projecting your own person opinions. You have no right to dictate what this hobby is to another person, never mind what should or should not be done with their own models.
Would you agree that 40k models should be built?
Why does this matter? I fail to see what my personal opinion has to do with anyone else. Whether or not I prefer models to be built does not affect anyone but myself.
Las wrote: [
Would you agree that 40k models should be built?
Kind of irrelevant, as its not the same thing.
Models need to be assembled in order to be functional in the game. Whether or not they are painted, however, has no impact at all on the game other than aesthetically. A painted space marine and a bare plastic space marine both function identically.
bubz wrote: Everyone's jumping to OP's friend's defence with some fairly presumptuous arguments. Yes painting is time consuming, but so is buying, building and learning to play 5 armies. I think they could have gotten a base coat and dip in there somewhere.
OP's not asking for GD winning armies to play against. They're asking for their friend to participate in wargaming and paint their models. It's really the bare minimum.
By your standards, perhaps, but your standards count for absolutely nothing when it comes to someone else's hobby. We are "jumping to OP's friend's defence" because he is fully within his rights to not paint his army. He's fully within his rights to use bits of cardboard and pocket lint to represent models if he wants to, and why? Because you are also fully within your right to decline a game against an unpainted army, or an army of cardboard and pocket lint. If he doesn't want to paint his models, then you're SOOL; find a different opponent, or suck it up.
Ok but that's not what 40k is. Your within your rights to do a lot of things but they don't impact on wargaming. That's what we're talking about. That's what this forum is for.
Wargaming as a hobby entails painted models. They don't have to be good. But they should be painted.
Thank you fresh-faced user Bubz for defining this hobby and this forum. Everyone else, feel free to attack the fallacy which I just commited.
Concession: MODELS DO NEED TO BE BUILT. This is so you can tell what kind of dread the guy is running, or where the sergeant is, so the opponent cant make stuff up. Anything else is fair game.
Carlson793 wrote: Also, some folks like to have flexibility in what they field with relation to what they spend on the hobby. Unpainted Space Marine models, for example, give you the option of running whatever chapter you like with the same models - significantly cheaper than having separate painted armies of Ultramarines, Salamanders, etc.
i'll suggest what I always suggest to any Marine player who has this 'dilemma'. I have a local player who won't paint them for this very reason.
Make your own paint scheme. At that point, you can make them any chapter, any time, because they are not bound by 'chapter specific paintjobs'. You can have them be a successor chapter to Iron Hands one game, or Salamanders 5 minutes later in the very next game and no one could be upset over it. Especially if you make em look cool. That's the bottom line. It's boring as gak if you don't even try. I'll play unpainted armies. Hell, I WAS the unpainted army guy for a couple of months until I found out how I wanted to paint my Orks. Now, my dudes have paint on em to an OK degree, and now I'm going through and really putting the effort into making them MY Orks. I can run them as Goffs, Bad Moons, or whatever I feel like. (Though it's less important for Orks with Klans, until Klan Books become a thing, if ever)
bubz wrote: Everyone's jumping to OP's friend's defence with some fairly presumptuous arguments. Yes painting is time consuming, but so is buying, building and learning to play 5 armies. I think they could have gotten a base coat and dip in there somewhere.
OP's not asking for GD winning armies to play against. They're asking for their friend to participate in wargaming and paint their models. It's really the bare minimum.
By your standards, perhaps, but your standards count for absolutely nothing when it comes to someone else's hobby. We are "jumping to OP's friend's defence" because he is fully within his rights to not paint his army. He's fully within his rights to use bits of cardboard and pocket lint to represent models if he wants to, and why? Because you are also fully within your right to decline a game against an unpainted army, or an army of cardboard and pocket lint. If he doesn't want to paint his models, then you're SOOL; find a different opponent, or suck it up.
Ok but that's not what 40k is. Your within your rights to do a lot of things but they don't impact on wargaming. That's what we're talking about. That's what this forum is for.
Wargaming as a hobby entails painted models. They don't have to be good. But they should be painted.
Thank you fresh-faced user Bubz for defining this hobby and this forum. Everyone else, feel free to attack the fallacy which I just commited.
Concession: MODELS DO NEED TO BE BUILT. This is so you can tell what kind of dread the guy is running, or where the sergeant is, so the opponent cant make stuff up. Anything else is fair game.
Why can't I just put a note beside the empty base that says "autocannon dread" and hold a ruler up vertically so you can determine LOS?
The point is that if you're going to say it's wrong to assert that models should be painted because they were intended to be painted then you say the same thing about everything else about wargaming. You don't HAVE to do either in order to play 40k
And sure, to everyone else, it's not a perfect analogy. And yes, obviously, if I didn't want to play games against people with painted armies, I wouldn't. However, when I do play against someone with an unpainted army, I'm making a sacrifice and putting their happiness and hobby preferences above my own, and yet, we are in no way allowed to expect that people who hate painting don't ever have to think about us for a change?
Unless you run into people that demand that you refrain from painting your models and thinks less of you if you do, the comparison doesn't really fly.
There is plenty room for both of you. You can both paint your models to your heart's content, and nobody is making demands of the other.
What I tried to illustrate was the unreasonableness of making those kinds of demands.
Suppose I felt that your game-play was below my expectations, and I therefore felt that the game was less fun for me. This let to me bringing the subject up on Dakka.
Would you consider that reasonable, or would you use another word to describe my behaviour?
That's hardly a proper analog. If people demand that I refrain from painting my models then they need to find a different hobby. This hobby is a collecting, modeling, and painting hobby that happens to have a game associated with it. Any demand that I don't do the hobby means we are all just wasting our time. On the other end, it's perfectly reasonable to expect that people fulfill the bare minimums of the hobby they've chosen to participate in, even if there isn't, and shouldn't be, anyway to demand it. It would be like wanting to play Football and then being mad at people for expecting you to bring a helmet and pads.
bubz wrote: Everyone's jumping to OP's friend's defence with some fairly presumptuous arguments. Yes painting is time consuming, but so is buying, building and learning to play 5 armies. I think they could have gotten a base coat and dip in there somewhere.
OP's not asking for GD winning armies to play against. They're asking for their friend to participate in wargaming and paint their models. It's really the bare minimum.
By your standards, perhaps, but your standards count for absolutely nothing when it comes to someone else's hobby. We are "jumping to OP's friend's defence" because he is fully within his rights to not paint his army. He's fully within his rights to use bits of cardboard and pocket lint to represent models if he wants to, and why? Because you are also fully within your right to decline a game against an unpainted army, or an army of cardboard and pocket lint. If he doesn't want to paint his models, then you're SOOL; find a different opponent, or suck it up.
Ok but that's not what 40k is. Your within your rights to do a lot of things but they don't impact on wargaming. That's what we're talking about. That's what this forum is for.
Wargaming as a hobby entails painted models. They don't have to be good. But they should be painted.
Thank you fresh-faced user Bubz for defining this hobby and this forum. Everyone else, feel free to attack the fallacy which I just commited.
Concession: MODELS DO NEED TO BE BUILT. This is so you can tell what kind of dread the guy is running, or where the sergeant is, so the opponent cant make stuff up. Anything else is fair game.
Why can't I just put a note beside the empty base that says "autocannon dread" and hold a ruler up vertically so you can determine LOS?
The point is that if you're going to say it's wrong to assert that models should be painted because they were intended to be painted then you say the same thing about everything else about wargaming. You don't HAVE to do either in order to play 40k
You win, Las. OP is still being elitist, and nothing is required to play 40k. Not even bases. Circular scraps of paper with unit names work just fine.
Seriously, people demanding he paint his models, guess what he has stated that he wants his models to look good as he paid a lot for them. He knows he cannot paint to that standard and cannot find anyone willing to paint to that standard within his price range. He has EVERY right to not pain his models based on that argument, just because you may not like does not mean you can force a guy to paint his army.
Sigvatr wrote: Suggest meeting up and doing a "paint day" where you sit together, paint your miniatures and maybe watch a good TV series or listen to music at the same time to create a welcoming atmosphere.
That's exactly what I do when I paint. Throw on a show for background noise, and just go to town. I usually 'assembly line' my Boyz. Example I'll grab a bunch of boyz, and slap on the base coat for their paints, one after another. Then do the same for shirt color, weapons, etc. Saves a little time and frustration from having to switch brushes/clean brushes for different colors.
Why can't I just put a note beside the empty base that says "autocannon dread" and hold a ruler up vertically so you can determine LOS?
The point is that if you're going to say it's wrong to assert that models should be painted because they were intended to be painted then you say the same thing about everything else about wargaming. You don't HAVE to do either in order to play 40k
I think the argument might be easier made if you were to substitute properly sized, color-inked paper cut-outs on bases. It still removes the construction aspect of the hobby while still creating a respectable product and no invisible model silliness.
I was just talking to him and he asked if I had any spray paint to lend him to paint some of his stuff. He really likes this paint scheme: (Dark Grey cloth, Light Grey armor, Reddish Brown Tau Symbols and lenses)
I just showed him some nice Tau and how to paint them, and he asked what kind of scheme he should use. No meanness needed.
How people choose to partake in 40k is up to them, but it doesn't change the fact that 40k is about playing, modeling and painting. That's just what it is.
Las wrote: I don't get the need to frantically pull out all these wild excuses and rationalizations..
Absolutely - there is no 'rationalisation' needed. But seem people seem to want those who don't want to paint to offer some sort of 'valid' reason for not doing so, beyond 'I don't want to'... as if it's any of their business.
Except people's usual response is to attack someone for daring to pose the question.
No I disagree. The usual response is "Didn't have the time" or "I didn't want to". That response is then attacked with "well I spent the time, why can't you", "if you have time to game you have time to paint", "painting is part of the hobby if you don't want to paint then you aren't a hobbyist", "painting is just part of wargaming so you should be doing it anyway", "you aren't a wargamer if you aren't painting the models", "you should just paint the models quickly and crappily", etc etc etc.
Las wrote: How people choose to partake in 40k is up to them, but it doesn't change the fact that 40k is about playing, modeling and painting. That's just what it is.
If someone 'chooses to partake' in just one aspect of 40K, then for that person that one aspect of 40K is what 40K is 'about'.
In the same way that someone can claim that their hobby is 'fishing' even if they don't build their own fishing rods, someone's hobby can be 'playing 40K' without it necessarily having to also involve 'painting miniatures'. The 'hobby' is only all-inclusive if you choose to make it so.
Las wrote: How people choose to partake in 40k is up to them, but it doesn't change the fact that 40k is about playing, modeling and painting. That's just what it is.
No, it isn't. The only thing GW cares about is that you buy the models. Painting them is not a mandatory hobby. Your marines do not get a better armor save if they are painted versus grey.
Las wrote: How people choose to partake in 40k is up to them, but it doesn't change the fact that 40k is about playing, modeling and painting. That's just what it is.
No, it isn't. The only thing GW cares about is that you buy the models. Painting them is not a mandatory hobby. Your marines do not get a better armor save if they are painted versus grey.
Painting does, however, affect my Feel No Paint save.
After playing a game, the loser rolls a D6.
Part 1- Army Save
4+ (Serpent Spam or Riptide Spam)
5+ (Flyer Spam, LoW useage)
6+ (Gunlines, any other spam)
Part 2- Feel No Paint
4+ (Unpainted)
5+ (Partially Painted)
6+ (Painted but not based)
If the save is passed, the defeat becomes a tie. I did not come up with this.
Las wrote: If you don't want to go all the way with wargaming that's okay, just admit it.
Is it really, though? I mean the fact that this thread even exists, and that it isn't the first one either, kind of suggests to me that it's not considered okay; rather viewed as some kind of serious problem that needs "fixing".
I have a feeling if the OP's friend did just admit it, it would still be an issue and everyone would still be here debating about it.
Thank you fresh-faced user Bubz for defining this hobby and this forum. Everyone else, feel free to attack the fallacy which I just commited.
Concession: MODELS DO NEED TO BE BUILT. This is so you can tell what kind of dread the guy is running, or where the sergeant is, so the opponent cant make stuff up. Anything else is fair game.
Way to imply that my participation in this specific forum is the entirety of my experience within wargaming/40k. It's not.
40k is a hobby comprised of three parts, on which hobbyists put different emphasis. That is an assertion that no one has argued with in this thread. All I'm saying is that those who only choose to participate in 66% of the hobby are choosing to fall below the bare minimum of partaking in each part of the hobby in at least some extent.
It's fine if people don't play with painted models, it'd just be nice if they stopped trying to dress it up as anything other than being lazy and uninvested.
bubz wrote: 40k is a hobby comprised of three parts
No, it's not. It's up to 3 hobbies in one. That doesn't mean your 40k is the same as my 40k.
Just like my chess (that includes purchasing individual models and posing/building/painting/playing) includes 3 hobbies while yours (purchasing a chessboard and pieces, playing) includes one doesn't mean either of us is chessing wrong.
But thanks for calling me lazy. It really helps move the discussion forward. I just dislike painting and don't see it as a requirement.
I wouldn't have the models I own painted except I wanted to do well at tournaments with a paint score.
bubz wrote: 40k is a hobby comprised of three parts
No, it's not. It's up to 3 hobbies in one. That doesn't mean your 40k is the same as my 40k.
Just like my chess (that includes purchasing individual models and posing/building/painting/playing) includes 3 hobbies while yours (purchasing a chessboard and pieces, playing) includes one doesn't mean either of us is chessing wrong.
But thanks for calling me lazy. It really helps move the discussion forward. I just dislike painting and don't see it as a requirement.
I wouldn't have the models I own painted except I wanted to do well at tournaments with a paint score.
Haha, if you buy warhammer just for the "strategy" gaming aspect...you're doing it wrong... It's overpriced because it's a ddetailed miniature model requiring assembly and paint. Go play risk if you're all about da strategy or monopoly. You know, games that aren't meant to be played with painted bits.
Seriously, tabletop games are pretty much a community game. Meaning that there are standards set by the community. For warhammer, people spend alot of time painting and setting up their miniatures.
You sound like tfg in my car club. Everyone was modding their v8, mustang, camaro, or challenger. The rule was that you had to have a v8...tfg knew the club president through family and would bring his 90s v6 mustang. Ugly POS beat up ride that just ruined the mood and the club image of late model v8s.
Dont be that guy that comes in with not up to par gear and third wheels their way onto the nerve of guys that actually try.
bubz wrote: 40k is a hobby comprised of three parts
No, it's not. It's up to 3 hobbies in one. That doesn't mean your 40k is the same as my 40k.
Just like my chess (that includes purchasing individual models and posing/building/painting/playing) includes 3 hobbies while yours (purchasing a chessboard and pieces, playing) includes one doesn't mean either of us is chessing wrong.
But thanks for calling me lazy. It really helps move the discussion forward. I just dislike painting and don't see it as a requirement.
I wouldn't have the models I own painted except I wanted to do well at tournaments with a paint score.
You don't see how "3 hobbies in one" and "a hobby comprised of 3 parts" is kind of the same thing?
As someone who puts a lot of effort into their chess building/painting would you not be slightly disagreeable to the statement that I am just as much of a chess player as you despite the fact that I consciously choose to not do half of the activities associated with "your chess" ? I'm aware that people build and paint their own chess pieces and I choose to play with chess pieces that I buy and do nothing with other than play. So would it not be logical to say that while I'm not "chessing" incorrectly, I am definitely not as invested in the hobby of chess as you are?
bubz wrote: 40k is a hobby comprised of three parts
No, it's not. It's up to 3 hobbies in one. That doesn't mean your 40k is the same as my 40k.
Just like my chess (that includes purchasing individual models and posing/building/painting/playing) includes 3 hobbies while yours (purchasing a chessboard and pieces, playing) includes one doesn't mean either of us is chessing wrong.
But thanks for calling me lazy. It really helps move the discussion forward. I just dislike painting and don't see it as a requirement.
I wouldn't have the models I own painted except I wanted to do well at tournaments with a paint score.
Is it, though? Let's do a little research.
From Wikipedia:
Chess is a two-player strategy board game played on a chessboard, a checkered gameboard with 64 squares arranged in an eight-by-eight grid. It is one of the world's most popular games, played by millions of people worldwide in homes, parks, clubs, online, by correspondence, and in tournaments.
Hmm, no mention of painting or building. I'm sure that's a thing people do, a hobby in it's own right, but I'd hesitate to use those activities to define what chess is. Now let's take a look at 40k...
Warhammer 40,000 (informally known as Warhammer 40K, WH40K or simply 40K) is a tabletop miniature wargame produced by Games Workshop, set in a dystopian science-fantasy universe... Players can assemble and paint individual, 28-millimetre (1.1 in) scale miniature figures that represent futuristic soldiers, creatures and vehicles of war.
Notice anything? Those activities are central to what tabletop wargaming, and specifically 40k are. That's because the models are intended to be painted, assembled and used to play games. Of course you can choose to partake in any combination of those activities and call it 'your 40k' or whatever mental gymnastics you want to use to rationalize the fact that a better interpretation would be 'the parts of 40k I do." You paid for those models, you can do what you like with them, of course. But don't freak out at people for simply pointing out what 40k and tabletop wargaming objectively are.
Notice anything? Those activities are central to what tabletop wargaming, and specifically 40k are. Of course you can choose to partake in any combination of those activities and call it 'your 40k' or whatever mental gymnastics you want to use to rationalize the fact that a better interpretation would be 'the parts of 40k I do." You paid for those models, you can do what you like with them, of course. But don't freak out at people for simply pointing out what 40k and tabletop wargaming objectively are.
You are misusing the word 'objectively' in this quote. There is a definite bias in that statement, which goes against the definition as used.
For me, 40k and tabletop wargaming have three main sections: building, collecting, and playing. If your view is that there are four sectors, that is fine. However, don't say that I am any less a wargamer or that you are 'better' then me because you paint and I don't.
I have 2.5k of Marines and 1k of Orks, of which a Tactical Squad, Dreadnought and Librarian is painted (rather badly IMHO). I like seeing how others paint, but I wouldn't want to do so.
This does not mean that I am 'lazy', or 'uninvested' in the hobby, it means that I want to spend my time elsewhere in the hobby where I actually enjoy it. The fact that people look down upon unpainted armies to the point of being condescending is one of the two reasons why I left (the other being a move), and is something that I am heavily against.
Let people do what they want. If someone hates painting, don't try to force your ways upon them.
Pardon the rant. (I deleted a bunch of lines to make sure that I treated the other posters with civility)
It's not a question of "looking down" on someone, its a question of definition.
I can play basketball without dribbling if I don't like dribbling. Maybe I find dribbling boring, or I'm bad at it and I don't want to take the time developing the skill when I can spend time playing my version of basketball. The game is still playable. I can find opponents who are likeminded and we're still playing a form of basketball, however that doesn't change the fact that basketball includes dribbling.
Whether or not I choose to dribble has no impact on that fact.
Las wrote: It's not a question of "looking down" on someone, its a question of definition.
I can play basketball without dribbling if I don't like dribbling. Maybe I find dribbling boring, or I'm bad at it and I don't want to take the time developing the skill when I can spend time playing my version of basketball. The game is still playable. I can find opponents who are likeminded and we're still playing a form of basketball, however that doesn't change the fact that basketball includes dribbling.
Whether or not I choose to dribble has no impact on that fact.
Except dribbling is an actual rule, being the legal method of movement with rules for it's usage and rules against over-dribbling.
There are no rules in 40k for Painting, thus you've pretty much chosen the worst argument you could use for, because there is literally nothing included within the actual ruleset of 40k for painting, there are no benefits to painting, there are no mechanics to painting, and there are no penalties for it.
Thus, it is not comparable to dribbling at all. Painting is more the color of the ball then anything, it doesn't change anything whether its orange, red, or blue, it's got no outcome on the game itself, it's there to make the ball look pretty.
Las wrote: It's not a question of "looking down" on someone, its a question of definition.
I can play basketball without dribbling if I don't like dribbling. Maybe I find dribbling boring, or I'm bad at it and I don't want to take the time developing the skill when I can spend time playing my version of basketball. The game is still playable. I can find opponents who are likeminded and we're still playing a form of basketball, however that doesn't change the fact that basketball includes dribbling.
Whether or not I choose to dribble has no impact on that fact.
Except dribbling is an actual rule, being the legal method of movement with rules for it's usage and rules against over-dribbling.
There are no rules in 40k for Painting, thus you've pretty much chosen the worst argument you could use for, because there is literally nothing included within the actual ruleset of 40k for painting, there are no benefits to painting, there are no mechanics to painting, and there are no penalties for it.
Thus, it is not comparable to dribbling at all. Painting is more the color of the ball then anything, it doesn't change anything whether its orange, red, or blue, it's got no outcome on the game itself, it's there to make the ball look pretty.
Of course the analogy isn't a 1:1 example. However, it is analogous because aesthetics are as central to 40k as actual game rules are to basketball. Modelling/painting and general aesthetics are impossible to overemphasize. As I said before, I can play with an army of legs glued to bases with tokens beside certain models to differentiate load outs. The game is still playable, but I'd be partaking in a tiny fraction of 40k by doing so.
If you're playing with fully assembled, unpainted models then youre participating in 2/3 of 40k. That's fine, but don't shy away from that by redefining what 40k is in the first place. Just own up to it. "My 40k" indeed.
Las wrote: It's not a question of "looking down" on someone, its a question of definition.
I can play basketball without dribbling if I don't like dribbling. Maybe I find dribbling boring, or I'm bad at it and I don't want to take the time developing the skill when I can spend time playing my version of basketball. The game is still playable. I can find opponents who are likeminded and we're still playing a form of basketball, however that doesn't change the fact that basketball includes dribbling.
Whether or not I choose to dribble has no impact on that fact.
Except dribbling is an actual rule, being the legal method of movement with rules for it's usage and rules against over-dribbling.
There are no rules in 40k for Painting, thus you've pretty much chosen the worst argument you could use for, because there is literally nothing included within the actual ruleset of 40k for painting, there are no benefits to painting, there are no mechanics to painting, and there are no penalties for it.
Thus, it is not comparable to dribbling at all. Painting is more the color of the ball then anything, it doesn't change anything whether its orange, red, or blue, it's got no outcome on the game itself, it's there to make the ball look pretty.
Of course the analogy isn't a 1:1 example. However, it is analogous because aesthetics are as central to 40k as actual game rules are to basketball. Modelling/painting and general aesthetics are impossible to overemphasize. As I said before, I can play with an army of legs glued to bases with tokens beside certain models to differentiate load outs. The game is still playable, but I'd be partaking in a tiny fraction of 40k by doing so.
If you're playing with fully assembled, unpainted models then youre participating in 2/3 of 40k. That's fine, but don't shy away from that by redefining what 40k is in the first place. Just own up to it. "My 40k" indeed.
Of course not, you need the full model for TLOS purposes, unless one would prefer the RAW of you have no eyes and cannot see, at least make sure there's a cutout with proper support.
And no, Aesthetics are not central as actual rules are, there is no comparison between them.
Also you yourself are redefining what 40k is in the first place as well, GW only cares about the modeling part of the equation, thus you are adding "painting" to something 40k never was, just own up to it that you are trying to define 40k as something it never was.
Well, all my opponents agree I can play with my leg marines. Who are you to tell me how to play my 40k or that I'm doing it wrong? Who are you to define what the models are supposed to be? Just because the kits come with torsos doesn't mean they're intended to be glued on.
You just told me that I need the model for LoS. I can stand a ruler up and correspond LOS with the height value. First I needed the model to play and now I don't? Which is it?
Las wrote: You just told me that I need the model for LoS. I can stand a ruler up and correspond LOS with the height value. First I needed the model to play and now I don't? Which is it?
Twisting words to try and make a point? Here's what I wrote before
Of course not, you need the full model for TLOS purposes, unless one would prefer the RAW of you have no eyes and cannot see, at least make sure there's a cutout with proper support.
While a ruler could be used for LoS purposes it makes it far harder for width purposes, but hey if it floats your boat, which apparently went from "Painting is 100% mandatory and is just as important as the rules itself" to "We are fine with just legs"
Las wrote: You just told me that I need the model for LoS. I can stand a ruler up and correspond LOS with the height value. First I needed the model to play and now I don't? Which is it?
Twisting words to try and make a point? Here's what I wrote before
Of course not, you need the full model for TLOS purposes, unless one would prefer the RAW of you have no eyes and cannot see, at least make sure there's a cutout with proper support.
While a ruler could be used for LoS purposes it makes it far harder for width purposes, but hey if it floats your boat, which apparently went from "Painting is 100% mandatory and is just as important as the rules itself" to "We are fine with just legs"
Really?
Of course not, you need the full model for TLOS purposes, unless one would prefer the RAW of you have no eyes and cannot see, at least make sure there's a cutout with proper support.
No where in the rulebook does it say that I have to fully assemble the model for TLOS. If I want an army of marines that really are just legs, that's perfectly within my right to do. In my fluff the marines have eyes on their butts, and their knees are their weapons. I carved an 'x' into the ones that have plasma guns etc. The game can still be played by the book, same as otherwise. I'd be a dick for doing so, but there's nothing that says I can't.
Also, you are doing some excellent word twisting yourself. I didn't say painting was 100% mandatory, I said that it is as much a part of the hobby as playing and building. You assume building is mandatory because the models come unassembled and it helps enrich the quality of the game (true). I am asserting that while it isn't mandatory, it should be done -as that is how they were intended to be used- and the same is true for painting because they come unpainted and it puts the game to its full potential. Neither are mandatory in order to play 40k, but the hobby is composed of more than just the game.
Again, however you choose to partake in the hobby is FINE, just stop drawing arbitrary lines all over it depending on what parts of it you are willing to do. The definition of 40k/tabletop wargaming already exists.
Vigilant wrote:Haha, if you buy warhammer just for the "strategy" gaming aspect...you're doing it wrong... It's overpriced because it's a ddetailed miniature model requiring assembly and paint. Go play risk if you're all about da strategy or monopoly. You know, games that aren't meant to be played with painted bits.
Seriously, tabletop games are pretty much a community game. Meaning that there are standards set by the community. For warhammer, people spend alot of time painting and setting up their miniatures.
You sound like tfg in my car club. Everyone was modding their v8, mustang, camaro, or challenger. The rule was that you had to have a v8...tfg knew the club president through family and would bring his 90s v6 mustang. Ugly POS beat up ride that just ruined the mood and the club image of late model v8s.
Dont be that guy that comes in with not up to par gear and third wheels their way onto the nerve of guys that actually try.
I don't play it for the strategy game - I play it for the fun of who I play it with (mostly nowadays anyway). I played in 5th against tuned tournament lists and had lots of fun, grey plastic or not.
bubz wrote:You don't see how "3 hobbies in one" and "a hobby comprised of 3 parts" is kind of the same thing?
Nope.
As someone who puts a lot of effort into their chess building/painting would you not be slightly disagreeable to the statement that I am just as much of a chess player as you despite the fact that I consciously choose to not do half of the activities associated with "your chess" ? I'm aware that people build and paint their own chess pieces and I choose to play with chess pieces that I buy and do nothing with other than play. So would it not be logical to say that while I'm not "chessing" incorrectly, I am definitely not as invested in the hobby of chess as you are?
No, you just chess differently. It's not bad, worse, or anything - just different. You're as invested as you want to be. Why is that relevant?
Las wrote:
Warhammer 40,000 (informally known as Warhammer 40K, WH40K or simply 40K) is a tabletop miniature wargame produced by Games Workshop, set in a dystopian science-fantasy universe... Players can assemble and paint individual, 28-millimetre (1.1 in) scale miniature figures that represent futuristic soldiers, creatures and vehicles of war.
Notice anything? Those activities are central to what tabletop wargaming, and specifically 40k are. That's because the models are intended to be painted, assembled and used to play games. Of course you can choose to partake in any combination of those activities and call it 'your 40k' or whatever mental gymnastics you want to use to rationalize the fact that a better interpretation would be 'the parts of 40k I do." You paid for those models, you can do what you like with them, of course. But don't freak out at people for simply pointing out what 40k and tabletop wargaming objectively are.
So people who don't assemble or pain, but purchase assembled armies and use them - are they not "doing the hobby" right?
What about those who simply buy the minis to collect, assemble, and paint - are they "doing the hobby" right?
And as far as your "objective truth" you're objectively 100% wrong.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miniature_wargaming "While such games could also be played with counters on a table with colored paper to denote terrain types, the visual attractiveness and tactile satisfaction of painted miniatures moving around on a table with model trees, hills and other scenery has such an alluring power to convince many wargamers to prefer model/miniature games over the cheaper and easier board-and-chits alternatives."
Unless you're going to call games like Squad Leader something other than tabletop wargames.
Las wrote: Why are you putting "doing the hobby right" in quotations as if I said it?
I wasn't meaning to imply that - I was trying to show that by your argument people who aren't painting (or gaming, or purchase their stuff built and painted) are doing it wrong.
I was shortening a phrase to make it easier to type. Apologies if you thought I was intending to demean you.
Please respond to the content of the post, however, and don't nitpick one thing.
Rigeld2 you just need to be more understanding man. You can do whatever you want but take note that things won't change no matter how much you rage at it. Painting is a large part of warhammer. Just because you don't feel like doing it doesn't make it any less a part of the hobby.
You are how people see you not how you see yourself man. If everyone says your doing it wrong. No amount of self perception will change that.
Las wrote: Why are you putting "doing the hobby right" in quotations as if I said it?
I wasn't meaning to imply that - I was trying to show that by your argument people who aren't painting (or gaming, or purchase their stuff built and painted) are doing it wrong.
I was shortening a phrase to make it easier to type. Apologies if you thought I was intending to demean you.
Please respond to the content of the post, however, and don't nitpick one thing.
I will once I get to a computer, on my phone right now. I appreciate your courtesy though, really.
I will clarify, however, that my position has nothing to do with right or wrong ways to enjoy the hobby but that each of the three component parts are equal in regards to what the hobby is. What parts you choose to participate in is up to you but the hobby is still comprised of those parts regardless.
Vigilant wrote: Rigeld2 you just need to be more understanding man. You can do whatever you want but take note that things won't change no matter how much you rage at it. Painting is a large part of warhammer. Just because you don't feel like doing it doesn't make it any less a part of the hobby.
You are how people see you not how you see yourself man. If everyone says your doing it wrong. No amount of self perception will change that.
No, my point is that painting isn't a large part of warhammer. It's a part of the way some people - perhaps even most people - enjoy it, but there's no requirement for it to be done.
And I'm not raging at all. Normally it's the people who are vehement that it's part of "the hobby" (your words) are the ones that get angry when asked to prove it - and they can't.
It's part of your hobby. Not mine. We 40k differently - and I'm content with that. You, apparently, aren't.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Las wrote: I will clarify, however, that my position has nothing to do with right or wrong ways to enjoy the hobby but that each of the three component parts are equal in regards to what the hobby is. What parts you choose to participate in is up to you but the hobby is still comprised of those parts regardless.
By dictating what "the hobby" is you're also saying that people who only participate in part of it is doing it wrong. That's my problem with your (and others') statements - it's not "the hobby", rather it's "my hobby".
Example of what's wrong here. We have a minority and a majority stating what is and isnt. In cases like this, the majority opinion takes the win. It's just how it is man. Claim that painting isn't important and continue being tfg. It doesn't make any difference.
Vigilant wrote: Example of what's wrong here. We have a minority and a majority stating what is and isnt. In cases like this, the majority opinion takes the win. It's just how it is man. Claim that painting isn't important and continue being tfg. It doesn't make any difference.
No, in cases like this people should respect others' opinions. I don't believe in forcing you to not paint, you shouldn't take it upon yourself to force me to paint. Why is that hard to understand?
Painting isn't important to me. It doesn't affect my enjoyment, no matter how much you tell me it should.
Vigilant wrote: Do you want me to construct a selective response survey with validity and reliability manuals to satisfy your need to be a critical of my statement?
When you make a claim like that without clarifying that it's just from your personal observation, then yes, it needs to be backed up by actual proof.
So thank you for explaining that it's just an anecdotal observation. My observation is different... While many people consider painting to be an important part of the hobby, a hell of a lot don't. I've lost count of the number of unpainted or partially painted armies I have played against over the years.
Use some common sense man. It's not like its some unknown mystery what the concensus is.
If there was a consensus, we wouldn't be having this discussion.
insaniak wrote: On what data are you basing your claim that yours is the majority opinion?
Personal experience going to clubs, shops, and lurking forums.
Do you want me to construct a selective response survey with validity and reliability manuals to satisfy your need to be a critical of my statement?
Use some common sense man. It's not like its some unknown mystery what the concensus is.
I disagree with you, and I speak for the 4 other members of our little local group (100 %).
Painting, along with back-story conversions and investment in playing really well, is up to personal preference. Accepting that other people enjoy different aspects of our shared hobby experience is the mark of an adult reasonable person. Failure to do so, and complaining about it....well, that's TFG territory.
It really sucks that GW is sch a horrific company with so many asinine policies that I can't even cite one of their good ones without feeling like I'll be lambasted for "supporting GW"
But they used to require that you had at least 3 colors on a model to field it. I think that is more than reasonable. Make an effort. Give it a shot.
People who don't like something almost always don't like it because they know nothing about it. I don't care if we're talking about wargames or jazz music.
But sitting across a table from a blob of gray plastic that is indecipherable to me is garbage. If people like it, that's fine. Some people marry their cousins. Happy for them.
But its such a rubbish excuse when people say "I'm not good at painting." Well, no gak. You don't paint. Funny thing- if you start, you'll improve as you go. Wild concept, I know.
Sheer laziness to not paint your models, but all in all I guess I would say keep not painting so when you quit the hobby I can pick up your stuff on the cheap and not have to deal with stripping a jawbreaker of spray paint models that I've come across before.
All in all, do what you want, but don't expect my respect for no effort.
@ OP I like painting but I also love converting the living gak out of tanks and figures. I won't put a drop of paint on them until I'm 100% happy that I have a unique and well looking model.This means I'm going to be showing up at tournaments with a bare plastic & green stuff army for quite a while. If that bothers other players well they'll just have to be patient and wait until I'm finished my masterpieces!
No I don't personally understand a lack of interest in painting them, but I can accept it. I know someone who lets their ice cream melt before they eat it...
Painting is a huge part of the hobby, suggesting it isn't is silly. Surely all of the painting competitions, books dedicated to painting, whole areas of forums dedicated to painting prove that?
For me, the ideal is to have all of your models painted. Are all of mine painted? No. Do I intend to paint them? Yes. Is someone with a fully painted army better at the hobby than me? Yes. Someone refusing to even attempt to paint their models devalues the hobby for those who have bothered, in the same way that someone using cardboard tokens for models devalues the hobby for those who have bothered to assemble their models.
I don't like assembling models, it is the worst part of the hobby for me, but I wouldn't get many games if I turned up with a load of pieces of card and said "I don't find assembling models fun and therefore it isn't part of the hobby to me". Why should painting be different?
tyrannosaurus wrote: Painting is a huge part of the hobby, suggesting it isn't is silly. Surely all of the painting competitions, books dedicated to painting, whole areas of forums dedicated to painting prove that?
They prove that painting is a part of some people's hobby. There is no such thing as 'THE hobby'.
Good point! Spruehammer is going to be all the rage now. Good work. I see insaniak chooses to remove this part of the post to make his rebuttle. i wonder why that might be.
VanHallan wrote: Good point! Spruehammer is going to be all the rage now. Good work.
That doesn't make sense. Some people don't enjoy painting therefore buying models won't be in vogue any more? I thought buying models was like 90% of the GW Hobby.
If the models aren't required to be painted, who is to say they're required to be put together? Why not just set the boxes down unopened and play that way? What is stopping anybody? If you can do it, then obviously you should.
Man, half this thread reminded why there is an ignore button. Why are painted models so damn important to half of you? Does it physically kill brain cells to play an unpainted army?
insaniak wrote: On what data are you basing your claim that yours is the majority opinion?
Personal experience going to clubs, shops, and lurking forums.
Do you want me to construct a selective response survey with validity and reliability manuals to satisfy your need to be a critical of my statement?
Use some common sense man. It's not like its some unknown mystery what the concensus is.
I disagree with you, and I speak for the 4 other members of our little local group (100 %).
Painting, along with back-story conversions and investment in playing really well, is up to personal preference.
Accepting that other people enjoy different aspects of our shared hobby experience is the mark of an adult reasonable person.
Failure to do so, and complaining about it....well, that's TFG territory.
This isn't a [insert liberal group] rally we are discussing here. This is is a tabletop wargame. Rules upon rules with books and codexes describing paint methods and schemes. There is a standard. Too many bleeding hearts crying "leave them alone" gets us nowhere. We share nothing if we are not following the same standards.
Wow, I guess I should feel bad that I like to buy my models, assemble them, and play the game, and paint as I go, whenever I feel like doing it. I'm sorry my hobby is playing Warhammer 40k, not painting models all the time.
VanHallan wrote: If the models aren't required to be painted, who is to say they're required to be put together? Why not just set the boxes down unopened and play that way? What is stopping anybody? If you can do it, then obviously you should.
jreilly89 wrote: Man, half this thread reminded why there is an ignore button. Why are painted models so damn important to half of you? Does it physically kill brain cells to play an unpainted army?
It doesn't. But look at it this way. Do you really want to spend the next 4 hours looking at a grey mess and not really be able to tell the difference between their models? It's actually mentally draining because it's horrible to the eye. It's pretty Human in nature to enjoy brightly colored things. They appeal to us more. Hence why we don't live in dank grey mess of a house, or drive boring colored cars very often unless you just absolutely love drab color. Painting your army also shows a little pride in your purchases as well.
I wouldn't say painting is mandatory, but it's just...boring to look at. I at first was worried I'd do a terrible job, so for a few months I didn't paint. But I picked up a brush one night after work, and now 95% of my army has a passable paintjob. Passable is better than nothing. And that's key. I enjoy putting my models on the table more than I did before because I put effort in them. It DOES give you more enjoyment out of the games. Whenever someone sees my Warboss and tells me "That looks REALLY good!" and I tel them I've only been painting for a few months, that felt DAMN good. It still does any time I get a compliment. AND I get MORE games than I did before, because now the blob of models is distinguishable, and colorful and WAAAAGH!
Automatically Appended Next Post:
krodarklorr wrote: Wow, I guess I should feel bad that I like to buy my models, assemble them, and play the game, and paint as I go, whenever I feel like doing it. I'm sorry my hobby is playing Warhammer 40k, not painting models all the time.
Painting as you go is fine, you're trying. And that's OK. I didn't paint my 4k worth of Orks in a few nights. I'm just getting to the point where everything is coming together. And that's fine. But outright refusing to paint and just slab black or grey on the table is...icky.
VanHallan wrote: If the models aren't required to be painted, who is to say they're required to be put together? Why not just set the boxes down unopened and play that way? What is stopping anybody? If you can do it, then obviously you should.
We've already been over that. Whether or not a model is assembled will have an impact on how it functions in the game, due to the LOS rules.
Whether or not it is painted does not.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Vigilant wrote: This isn't a [insert liberal group] rally we are discussing here. This is is a tabletop wargame.
With the emphasis on game.
It seems that some people lose sight of that.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Melevolence wrote: It doesn't. But look at it this way. Do you really want to spend the next 4 hours looking at a grey mess and not really be able to tell the difference between their models?
So don't.
There is nothing forcing you to play against someone with an unpainted army.
And for what it's worth, I've played against several armies over the years that had models that would have been much easier to identify if they had a little less paint on them...
jreilly89 wrote: Why are painted models so damn important to half of you? Does it physically kill brain cells to play an unpainted army?
Nah, it just looks awful to me.
Thankfully my club only uses all painted armies. Id never play with unpainted stuff. For me its a visual hobby, and the visuals aint bare metal or grey plastic in the game background. May as well use cardboard cut outs.
As I say, im lucky, my whole club has that attitude, and doubly lucky as we dont play 40k.
Fortunately, the hobby is a personal one, and its best to let people do it how they want than to force your opinions on others. I only care about how I do my hobby, dont really mind what other people do, thats their choice.
krodarklorr wrote: Wow, I guess I should feel bad that I like to buy my models, assemble them, and play the game, and paint as I go, whenever I feel like doing it. I'm sorry my hobby is playing Warhammer 40k, not painting models all the time.
Painting as you go is fine, you're trying. And that's OK. I didn't paint my 4k worth of Orks in a few nights. I'm just getting to the point where everything is coming together. And that's fine. But outright refusing to paint and just slab black or grey on the table is...icky.
Well, then if that's what you guys are saying, then okay. I've done little overall work to my Nids, but I have a few very well painted models, and over half are primed or basecoated flesh color. And my necrons are all primed black, and I drybrush a little as I go. Most of my infantry is actually done, it's the vehicles that are annoying.
This isn't a [insert liberal group] rally we are discussing here. This is is a tabletop wargame. Rules upon rules with books and codexes describing paint methods and schemes. There is a standard. Too many bleeding hearts crying "leave them alone" gets us nowhere. We share nothing if we are not following the same standards.
1. Is my personal and anecdotal testament to the "need" of having painted models suddenly of lesser value than your personal and anecdotal statement? Your sudden deflection of (sub)topic gives that indication.
2. Codexes contain less and less painting guides and alternative paint-schemes these days. I don't think the reference to GWs published material helps your argument one bit.
3. "We share nothing if we are not following the same standards". Does that mean that the US of A (grouped up with 2 other small countries) shares nothing with the civilized world as we don't share the same units of measurement? What is up with this divisive "you are either with us or against us" attitude? No reasonable person speaks like that.
krodarklorr wrote: Wow, I guess I should feel bad that I like to buy my models, assemble them, and play the game, and paint as I go, whenever I feel like doing it. I'm sorry my hobby is playing Warhammer 40k, not painting models all the time.
Painting as you go is fine, you're trying. And that's OK. I didn't paint my 4k worth of Orks in a few nights. I'm just getting to the point where everything is coming together. And that's fine. But outright refusing to paint and just slab black or grey on the table is...icky.
Well, then if that's what you guys are saying, then okay. I've done little overall work to my Nids, but I have a few very well painted models, and over half are primed or basecoated flesh color. And my necrons are all primed black, and I drybrush a little as I go. Most of my infantry is actually done, it's the vehicles that are annoying.
Yeah, that's totally reasonable. I'm fielding unpainted models for the first time in about a year tomorrow because I've been working on a new army and bikes and vehicles are really slowing me down, but I still aim to finish them eventually.
The mentality of "I don't like painting so I'm not gonna do it" is what I take issue with because it comes off as lazy. Especially when many of the top armies wear a lot of armour so it'd be so easy to prime the colour you want, dip, and brush the gun a different colour. Any marines, tau, eldar and necrons could be painted so easily by doing this.
VanHallan wrote: If the models aren't required to be painted, who is to say they're required to be put together? Why not just set the boxes down unopened and play that way? What is stopping anybody? If you can do it, then obviously you should.
We've already been over that. Whether or not a model is assembled will have an impact on how it functions in the game, due to the LOS rules.
Whether or not it is painted does not.
And we've also already been over that. How tall is a space marine? Measure that high from the base and determine wether or not they have LOS.
Someone said they would allow their opponent to play with twigs and pocket lint as markers and no-one seemed to disagree. Playing without models would make things about as tedious as having to ask what model is equipped with what because you can't tell due to it being a grey mess.
bubz wrote: And we've also already been over that. How tall is a space marine? Measure that high from the base and determine wether or not they have LOS.
If you and your opponent are happy to do that, go for your life. It's going to have exactly zero effect on anyone else playing the game.
Just as someone not painting their army doesn't have to have any effect on the game of someone who only wants to use painted models. If that's what you're looking for, just stick to playing people with painted models.
...having to ask what model is equipped with what because you can't tell due to it being a grey mess.
People keep saying this as if it's actually a thing.
Given how many paintjobs are just a flat colour with no shading or highlighting, I'm not really seeing how trying to identify a flat grey piece of plastic is any different to trying to identify, say, a piece of flat black plastic.
krodarklorr wrote: Wow, I guess I should feel bad that I like to buy my models, assemble them, and play the game, and paint as I go, whenever I feel like doing it. I'm sorry my hobby is playing Warhammer 40k, not painting models all the time.
Painting as you go is fine, you're trying. And that's OK. I didn't paint my 4k worth of Orks in a few nights. I'm just getting to the point where everything is coming together. And that's fine. But outright refusing to paint and just slab black or grey on the table is...icky.
Well, then if that's what you guys are saying, then okay. I've done little overall work to my Nids, but I have a few very well painted models, and over half are primed or basecoated flesh color. And my necrons are all primed black, and I drybrush a little as I go. Most of my infantry is actually done, it's the vehicles that are annoying.
That's what I'm saying at least. :p I just think people in the end will enjoy their armies more, even if the paint job isn't stellar. Rome wasn't built in a day, neither is painting an entire army. I know a lot of players (like myself) get in over their head at first, and suddenly having 100 + models to paint now becomes horrifying instead of buying/assembling/painting each kit as you buy em. And I'm not lying when I say you feel DAMN good as you go, having nice colored dudes to play with instead of out of the box grey or primer black. :p
krodarklorr wrote: Wow, I guess I should feel bad that I like to buy my models, assemble them, and play the game, and paint as I go, whenever I feel like doing it. I'm sorry my hobby is playing Warhammer 40k, not painting models all the time.
Painting as you go is fine, you're trying. And that's OK. I didn't paint my 4k worth of Orks in a few nights. I'm just getting to the point where everything is coming together. And that's fine. But outright refusing to paint and just slab black or grey on the table is...icky.
Well, then if that's what you guys are saying, then okay. I've done little overall work to my Nids, but I have a few very well painted models, and over half are primed or basecoated flesh color. And my necrons are all primed black, and I drybrush a little as I go. Most of my infantry is actually done, it's the vehicles that are annoying.
That's what I'm saying at least. :p I just think people in the end will enjoy their armies more, even if the paint job isn't stellar. Rome wasn't built in a day, neither is painting an entire army. I know a lot of players (like myself) get in over their head at first, and suddenly having 100 + models to paint now becomes horrifying instead of buying/assembling/painting each kit as you buy em. And I'm not lying when I say you feel DAMN good as you go, having nice colored dudes to play with instead of out of the box grey or primer black. :p
Oh heck yeah, my Deathmarks, both squads of immortals, a bunch of warriors, and my Overlords are painted, and then I based them one night before a game, they looked damn good on the table, and they rolled obnoxiously well too.
bubz wrote: And we've also already been over that. How tall is a space marine? Measure that high from the base and determine wether or not they have LOS.
If you and your opponent are happy to do that, go for your life. It's going to have exactly zero effect on anyone else playing the game.
Just as someone not painting their army doesn't have to have any effect on the game of someone who only wants to use painted models. If that's what you're looking for, just stick to playing people with painted models.
There's a disconnect here. In one breath you say that assembly is mandatory to play the game because of the tlos mechanic. Then when we point out that you can play the game by the book without a single assembled model, you turn around and say it's ok. Which is it?
Why is assembly so important and painting so unimportant? When neither is required to play the game, why does one get a pass and not the other?
Could it be because it's a drag for you to play against unassembled models? Does it lessen your game experience to play against bases with tokens and ruler heights? Are you starting to get it now?
AesSedai wrote:Unpainted models cause the game to be less immersive for the participants. Frankly, I think grey plastic cheapens the experience.
VanHallan wrote:But they used to require that you had at least 3 colors on a model to field it. I think that is more than reasonable. Make an effort. Give it a shot.
I agree that unpainted models does ruin the experience a bit.
...but... poorly painted models do as well. My local GW used to have the "3 colour" rule (I don't think it was ever written in the rules, it was just a common store/tourny policy). The number of crappily painted armies I played against.
Given the cost of the models, I feel a bad paint job ruins them, so I don't really have a problem if it takes someone 10 years to paint an army.
But sitting across a table from a blob of gray plastic that is indecipherable to me is garbage. If people like it, that's fine. Some people marry their cousins. Happy for them.
That's interesting, because I find many poorly painted armies to be indecipherable garbage. A blur of black and brown and metallic. Or the poorly washed/dipped armies that look like little bits of poo.
But its such a rubbish excuse when people say "I'm not good at painting." Well, no gak. You don't paint. Funny thing- if you start, you'll improve as you go. Wild concept, I know.
Some people just don't improve that much. Whether it's because they have no talent or don't care enough to improve is debatable, but it definitely happens. One of my mates I started a shared O&G army, I foolishly thought I could teach him to paint to my standard (which frankly wasn't very high as I was just speed painting them since there were so many models). I couldn't. His Orcs, like his Dark Angels and Bretonnians before them, just looked like indecipherable blobs of black, brown, green and red (and when I say red I mean red patches that didn't properly cover the colour under them).
All in all, do what you want, but don't expect my respect for no effort.
This is what it comes down to in the end. People don't expect respect for no effort. They expect to not be insulted for doing things differently and they expect respect for being a fething human being and no other reason should matter.
Las wrote: There's a disconnect here. In one breath you say that assembly is mandatory to play the game because of the tlos mechanic. Then when we point out that you can play the game by the book without a single assembled model, you turn around and say it's ok. Which is it?
There is no disconnect there. I personally don't think that playing with unassembled models works, because the rules require the physical model. If you and your opponent are happy to work around that, though, what business is it of mine?
Why is assembly so important and painting so unimportant?
Because one has an impact on the game rules, and the other doesn't.
Could it be because it's a drag for you to play against unassembled models? Does it lessen your game experience to play against bases with tokens and ruler heights? Are you starting to get it now?
No, I still don't get why you wouldn't just not play against someone if the standard of their army upsets you that badly.
Personally, I only play with painted models, aside from the occasional stand-in to try something new. I prefer to play against painted armies, and I prefer to play on tables with nice-looking terrain.
However, I accept that not everybody has the same priorities as I do. I accept that not everyone cares as much about the aesthetic aspect of the game. And I accept that because it's just a game.
If playing against an unpainted army is going to affect my enjoyment of the game, I can just not play against that unpainted army. There is absolutely no reason for me to try to convince that army's owner that they are not engaging in their hobby the 'right' way... because what they choose to do with their hobby is absolutely none of my business.
...having to ask what model is equipped with what because you can't tell due to it being a grey mess.
People keep saying this as if it's actually a thing.
Given how many paintjobs are just a flat colour with no shading or highlighting, I'm not really seeing how trying to identify a flat grey piece of plastic is any different to trying to identify, say, a piece of flat black plastic.
One of my friends used to do worse than that. He'd highlight, but his highlights were such that he'd smoosh the brush in to the model too much, so the actual raised that was supposed to be highlighted was darker and there was a ring around it that was brighter, but then the crevices were still darker again.
It was worse than being unhighllighted because it was very visually confusing. I often had to ask what models were equipped with or get in close for a careful look because the units (WHFB) were just an indecipherable sea of blurry colours.
This whole substituting armies of marines is what has gotten this trend of unpainted units to grow. People don't want to commit to a chapter even though they have Imperial fists, they want to play space wolves today and blah blah next week, etc.
If substituting doesn't matter than why paint at all. Why assemble at all. Why use miniatures at all. It's a slippery slope of fail.
I don't think GW intended their units to be left unpainted. Otherwise they would have began a line of prepainted like D&D. It must be written somewhere that units should have at least some coloration prior to fielding.
Vigilant wrote: This whole substituting armies of marines is what has gotten this trend of unpainted units to grow. People don't want to commit to a chapter even though they have Imperial fists, they want to play space wolves today and blah blah next week, etc.
I disagree. I see unpainted armies of all types and always have. Most of the games I played between 10 and 15 years of age (the 90's) were against unpainted WHFB armies.
If substituting doesn't matter than why paint at all. Why assemble at all. Why use miniatures at all. It's a slippery slope of fail.
No, it's not a slippery slope because those other things you mentioned do affect the game aspect of the game. Painting only affects the aesthetic aspect. If you don't assemble, models aren't WYSIWYG. You can't properly draw LOS.
I don't think GW intended their units to be left unpainted. Otherwise they would have began a line of prepainted like D&D.
I don't think GW's intentions are relevant these days, they are so disconnected from the community I couldn't care less what their intentions were. Funnily enough, in the 90's when GW was booming in my area, the local GW had the "3 color" rule, which resulted in many poorly painted armies. These days, the local GW has given up on that and lets people play with unpainted models.
jreilly89 wrote: Man, half this thread reminded why there is an ignore button. Why are painted models so damn important to half of you? Does it physically kill brain cells to play an unpainted army?
It doesn't. But look at it this way. Do you really want to spend the next 4 hours looking at a grey mess and not really be able to tell the difference between their models? It's actually mentally draining because it's horrible to the eye. It's pretty Human in nature to enjoy brightly colored things. They appeal to us more. Hence why we don't live in dank grey mess of a house, or drive boring colored cars very often unless you just absolutely love drab color. Painting your army also shows a little pride in your purchases as well.
I wouldn't say painting is mandatory, but it's just...boring to look at. I at first was worried I'd do a terrible job, so for a few months I didn't paint. But I picked up a brush one night after work, and now 95% of my army has a passable paintjob. Passable is better than nothing. And that's key. I enjoy putting my models on the table more than I did before because I put effort in them. It DOES give you more enjoyment out of the games. Whenever someone sees my Warboss and tells me "That looks REALLY good!" and I tel them I've only been painting for a few months, that felt DAMN good. It still does any time I get a compliment. AND I get MORE games than I did before, because now the blob of models is distinguishable, and colorful and WAAAAGH!
No I agree, hence why I paint my models or at least prime them/basecoat em. My paint is people seem to take a personal offense to which I don't understand. The only thing I can think of is that its a sense of elitism to them ("Oh, you don't paint? You're not as much of a wargamer here") or that someone is that insane that grey armies physically hurt them. I wouldn't go so far as to its mentally draining, yeah it sucks seeing people play grey only armies, but its not the end of the world.
jreilly89 wrote: Man, half this thread reminded why there is an ignore button. Why are painted models so damn important to half of you? Does it physically kill brain cells to play an unpainted army?
It doesn't. But look at it this way. Do you really want to spend the next 4 hours looking at a grey mess and not really be able to tell the difference between their models? It's actually mentally draining because it's horrible to the eye. It's pretty Human in nature to enjoy brightly colored things. They appeal to us more. Hence why we don't live in dank grey mess of a house, or drive boring colored cars very often unless you just absolutely love drab color. Painting your army also shows a little pride in your purchases as well.
I wouldn't say painting is mandatory, but it's just...boring to look at. I at first was worried I'd do a terrible job, so for a few months I didn't paint. But I picked up a brush one night after work, and now 95% of my army has a passable paintjob. Passable is better than nothing. And that's key. I enjoy putting my models on the table more than I did before because I put effort in them. It DOES give you more enjoyment out of the games. Whenever someone sees my Warboss and tells me "That looks REALLY good!" and I tel them I've only been painting for a few months, that felt DAMN good. It still does any time I get a compliment. AND I get MORE games than I did before, because now the blob of models is distinguishable, and colorful and WAAAAGH!
No I agree, hence why I paint my models or at least prime them/basecoat em. My paint is people seem to take a personal offense to which I don't understand. The only thing I can think of is that its a sense of elitism to them ("Oh, you don't paint? You're not as much of a wargamer here") or that someone is that insane that grey armies physically hurt them. I wouldn't go so far as to its mentally draining, yeah it sucks seeing people play grey only armies, but its not the end of the world.
The irony is that many wargames don't require you to paint at all. Axis and Allies for example is a tabletop wargame that requires no assembly or painting. X-Wing doesn't require painting either. So I guess people that play those games aren't "Wargamers".
I personally enjoy seeing painted models. At least a 2-3 color minimum looks fine from a distance. I play against people with unpainted models very often, nothing you can really do about it.
tyrannosaurus wrote: Painting is a huge part of the hobby, suggesting it isn't is silly. Surely all of the painting competitions, books dedicated to painting, whole areas of forums dedicated to painting prove that?
Playing the game is a huge part of the hobby, suggesting it isn't is silly. Surely all of the tournaments (far more of these than painting competitions) websites dedicated to list building, tactics, and rules discussions prove that?
For me, the ideal is to have all of your models painted. Are all of mine painted? No. Do I intend to paint them? Yes. Is someone with a fully painted army better at the hobby than me? Yes. Someone refusing to even attempt to paint their models devalues the hobby for those who have bothered, in the same way that someone using cardboard tokens for models devalues the hobby for those who have bothered to assemble their models.
So... Not at all then? Okay, that's fine.
How one person enjoys their hobby doesn't change how I value/enjoy mine whatsoever.
I don't like assembling models, it is the worst part of the hobby for me, but I wouldn't get many games if I turned up with a load of pieces of card and said "I don't find assembling models fun and therefore it isn't part of the hobby to me". Why should painting be different?
Because properly assembled models change how the game plays. Painting doesn't.
It's almost like this exact statement has been made dozens of times in this thread and people ignore it.
And honestly, if your friends/opponents are okay with it - just do that. I don't know how likely it is you'll get a pickup game using cardboard tokens, but that doesn't mean you won't. Don't like playing against I painted armies? Don't. Just like I don't like playing against people who complain that my army is unpainted.
Vigilant wrote: People don't want to commit to a chapter even though they have Imperial fists, they want to play space wolves today and blah blah next week, etc.
Why do you present that in a negative context and as somehow being a problem in your eyes?
If a model is WYSIWYG surely it doesn't matter what colour it is.
Is it a problem that my Dark Angels are black, my Black Templars are white, my White Scars are grey or my Space Wolves are green - if the models are WYSIWYG and it is made perfectly clear what codex you are currently facing?
Is it a problem if my Eldar use the Iyanden Supplemental Codex if they are painted as Ulthwé (a craftworld that no longer have specific rules)?
Would it be a problem if Ulthwé still had specific rules if it was made clear to you that you are facing an Iyanden army?
Would it be better if the models were painted in a generic colour scheme not related to a known craftworld?
Is it a problem that my Deff Skullz Ork army (dominated by blue colours) really like to use a lot of bikes and trukks?
It is inarguable that assembly is more important than painting, because it gives the models a literal form.
There are of course some grey (excuse the pun) areas where colour scheme can matter - Space Marine chapters, for example. However these two are not rigidly defined by colour scheme. Offshoots, homebrew and well, anything creative, is encouraged by GW and should be encouraged by you. To be honest, I don't even care if someone wants to jump between different chapters, so long as Thunderwolves are obviously cavalry combat marines (Bikes wouldn't work as a counts as, because SW have bike units) or Deathwing Knights are not just combat Terminators.
The most important thing when playing the game is clarity. When I look at a unit, I want to be able to instantly go: 'Oh a Sternguard unit.' or 'Oh genestealers'. Painting doesn't define this. It can contribute, but not to any great extent.
However, would I rather play against painted models? Obviously. It just looks better. An army that is coherently painted, even if to a lower standard, looks far better on the battlefield than a half-painted army that is of a higher skill level. But of course, just because one looks better than the other doesn't mean I will only play against one.
There are of course some grey (excuse the pun) areas where colour scheme can matter - Space Marine chapters, for example. However these two are not rigidly defined by colour scheme. Offshoots, homebrew and well, anything creative, is encouraged by GW and should be encouraged by you. To be honest, I don't even care if someone wants to jump between different chapters, so long as Thunderwolves are obviously cavalry combat marines (Bikes wouldn't work as a counts as, because SW have bike units) or Deathwing Knights are not just combat Terminators.
I very much agree. Clarity is of great importance.
The bike example is particularly good. The fact that the bike is an already existing unit would make the distinctions unclear, especially if both Bikes and Thunderwolves were present in an army at the same time ("These bikes are Bikes, but those bikes with the fancy paint-job are Thunderwolves" ).
If one were to build some type of quad-bikes or dune buggies, and call those Thunderwolves, it would be much clearer and acceptable IMO.
I am one of those cretins that play Whatever Marines. When I wanted to play Grey Knights I found, that I couldn't use my existing "standard" marines to represent Grey Knights. At least not in a way that satisfied my own standards of clarity.
So I bought "proper" Grey Knights models to use in that army.
When it came to playing Space Wolves I made my own Thunderwolves/Beast Cavalry (from Blood Crushers).
There are of course some grey (excuse the pun) areas where colour scheme can matter - Space Marine chapters, for example. However these two are not rigidly defined by colour scheme. Offshoots, homebrew and well, anything creative, is encouraged by GW and should be encouraged by you. To be honest, I don't even care if someone wants to jump between different chapters, so long as Thunderwolves are obviously cavalry combat marines (Bikes wouldn't work as a counts as, because SW have bike units) or Deathwing Knights are not just combat Terminators.
I very much agree. Clarity is of great importance.
The bike example is particularly good. The fact that the bike is an already existing unit would make the distinctions unclear, especially if both Bikes and Thunderwolves were present in an army at the same time ("These bikes are Bikes, but those bikes with the fancy paint-job are Thunderwolves" ).
If one were to build some type of quad-bikes or dune buggies, and call those Thunderwolves, it would be much clearer and acceptable IMO.
I am one of those cretins that play Whatever Marines. When I wanted to play Grey Knights I found, that I couldn't use my existing "standard" marines to represent Grey Knights. At least not in a way that satisfied my own standards of clarity.
So I bought "proper" Grey Knights models to use in that army.
When it came to playing Space Wolves I made my own Thunderwolves/Beast Cavalry (from Blood Crushers).
Old WIP snap.
They look really good. How did you get that fur texture?
Vigilant wrote: People don't want to commit to a chapter even though they have Imperial fists, they want to play space wolves today and blah blah next week, etc.
Why do you present that in a negative context and as somehow being a problem in your eyes?
If a model is WYSIWYG surely it doesn't matter what colour it is.
Is it a problem that my Dark Angels are black, my Black Templars are white, my White Scars are grey or my Space Wolves are green - if the models are WYSIWYG and it is made perfectly clear what codex you are currently facing?
Is it a problem if my Eldar use the Iyanden Supplemental Codex if they are painted as Ulthwé (a craftworld that no longer have specific rules)?
Would it be a problem if Ulthwé still had specific rules if it was made clear to you that you are facing an Iyanden army?
Would it be better if the models were painted in a generic colour scheme not related to a known craftworld?
Is it a problem that my Deff Skullz Ork army (dominated by blue colours) really like to use a lot of bikes and trukks?
It isn't, though the thing is, vanilla Marines all have one thing that those other armies don't. And that's that each Chapter has unique advantages and disadvantages. Marines can gain a specific edge over their opponents, just by declaring they are Marines, just slightly DIFFERENT Marines. Me claiming my Orks are Goffs but they have a boatload of Bikers doesn't do anything extra for my army. I gain no buffs for saying I am using Goffs, or Bad Moons. And with this, it makes knowing what you are up against really difficult if they don't adhere to a paint scheme. You can tell from a glance that a grey kight is a grey knight, or a space wolf is a space wolf. I can expect to know what their rules are. But a vanilla marine army, you don't know just by looking, unless they paint it that chapter's specific color. It could be one of what...7 different chapters with their own unique special rules? Granted, painting them a unique color that pleases your own eye still poses this problem, but at least they LOOK cool to make up for it XD
I dislike a Marine player's excuse for not painting because they don't want to be bound to a single chapter. And that's fine. It's valid they want flexible Marines. So, the answer is pretty simple. Paint them whatever color you want. GW is pretty blatant in that they want player's to customize their army, that there is no real 'required' paint scheme for armies. Hell, I have red AND green skinned Orks. Just because my Orks have red skin, doesn't mean they become less playable or any less Orky.
You could paint your vanilla marines hot pink, and then have them be anything you wanted each game, and no one would care. Because at least you put paint on them. And hot pink is far more pleasing on the eye then drab, gross, depressing black or grey.
And the great thing about your other examples, is those all work. WYSIWYG has no baring on color schemes. You could have pink Space Wolves, or yellow armored Eldar, or hunting orange Tau. Each army has a 'recommended' color set forth by the company for how their armies look in the fluff and by GW's original vision. But no where do they say you HAVE to paint them this or that. It's what makes this hobby so damn awesome. Your imagination is really the limit. There's no real excuse not to at least give painting a try.
I was worried i'd ruin my models. The only models I still don't paint are my bigger vehicles, because I really want them to look good. I have a friend who is far superior and can paint faster. So I pay him to paint my Trukks and large walkers. (Only vehicles I've ever painted successfully to my liking are my Kanz.) I love my army, and I feel like I've come a long way ever since I picked up a brush. People can be surprised by how easy it is to paint, especially just in their downtime while watching Netflix or listening to some tunes. I've found it's become my favorite way to unwind after a rough day at work.
In the end, I get that people may still hate painting. and that's cool too. But these players really can't get mad that other player's find their army boring to look at. It comes with the territory, sadly. People will be drawn to others who have brightly colored dudes to fight their own brightly colored dudes, because it's interesting and it's fun to see the work put into them. I still play unpainted and even proxy armies. But, I can't lie just to make you feel better. The games ARE inherently less fun. I like to give compliments to people's armies, or a well painted mini in particular. It's the rewarding part of the hobby too. I love it when my Warboss gets a thumbs up from my opponents, and I love to return that compliment if I see a particularly awesome character or MC or vehicle that was painted up nice.
Vigilant wrote: People don't want to commit to a chapter even though they have Imperial fists, they want to play space wolves today and blah blah next week, etc.
I know what you mean, this seems to constitute about 80% of 2nd hand collections I look at. Typical composition: A tactical squad of ultramarines. And a red rhino. And some white bikers which I'll presume are white scars. And I black predator. It's always a warning light to me, because the painting on modelling on such collections is usually terrible.
But that brings up another reason why its a bad idea for beginners to start churning out painted units, and definately not if they haven't even fixed on a chapter and paint scheme. Should develop their skills by painting figures one at a time, then start squad painting.
You could paint your vanilla marines hot pink, and then have them be anything you wanted each game, and no one would care.
Cool. That was all I was asking about.
Because at least you put paint on them. And hot pink is far more pleasing on the eye then drab, gross, depressing black or grey.
Hey! You bad mouthing my colour scheme?
I just want to make something clear. I thoroughly enjoy painting. I have several pretty large painted armies.
My objections stem from the fact that I can't stand idly by when person A tells person B how to enjoy the hobby, and additionally argues that person B is lazy, boring, stupid, inbred, inconsiderate and destructive (take your pick).
Its one of those things where I don't care except for clarity. I play against an army of grey space marines I really struggle to pick out the devestator squads from the normal and the special weapons etc.
It wouldn't be so bad if it wasn't a sea of marines army - you know if there were rhinos and whatnot so instead of that I've just got a mass of grey.
The paint serves to highlight detail, even if its a half assed crap paint job.
In the end, I get that people may still hate painting. and that's cool too. But these players really can't get mad that other player's find their army boring to look at. It comes with the territory, sadly.
Who is getting mad about that? Who is raging here? Players who run into painted armies or players who run into unpainted armies?
insaniak wrote: No, I still don't get why you wouldn't just not play against someone if the standard of their army upsets you that badly.
I think a lot of the problems in this hobby stem from people having to play with people with a different mindset about the game, because there is no one else for miles.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
jreilly89 wrote: "Oh, you don't paint? You're not as much of a wargamer here"
That, and other things. You don't paint ? you must be TFGWAAC <insert other pointless acronym> !
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Steelmage99 wrote: Is it a problem that my Deff Skullz Ork army (dominated by blue colours) really like to use a lot of bikes and trukks?
Why yes, how do you expect them to go fast without the red ?
As anyone reading my posts on the subject will know, I come down on the side of painted. I'm part of a club for which our standard is to never put an unpainted model on the table. It's worked well for 4 years now. Lest you think us "elitist", know that we always keep painted models on hand for newbies and visitors. This allows us to always be open and welcoming while making sure that everyone knows that when they come to our bi-weekly game night, they are guaranteed to see nothing but the spectacle of painted models clashing on beautiful terrain.
tyrannosaurus wrote: Painting is a huge part of the hobby, suggesting it isn't is silly. Surely all of the painting competitions, books dedicated to painting, whole areas of forums dedicated to painting prove that?
They prove that painting is a part of some people's hobby. There is no such thing as 'THE hobby'.
This is the essential point of contention.
We can all agree that people approach "the hobby" of tabletop wargaming differently.
However, where I draw a line is holding to the fact that "the wargaming hobby" does have standards and certain things have always been part of wargaming. That people choosing to practice "their hobby" differently doesn't change the essential nature of the tabletop wargaming hobby itself.
From Kriegspiel and Little Wars (though this was fought on the floor) through the present day, wargaming has a long history of painted miniatures. There have always been folks who choose not to use painted models -though it's far more common in popular sci-fi and fantasy games than in historical- but that does not change the fact that the essential definition of the wargaming hobby includes the painted miniatures.
If you choose not to use painted miniatures, that's your business, but to pretend that paint is not part of "the hobby" is ridiculous. Consider the response one would get if they were to say that paint was not part of hobbies such as finescale modeling, classic car clubs, model railroading, etc. Every hobby has standards and ideals as dictated by tradition and history and wargaming is no different. They may be ignored on a personal level, but that does not negate them.
I very much agree. Clarity is of great importance.
The bike example is particularly good. The fact that the bike is an already existing unit would make the distinctions unclear, especially if both Bikes and Thunderwolves were present in an army at the same time ("These bikes are Bikes, but those bikes with the fancy paint-job are Thunderwolves" ).
If one were to build some type of quad-bikes or dune buggies, and call those Thunderwolves, it would be much clearer and acceptable IMO.
I am one of those cretins that play Whatever Marines. When I wanted to play Grey Knights I found, that I couldn't use my existing "standard" marines to represent Grey Knights. At least not in a way that satisfied my own standards of clarity.
So I bought "proper" Grey Knights models to use in that army.
When it came to playing Space Wolves I made my own Thunderwolves/Beast Cavalry (from Blood Crushers).
Old WIP snap.
Those look great and are a great example of what I meant. If you tell someone that you are playing Space Wolves you know instantly what that unit is.
Another alternate option for Thunderwolves would be Mournfang, but yours looks very tasty indeed.
Umbros wrote: Those look great and are a great example of what I meant. If you tell someone that you are playing Space Wolves you know instantly what that unit is.
The paint serves to highlight detail, even if its a half assed crap paint job.
That is certainly true.....IF the person doing the painting makes it so.
(some IG I painted for a friend of mine)
I, on the other hand, have seen plenty of models painted in such a way that having left them unpainted would have made it easier to identify them.
Another good friend of mine paints his Orks in a camo scheme, with little to no details picked out, making his units look like big brown/green blobs.
My point is that, "paint makes it easier to identify the models" is a bad argument.
Umbros wrote: Those look great and are a great example of what I meant. If you tell someone that you are playing Space Wolves you know instantly what that unit is.
Why ? Clearly they are ThunderGrizzly Cavalry !
Actually, I know the limits of my own sculpting skills, and therefore call them my ThunderHamsters.
Eilif wrote: As anyone reading my posts on the subject will know, I come down on the side of painted. I'm part of a club for which our standard is to never put an unpainted model on the table. It's worked well for 4 years now. Lest you think us "elitist", know that we always keep painted models on hand for newbies and visitors. This allows us to always be open and welcoming while making sure that everyone knows that when they come to our bi-weekly game night, they are guaranteed to see nothing but the spectacle of painted models clashing on beautiful terrain.
tyrannosaurus wrote: Painting is a huge part of the hobby, suggesting it isn't is silly. Surely all of the painting competitions, books dedicated to painting, whole areas of forums dedicated to painting prove that?
They prove that painting is a part of some people's hobby. There is no such thing as 'THE hobby'.
This is the essential point of contention.
We can all agree that people approach "the hobby" of tabletop wargaming differently.
However, where I draw a line is holding to the fact that "the wargaming hobby" does have standards and certain things have always been part of wargaming. That people choosing to practice "their hobby" differently doesn't change the essential nature of the tabletop wargaming hobby itself.
From Kriegspiel and Little Wars (though this was fought on the floor) through the present day, wargaming has a long history of painted miniatures. There have always been folks who choose not to use painted models -though it's far more common in popular sci-fi and fantasy games than in historical- but that does not change the fact that the essential definition of the wargaming hobby includes the painted miniatures.
If you choose not to use painted miniatures, that's your business, but to pretend that paint is not part of "the hobby" is ridiculous. Consider the response one would get if they were to say that paint was not part of hobbies such as finescale modeling, classic car clubs, model railroading, etc. Every hobby has standards and ideals as dictated by tradition and history and wargaming is no different. They may be ignored on a personal level, but that does not negate them.
You used a lot of words to say "I think there are standards and people aren't meeting them by not painting their models".
But to address a few of your specific points...
but to pretend that paint is not part of "the hobby" is ridiculous.
No, insaniak (and I agree) was pointing out there is no "THE hobby".
Painting and wargaming, to me, are two separate hobbies that have overlap. There is no "THE hobby", I don't look down on people who paint models and never game with them and I don't see why anyone should look down on people who play the games but don't paint the models.
Every hobby has standards and ideals as dictated by tradition and history and wargaming is no different.
As long as I've been playing GW games, there have existing unpainted armies that people play with. Now, if we were talking historic gaming, you might have more of a point, and you know what, that tends to be slightly different because what tends to draw people to historic gaming is not only the "gaming" part but the "historic" part which lends itself to painting.
But there isn't really a tradition and history when it comes to 40k of exclusively painted models.
I read it last time we had this discussion 2 months ago. I dug up that old thread and will just quote what I said then...
Yep, I read it, it reads like a fluff piece for people who like to be obnoxious to people who want to enjoy the hobby in different ways. I find that article more obnoxious than unpainted miniatures, because it actively tells people they suck (not directly, but obviously it is implied). Let's pull out some quotes from that article:
"Those who don't choose to paint their models have a different approach to the hobby and it's just as valid as yours."
Balderdash, I say! Pish posh and poppycock!
So, you're imposing your own view of the hobby on others.
*a bunch of pointless analogies*
I was going to discuss each of those analogies in turn, but after doing 1 realised I was wasting my time. I'll just say the analogies aren't analogous and thus aren't useful.
But I don't ever expect to get the same kind of props or respect as someone who paints their miniatures to a higher standard any more than I would expect a best-painted award at a convention.
Except no one is asking for "props" for not painting models. They are asking not to be attacked, called lazy, told they aren't wargamers, told they're "doing it wrong".
and does no one any favors.
Balderdash, I say! Pish posh and poppycock!
It does a lot of people favours, it opens up wargaming to a far larger set of people. Yes, obviously having unpainted models in games has its bad points. So does telling a bunch of people "no, you aren't allowed to join my hobby unless you spend 50 hours doing something you don't want to do first".
And frankly I can make the same argument for crappily painted models. Yes, I'd prefer to play against painted models than unpainted models... but I'd just as equally (if not more) prefer to play against WELL painted models than crappily painted models. It benefits the hobby if everyone spends time on their models to make them look good instead of just roughly painting 3 colours on. We could just as equally say allowing poorly painted models do no one any favours because well painted models look better, make for a more overall entertaining game and the aesthetic is more appealing to onlookers. To me, the level of standards looks something like this....
1. Well Painted models
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
2. Extremely poorly painted models
- <-------------------------------------------Where you are placing your "hobby standard" to be considered wargaming
3. Unpainted models
-
-
-
4. Well painted/printed 2D standing cut outs
-
-
5. Flat tokens with a nice image on them
-
-
6. Flat tokens with names on them
Obviously I prefer to play against #1, but frankly I consider all of it "wargaming" and unpainted vs poorly painted is rather close in my personal opinion because I find poorly painted models as aesthetically jarring as unpainted ones (the only reason it's higher on the list is because I'm willing to give people an A for effort Otherwise they'd probably be on the same level).
Frankly, the only reason it would slightly grate me playing against #4 is admittedly I would find it annoying that someone spent almost no money to play the game when most people are suckered in to it by GW Realistically I'd be fine with it, I think aesthetically it would look fine and I know there's groups who play like that.
It must be written somewhere that units should have at least some coloration prior to fielding.
Dont most tournaments enforce this now? Anyones I've been too/seen certainly have.
If painting has no effect on the game mechanics/results why bother? (thats not a loaded question by the way - its a genuine query). Is it for purely visual gratification?
Eilif wrote: As anyone reading my posts on the subject will know, I come down on the side of painted. I'm part of a club for which our standard is to never put an unpainted model on the table. It's worked well for 4 years now. Lest you think us "elitist", know that we always keep painted models on hand for newbies and visitors. This allows us to always be open and welcoming while making sure that everyone knows that when they come to our bi-weekly game night, they are guaranteed to see nothing but the spectacle of painted models clashing on beautiful terrain.
tyrannosaurus wrote: Painting is a huge part of the hobby, suggesting it isn't is silly. Surely all of the painting competitions, books dedicated to painting, whole areas of forums dedicated to painting prove that?
They prove that painting is a part of some people's hobby. There is no such thing as 'THE hobby'.
This is the essential point of contention.
We can all agree that people approach "the hobby" of tabletop wargaming differently.
However, where I draw a line is holding to the fact that "the wargaming hobby" does have standards and certain things have always been part of wargaming. That people choosing to practice "their hobby" differently doesn't change the essential nature of the tabletop wargaming hobby itself.
From Kriegspiel and Little Wars (though this was fought on the floor) through the present day, wargaming has a long history of painted miniatures. There have always been folks who choose not to use painted models -though it's far more common in popular sci-fi and fantasy games than in historical- but that does not change the fact that the essential definition of the wargaming hobby includes the painted miniatures.
If you choose not to use painted miniatures, that's your business, but to pretend that paint is not part of "the hobby" is ridiculous. Consider the response one would get if they were to say that paint was not part of hobbies such as finescale modeling, classic car clubs, model railroading, etc. Every hobby has standards and ideals as dictated by tradition and history and wargaming is no different. They may be ignored on a personal level, but that does not negate them.
Please stop using the term wargaming in such a narrow manner, wargaming extends to anything that is a simulation of war, even video games. Tabletop wargaming would also include games such as Axis and Allies. I think the term you and people like Las are looking for is Miniatures Wargaming.
It must be written somewhere that units should have at least some coloration prior to fielding.
Dont most tournaments enforce this now? Anyones I've been too/seen certainly have.
If painting has no effect on the game mechanics/results why bother? (thats not a loaded question by the way - its a genuine query). Is it for purely visual gratification?
I've seen a lot of that. It's really harsh on me too, because when you have 5000 points and have to get them all to three colors even though you like to take things slow and do your best... it gets tricky.
It must be written somewhere that units should have at least some coloration prior to fielding.
Dont most tournaments enforce this now? Anyones I've been too/seen certainly have.
If painting has no effect on the game mechanics/results why bother? (thats not a loaded question by the way - its a genuine query). Is it for purely visual gratification?
Because visual gratification is important too. It's just not important enough to get your panties in a twist over people who want to play like that by insulting them by calling them lazy or not living up to certain standards or being elitist d-bags telling them they should admit they aren't true wargamers/hobbyists/whatevers.
Given the choice, I will play against a painted army rather than an unpainted army. But I won't try and attack someone's decision not to paint their models before playing with them.
I also prefer to play against WELL painted models rather than crappily painted models. This is why tournaments also frequently judge the visual quality of an army in addition to on-table performance.
SilverDevilfish wrote: [
Please stop using the term wargaming in such a narrow manner, wargaming extends to anything that is a simulation of war, even video games. Tabletop wargaming would also include games such as Axis and Allies. I think the term you and people like Las are looking for is Miniatures Wargaming.
Axis and Allies is a "board game" a term separate from Tabletop wargaming which widely synonymous with Miniature Wargaming. Though I do take your point that terms can be confused.
but to pretend that paint is not part of "the hobby" is ridiculous.
No, insaniak (and I agree) was pointing out there is no "THE hobby".
Painting and wargaming, to me, are two separate hobbies that have overlap. There is no "THE hobby", I don't look down on people who paint models and never game with them and I don't see why anyone should look down on people who play the games but don't paint the models.
Every hobby has standards and ideals as dictated by tradition and history and wargaming is no different.
As long as I've been playing GW games, there have existing unpainted armies that people play with. Now, if we were talking historic gaming, you might have more of a point, and you know what, that tends to be slightly different because what tends to draw people to historic gaming is not only the "gaming" part but the "historic" part which lends itself to painting.
But there isn't really a tradition and history when it comes to 40k of exclusively painted models.
A few points.
1) I mostly reject the idea that painting and waragming are separate hobbies. One does not need to paint their own figures (painting services, prepaiting, etc are options) but the history of wargaming clearly shows that painted miniatures have been a standard of the hobby since the beginning.
2) GW gaming is a sub-catagory, but it still falls under the wider hobby of Miniature Tabletop Wargaming.
3) A "Standard" does not imply complete (exclusive) compliance. Some GW gamers not painting does not change the essential yardstick/ideal/metric for the hobby as including painted models. Even the company itself promotes this. How many unpainted armies were ever featured in White Dwarf?
The metric and standards of the hobby have always included painting as an important ideal. Reject them if you will, but that doesn't mean they don't exist.
Eilif wrote: However, where I draw a line is holding to the fact that "the wargaming hobby" does have standards and certain things have always been part of wargaming. That people choosing to practice "their hobby" differently doesn't change the essential nature of the tabletop wargaming hobby itself.
Again, Squad Leader wasn't wargaming?
Is X-Wing not wargaming?
From Kriegspiel and Little Wars (though this was fought on the floor) through the present day, wargaming has a long history of painted miniatures. There have always been folks who choose not to use painted models -though it's far more common in popular sci-fi and fantasy games than in historical- but that does not change the fact that the essential definition of the wargaming hobby includes the painted miniatures.
No, it doesn't. It's the most popularized because - shock and awe - painted models look better than unpainted. So guess which ones are used for display images, etc?
If you choose not to use painted miniatures, that's your business, but to pretend that paint is not part of "the hobby" is ridiculous. Consider the response one would get if they were to say that paint was not part of hobbies such as finescale modeling, classic car clubs, model railroading, etc. Every hobby has standards and ideals as dictated by tradition and history and wargaming is no different. They may be ignored on a personal level, but that does not negate them.
See, the purpose of literally all of the hobbies you mentioned is to replicate something that does exist/used to exist. That means that you'd have to paint it or it's not really a replica.
The purpose of GW minis isn't to replicate anything, it's to play a game. Perhaps you've heard of it?
In sports, it's the better players who make the varsity team.
In music, it's the better musicians (or better promoted musicians) who get the gig.
In business, it's those who get results and profits who become executives.
Please, elaborate on how painting makes you better at "the hobby" than me. It only does if you define "the hobby" as including painting. I'm saying that there is no "the hobby". You have your hobby and I have mine.
It's possible - nay, likely - that they're different.
Because it's full of "I paint and therefore I'm better than you." It's literally what you said.
Still, I'm not so relativistic as to be willing to give some sort of tacit approval to those who don't paint and say that they're involvement in the hobby is just as good as mine. It's not, nor should we delude ourselves to think that it is so, simply for the sake of good feelings and avoiding offense.
It's not about "good feelings" or "avoiding offense". It's about understanding that different people are different and that there's no "the hobby". There's your hobby and mine. They're different. That's fine.
I work with computers for a living, and in my free time. That doesn't mean that someone who uses computers to only check email is a lesser person - it just means that they're different.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Eilif wrote: 1) I mostly reject the idea that painting and waragming are separate hobbies. One does not need to paint their own figures (painting services, prepaiting, etc are options) but the history of wargaming clearly shows that painted miniatures have been a standard of the hobby since the beginning.
This has been repeated over and over. Prove it.
There are countless counter-based wargames that you're literally throwing in the garbage with this statement.
VanHallan wrote: Sheer laziness to not paint your models, but all in all I guess I would say keep not painting so when you quit the hobby I can pick up your stuff on the cheap and not have to deal with stripping a jawbreaker of spray paint models that I've come across before.
Again, Squad Leader wasn't wargaming?
Is X-Wing not wargaming?
See, the purpose of literally all of the hobbies you mentioned is to replicate something that does exist/used to exist. That means that you'd have to paint it or it's not really a replica.
The purpose of GW minis isn't to replicate anything, it's to play a game. Perhaps you've heard of it?
In sports, it's the better players who make the varsity team.
In music, it's the better musicians (or better promoted musicians) who get the gig.
In business, it's those who get results and profits who become executives.
Please, elaborate on how painting makes you better at "the hobby" than me. It only does if you define "the hobby" as including painting. I'm saying that there is no "the hobby". You have your hobby and I have mine. It's possible - nay, likely - that they're different.
Because it's full of "I paint and therefore I'm better than you." It's literally what you said.
A few points.
-X wing is tabletop wargaming and it even uses painted miniatures. ASqL is a board wargame. Board/Chit Wargames are perfectly fine in theior own right and not what I am talking about. See my earlier post regarding terms.
-GW is not the first tabletop wargame game to replicate -perhaps "create" is a better term- something that does not exist. That is is based in fantasy has no bearing on painting-or-not.
-I reject the idea that painted figures are less or more important to tabletop wargaming than "playing the game" They're both parts of the same hobby.
-Regarding "better.. than me" note that in the same essay I rejected the idea that painting or choosing not to paint is a "moral" issue, it's simply a matter of those who bring painted models literally bringing "more" to the table. All other things being equal, if one player brings painted army and one brings unpainted, there's a clear hierarchy of who is "briniging more". Put even simpler, all other things being equal painted is better than unpainted.
-If you require a lesson in the history of wargaming and it's relation ship to painting, go to your library and check out (or interlibrary loan) every book you can about wargaming. From the HG wells playing with toy soldiers (which were all painted back then) to Featherstone/s books on wargaming in the era of wargaming-specific figures , every era of wargaming through the present has been painted. I'm surprised you even bothered to question the history of painting in wargaming.
Of course we're going to go round and round since you reject the idea that a hobby has objective standards of any sort, where as I believe that the hobby does have standards rooted in history and that those exist whether or not some folks choose to practice them all.
SilverDevilfish wrote: [
Please stop using the term wargaming in such a narrow manner, wargaming extends to anything that is a simulation of war, even video games. Tabletop wargaming would also include games such as Axis and Allies. I think the term you and people like Las are looking for is Miniatures Wargaming.
Axis and Allies is a "board game" a term separate from Tabletop wargaming which widely synonymous with Miniature Wargaming. Though I do take your point that terms can be confused.
Then maybe you should use the the terms Tabletop wargaming and Miniature wargaming exclusively since they seem to be what you're talking about instead of the more broad term wargaming. As someone that likes playing games such as Axis and Allies and even RTS games I get rather irked when it's implied I have to paint the pieces or... I dunno paint my computer?
I haven't read the rest of this thread is it seems the question has gone slightly off the point .... but simply all Models SHOULD be painted. It's sort of what they were designed for
I hate playing people who claim their black blob on the other side of the table is in fact a specialist assassin with sniper rifle (or a Hassassin lasiq with Viral sniper rifle to be exact) even when it clearly isn't when seen close up. Unpainted models don't help in the game, they are difficult to distinguish and don't add any character to games...... it's like playing on crappy felt tables with a book underneath and saying it's a hill !!!!
I have no problem playing unpainted models as long as people are actually clear about what they are and I can see them easily enough, however I'd never put a unpainted model on a table because I like to paint AND play. I however prefer games with decent scenery and panted models that make the game look good...... that way when I lose and the dice all turn against me I can still say it looked like a good game
Eilif wrote: -I reject the idea that painted figures are less or more important to tabletop wargaming than "playing the game" They're both parts of the same hobby.
No, they're not. They're multiple hobbies that some people conflate.
-Regarding "better.. than me" note that in the same essay I rejected the idea that painting or choosing not to paint is a "moral" issue, it's simply a matter of those who bring painted models literally bringing "more" to the table. All other things being equal, if one player brings painted army and one brings unpainted, there's a clear hierarchy of who is "briniging more". Put even simpler, all other things being equal painted is better than unpainted.
No, there's no "clear hierarchy". Neither one is bringing more, unless your opinion is that painted minis is what matters. Your "put even simpler..." moves the point from the person to the minis. Yes, painted minis look better than unpainted minis. That has nothing to do with the person bringing either one of them.
Of course we're going to go round and round since you reject the idea that a hobby has objective standards of any sort, where as I believe that the hobby does have standards rooted in history and that those exist whether or not some folks choose to practice them all.
Again no evidence to prove that there's been a decline in painting throughout the years - just an assurance that it's true.
And no - "a" hobby can have objective standards. Note that you then switched to "the hobby" with the assumption that it's a single thing incorporating everything you think is correct.
Start from scratch - your base point is that "It's always been this way so paint your stuff." Prove that point - that it's always been this way. Yes - it looks better. Yes - it draws people in. I don't believe that there's been any kind of serious decline in painting standards that would have to happen for your assumption to be true.
Then maybe you should use the the terms Tabletop wargaming and Miniature wargaming exclusively since they seem to be what you're talking about instead of the more broad term wargaming. As someone that likes playing games such as Axis and Allies and even RTS games I get rather irked when it's implied I have to paint the pieces or... I dunno paint my computer?
You are absolutely correct. Sorry about that. I in no way meant to demean board wargaming which itself has a long and storied history of it's own that goes back much further than miniature wargaming. Same to computer wargaming, which has it's own -if somewhat shorter- history.
I try to use specific terms, but sometimes begin abbreviating as I go along. I will endeavor to do better in the future. For anyone reading my previous posts, if you see "wargaming" by itself, (especially in regards to painting) it's probably a reference to "Tabletop Wargaming" and "Miniature Margaming".
Start from scratch - your base point is that "It's always been this way so paint your stuff." Prove that point - that it's always been this way. Yes - it looks better. Yes - it draws people in. I don't believe that there's been any kind of serious decline in painting standards that would have to happen for your assumption to be true.
Sorry, I must have been editing my previous post while you were typing this. Here you go:
-If you require a lesson in the history of wargaming and it's relation ship to painting, go to your library and check out (or interlibrary loan) every book you can about wargaming. From the HG wells playing with toy soldiers (which were all painted back then) to Featherstone/s books on wargaming in the era of wargaming-specific figures , every era of wargaming through the present has been painted. I'm surprised you even bothered to question the history of painting in wargaming.
Categorising games is a waste of time. Wargame, boardgame, tabletop game -the lines between these get blurry. Some people consider Heroscape a tabletop battle game, some don't. It's not important -the game is what it is.
Sorry, I must have been editing my previous post while you were typing this. Here you go:
-If you require a lesson in the history of wargaming and it's relation ship to painting, go to your library and check out (or interlibrary loan) every book you can about wargaming. From the HG wells playing with toy soldiers (which were all painted back then) to Featherstone/s books on wargaming in the era of wargaming-specific figures , every era of wargaming through the present has been painted. I'm surprised you even bothered to question the history of painting in wargaming.
So, like I said - painted models look better. So guess what appears in books that have pictures? Oh right - painted models.
I've never doubted that people used to paint models for miniature wargaming. I have doubted that there's some "rise" in the amount of unpainted armies, which is what would be required for your statement to be true.
rigeld2 wrote: I've never doubted that people used to paint models for miniature wargaming. I have doubted that there's some "rise" in the amount of unpainted armies, which is what would be required for your statement to be true.
I think i can vouch for the "rise" side. I personally believe it is linked with the decline of attention span in children. But just IMHO, and maybe just something local...
thegreatchimp wrote: Categorising games is a waste of time. Wargame, boardgame, tabletop game -the lines between these get blurry. Some people consider Heroscape a tabletop battle game, some don't. It's not important -the game is what it is.
I agree with this. It's a pretty pointless semantic debate trying to define what is a wargame, wargamer, board game, table top game, "the hobby". They're relative terms that you can shoehorn in to whatever definition you want to suit your argument.
rigeld2 wrote: I've never doubted that people used to paint models for miniature wargaming. I have doubted that there's some "rise" in the amount of unpainted armies, which is what would be required for your statement to be true.
I think i can vouch for the "rise" side. I personally believe it is linked with the decline of attention span in children. But just IMHO, and maybe just something local...
It's risen around this area mainly because the GW store was where a lot of games took place, they had a requirement to have 3 colours and based... they no longer have that requirement.
But that said, there were always unpainted armies... those people just didn't play at the local GW or they played with other armies instead of their own armies. I played a lot of games at the local GW, of the ones I didn't play against at the local GW, most all of them people would bring partially painted armies.
rigeld2 wrote: I've never doubted that people used to paint models for miniature wargaming. I have doubted that there's some "rise" in the amount of unpainted armies, which is what would be required for your statement to be true.
I think i can vouch for the "rise" side. I personally believe it is linked with the decline of attention span in children. But just IMHO, and maybe just something local...
Acendotal evidence isn't. :-)
I play historicals as well... and many other styles of miniature wargames. Unpainted minis exist in all of them. If we're having a big event that people want pictures of we don't allow unpainted minis. It's that simple.
1) I mostly reject the idea that painting and waragming are separate hobbies. One does not need to paint their own figures (painting services, prepaiting, etc are options) but the history of wargaming clearly shows that painted miniatures have been a standard of the hobby since the beginning.
2) GW gaming is a sub-catagory, but it still falls under the wider hobby of Miniature Tabletop Wargaming.
3) A "Standard" does not imply complete (exclusive) compliance. Some GW gamers not painting does not change the essential yardstick/ideal/metric for the hobby as including painted models.
You're just shoehorning terminology to fit your view point. I haven't been collecting 40k since the beginning, but I have been around it for about 20 years. In that time, there has ALWAYS been people playing with unpainted armies. So your "tradition and history" is bunk when it comes to 40k.
If you want to talk about the wider wargaming hobby... well then you're encompassing a whole heap of games ranging from ones where people typically always paint before playing (historics) games where people typically don't paint before playing at all and games where the models come prepainted (and sometimes people repaint them before playing )
This idea of creating a concept of "the hobby" where people paint then play is entirely your creating. It doesn't exist.
Even the company itself promotes this. How many unpainted armies were ever featured in White Dwarf?
As has been said...
1. Well painted models obviously look better than unpainted or poorly painted armies. Hence you use them in advertising. I've seen armies painted to a very low quality which I've not seen reproduced in White Dwarfs. Does this mean that we all need to be painting to White Dwarf standard to be considered as taking part in the hobby? Hells no.
2. I couldn't care less what GW intends or promotes. They've been so disconnected from the community for so long that what they do these days is largely irrelevant to me beyond the products they produce.
Reject them if you will, but that doesn't mean they don't exist.
They exist because you create them. I think there's a whole heap of "standards" ranging from playing with counters to playing with golden daemon winning armies... however to me there is no "minimum standard". The "minimum standard" exists because you create it. Some people call it 3 colours... personally I've seen so many crappily painted 3 colour armies that I don't think it's much of a standard at all.
Eilif wrote: As anyone reading my posts on the subject will know, I come down on the side of painted. I'm part of a club for which our standard is to never put an unpainted model on the table. It's worked well for 4 years now. Lest you think us "elitist", know that we always keep painted models on hand for newbies and visitors. This allows us to always be open and welcoming while making sure that everyone knows that when they come to our bi-weekly game night, they are guaranteed to see nothing but the spectacle of painted models clashing on beautiful terrain.
tyrannosaurus wrote: Painting is a huge part of the hobby, suggesting it isn't is silly. Surely all of the painting competitions, books dedicated to painting, whole areas of forums dedicated to painting prove that?
They prove that painting is a part of some people's hobby. There is no such thing as 'THE hobby'.
This is the essential point of contention.
We can all agree that people approach "the hobby" of tabletop wargaming differently.
However, where I draw a line is holding to the fact that "the wargaming hobby" does have standards and certain things have always been part of wargaming. That people choosing to practice "their hobby" differently doesn't change the essential nature of the tabletop wargaming hobby itself.
From Kriegspiel and Little Wars (though this was fought on the floor) through the present day, wargaming has a long history of painted miniatures. There have always been folks who choose not to use painted models -though it's far more common in popular sci-fi and fantasy games than in historical- but that does not change the fact that the essential definition of the wargaming hobby includes the painted miniatures.
If you choose not to use painted miniatures, that's your business, but to pretend that paint is not part of "the hobby" is ridiculous. Consider the response one would get if they were to say that paint was not part of hobbies such as finescale modeling, classic car clubs, model railroading, etc. Every hobby has standards and ideals as dictated by tradition and history and wargaming is no different. They may be ignored on a personal level, but that does not negate them.
So, like I said - painted models look better. So guess what appears in books that have pictures? Oh right - painted models.
I've never doubted that people used to paint models for miniature wargaming. I have doubted that there's some "rise" in the amount of unpainted armies, which is what would be required for your statement to be true.
if you insist on some sort of longitudinal study on painted miniature prevalence you're not going to find it. Demanding such isn't any more supportive of your position than mine and doesn't advance the conversation.
Anecdotal evidence is what we have. I can offer you my personal observations over about 20 years of being in the hobby and if you ask most older wargamers -especially those whose experience predates the popularity of warhammer- they'll tell you the same thing. There have always been some folks who don't paint all their figures, but there has been rise in the number (and acceptance in certain circles) of unpainted armies. Even more recent is the the wide use of completely unpainted armies by folks who seem to have no intention of ever painting them.
My theory is that this rise has been exacerbated by a few things.
1) Larger games with shifting rules: Games like 40k and WHFB require the purchase of HUGE numbers of miniatures to play at the level that most clubs play at, most of whom are just crammed with detail. This is a very large barrier to painting. It's been getting worse as these games grow in the number of figures required. When Rogue Trader required 15-30 figures per side a painted army was easy to field. When 3-7th edition scaled the game up to a 60-100 minis per side it becomes a much bigger hurdle.
2)Combo-driven games like WM use smaller numbers of minis in a given game, but encourage the player to buy nearly every model in a faction as soon as possible so as to have access to all the tools necessary to field a force designed defeat any specific opponent.
3) General laxity and decline in hobbies that require preparation. Hobby stores that sell model kits and the like have shrunk dramatically while video gaming -which requires no preparation- has skewed the expectations for the amount of preparation required to engage in "gaming" activities.
4) Game culture that is not as supportive of sharing. Building a wargaming force and writing a good "list" is such a personal process now, that loaning and borrowing of painted miniatures is not as appealing anymore. Compare this to the wargame environment of old (admittedly historical) where a club member wants to game a certain obscure period, so he paints up both sides and brings them to the club. The next week the same might play out but with different players bringing miniatures and those without sharing.
5) General societal trends toward individualism that place less empahsis on "community values". This is not entirely a bad thing, but it means that folks who would have been more likely to paint their figs to keep up with the club are less likely to do so and those who do paint are less likely to encourage/pressure/cajole their buddies into getting their figures painted.
So, like I said - painted models look better. So guess what appears in books that have pictures? Oh right - painted models. I've never doubted that people used to paint models for miniature wargaming. I have doubted that there's some "rise" in the amount of unpainted armies, which is what would be required for your statement to be true.
I can offer you my personal observations over about 20 years of being in the hobby though if you ask most older wargamers -especially those whose experience predates the popularity of warhammer- they'll all tell you the same thing. There have always been some folks who don't paint all their figures, but there has been rise in the number (and acceptance in certain circles) of unpainted armies.
My theory is that this rise has been exacerbated by a few things.
1) Larger games with shifting rules: Games like 40k and WHFB require the purchase of HUGE numbers of miniatures to play at the level that most clubs play at, most of whom are just crammed with detail. This is a very large barrier to painting. It's been getting worse as these games grow in the number of figures required. When Rogue Trader required 15-30 figures per side a painted army was easy to field. When 3-7th edition scaled the game up to a 60-100 minis per side it becomes a much bigger hurdle.
2)Combo-driven games like WM use smaller numbers of minis in a given game, but encourage the player to buy nearly every model in a faction as soon as possible so as to have access to all the tools necessary to field a force designed defeat any specific opponent.
3) General laxity and decline in hobbies that require preparation. Hobby stores that sell model kits and the like have shrunk dramatically while video gaming -which requires no preparation- has skewed the expectations for the amount of preparation required to engage in "gaming" activities.
4) Game culture that is not as supportive of sharing. Building a wargaming force and writing a good "list" is such a personal process now, that loaning and borrowing of painted miniatures is not as appealing anymore. Compare this to the wargame environment of old (admittedly historical) where a club member wants to game a certain obscure period, so he paints up both sides and brings them to the club. The next week the same might play out but with different players bringing miniatures and those without sharing.
5) General societal trends toward individualism that place less empahsis on "community values". This is not entirely a bad thing, but it means that folks who would have been more likely to paint their figs to keep up with the club are less likely to do so and those who do paint are less likely to encourage/pressure/cajole their buddies into getting their figures painted.
I think it is worth adding;
6) GW has limited the opportunities for their "3-colour" rule to be applied. Closing Battle Bunkers, opening 1-man stores, not running (a lot of) "sanctioned" tournaments, running the 'Ard Boyz events that specifically didn't require any painting.
This should give pause for thought. The company that birthed this hobby does seem to care less and less about painting.
NB. I should point out that I added 6) because I agree with you - I think that there has been a rise in unpainted armies. My last statement was merely an afterthought.
6) GW has limited the opportunities for their "3-colour" rule to be applied. Closing Battle Bunkers, opening 1-man stores, not running (a lot of) "sanctioned" tournaments, running the 'Ard Boyz events that specifically didn't require any painting.
This should give pause for thought. The company that birthed this hobby does seem to care less and less about painting.
And why should they ?
Honestly there are three separate things here:
1. Selling miniatures
2. Playing a strategy game
3. Enjoying painted and painting miniatures.
6) GW has limited the opportunities for their "3-colour" rule to be applied. Closing Battle Bunkers, opening 1-man stores, not running (a lot of) "sanctioned" tournaments, running the 'Ard Boyz events that specifically didn't require any painting.
This should give pause for thought. The company that birthed this hobby does seem to care less and less about painting.
And why should they ?
Honestly there are three separate things here:
1. Selling miniatures
2. Playing a strategy game
3. Enjoying painted and painting miniatures.
Morgoth, I think we are in agreement. Look at my previous statements in this thread.
I just happen to agree with the statement that there seems to have been a rise in unpainted armies.
I do not agree with that statement that people who don't paint their models are doing The Hobby "wrong".
So, like I said - painted models look better. So guess what appears in books that have pictures? Oh right - painted models. I've never doubted that people used to paint models for miniature wargaming. I have doubted that there's some "rise" in the amount of unpainted armies, which is what would be required for your statement to be true.
if you insist on some sort of longitudinal study on painted miniature prevalence you're not going to find it. Demanding such isn't any more supportive of your position than mine and doesn't advance the conversation.
Anecdotal evidence is what we have. I can offer you my personal observations over about 20 years of being in the hobby and if you ask most older wargamers -especially those whose experience predates the popularity of warhammer- they'll tell you the same thing. There have always been some folks who don't paint all their figures, but there has been rise in the number (and acceptance in certain circles) of unpainted armies. Even more recent is the the wide use of completely unpainted armies by folks who seem to have no intention of ever painting them.
My theory is that this rise has been exacerbated by a few things.
1) Larger games with shifting rules: Games like 40k and WHFB require the purchase of HUGE numbers of miniatures to play at the level that most clubs play at, most of whom are just crammed with detail. This is a very large barrier to painting. It's been getting worse as these games grow in the number of figures required. When Rogue Trader required 15-30 figures per side a painted army was easy to field. When 3-7th edition scaled the game up to a 60-100 minis per side it becomes a much bigger hurdle.
2)Combo-driven games like WM use smaller numbers of minis in a given game, but encourage the player to buy nearly every model in a faction as soon as possible so as to have access to all the tools necessary to field a force designed defeat any specific opponent.
3) General laxity and decline in hobbies that require preparation. Hobby stores that sell model kits and the like have shrunk dramatically while video gaming -which requires no preparation- has skewed the expectations for the amount of preparation required to engage in "gaming" activities.
4) Game culture that is not as supportive of sharing. Building a wargaming force and writing a good "list" is such a personal process now, that loaning and borrowing of painted miniatures is not as appealing anymore. Compare this to the wargame environment of old (admittedly historical) where a club member wants to game a certain obscure period, so he paints up both sides and brings them to the club. The next week the same might play out but with different players bringing miniatures and those without sharing.
5) General societal trends toward individualism that place less empahsis on "community values". This is not entirely a bad thing, but it means that folks who would have been more likely to paint their figs to keep up with the club are less likely to do so and those who do paint are less likely to encourage/pressure/cajole their buddies into getting their figures painted.
That's a nice argument on why numbers of unpainted armies might be on the rise... but in the end mostly irrelevant.
The fact is unpainted armies have always existed and that undermines the argument that we need to champion a standard of painted models in games based on historical importance.
Eilif wrote:Still, I'm not so relativistic as to be willing to give some sort of tacit approval to those who don't paint and say that they're involvement in the hobby is just as good as mine. It's not, nor should we delude ourselves to think that it is so, simply for the sake of good feelings and avoiding offense.
Just curious if you think this applies to other aspects of the hobby. For example those who never make conversions is they're involvement in the hobby less? What about those who never take the time to study competitive builds and play styles?
Eilif wrote:Still, I'm not so relativistic as to be willing to give some sort of tacit approval to those who don't paint and say that they're involvement in the hobby is just as good as mine. It's not, nor should we delude ourselves to think that it is so, simply for the sake of good feelings and avoiding offense.
Just curious if you think this applies to other aspects of the hobby. For example those who never make conversions is they're involvement in the hobby less? What about those who never take the time to study competitive builds and play styles?
I keep asking this very question every time this subject comes up.......I don't seem to get any answers.
Perhaps painting elitists have a blind spot when it comes to the shape of this particular combination of letters.
So, like I said - painted models look better. So guess what appears in books that have pictures? Oh right - painted models.
I've never doubted that people used to paint models for miniature wargaming. I have doubted that there's some "rise" in the amount of unpainted armies, which is what would be required for your statement to be true.
if you insist on some sort of longitudinal study on painted miniature prevalence you're not going to find it. Demanding such isn't any more supportive of your position than mine and doesn't advance the conversation.
Except you are basing everything you say on "It's always been this way."
Anecdotal evidence is what we have. I can offer you my personal observations over about 20 years of being in the hobby and if you ask most older wargamers -especially those whose experience predates the popularity of warhammer- they'll tell you the same thing. There have always been some folks who don't paint all their figures, but there has been rise in the number (and acceptance in certain circles) of unpainted armies. Even more recent is the the wide use of completely unpainted armies by folks who seem to have no intention of ever painting them.
As I said, I also play historical games with many different people. I've seen and played against unpainted armies in pretty much every game system I've played in. And these are guys who have literally never cracked a GW rule book. Most of the models eventually end up painted because, as I said, they like to do pictures and painted minis look good in pictures, but there have been unpainted armies many times.
Then maybe you should use the the terms Tabletop wargaming and Miniature wargaming exclusively since they seem to be what you're talking about instead of the more broad term wargaming. As someone that likes playing games such as Axis and Allies and even RTS games I get rather irked when it's implied I have to paint the pieces or... I dunno paint my computer?
You are absolutely correct. Sorry about that. I in no way meant to demean board wargaming which itself has a long and storied history of it's own that goes back much further than miniature wargaming. Same to computer wargaming, which has it's own -if somewhat shorter- history.
I try to use specific terms, but sometimes begin abbreviating as I go along. I will endeavor to do better in the future. For anyone reading my previous posts, if you see "wargaming" by itself, (especially in regards to painting) it's probably a reference to "Tabletop Wargaming" and "Miniature Margaming".
Start from scratch - your base point is that "It's always been this way so paint your stuff." Prove that point - that it's always been this way. Yes - it looks better. Yes - it draws people in. I don't believe that there's been any kind of serious decline in painting standards that would have to happen for your assumption to be true.
Sorry, I must have been editing my previous post while you were typing this. Here you go:
-If you require a lesson in the history of wargaming and it's relation ship to painting, go to your library and check out (or interlibrary loan) every book you can about wargaming. From the HG wells playing with toy soldiers (which were all painted back then) to Featherstone/s books on wargaming in the era of wargaming-specific figures , every era of wargaming through the present has been painted. I'm surprised you even bothered to question the history of painting in wargaming.
No problem at all. Now don't do what I did to someone that doesn't enjoy painting.
You didn't imagine this subject would foster such reactions?
A quick use of the Search function would have told you that. It is an oldie, but a goodie. Almost on par with Female Space Marines and Competitive vs Causal Gaming.
Eilif wrote:Still, I'm not so relativistic as to be willing to give some sort of tacit approval to those who don't paint and say that they're involvement in the hobby is just as good as mine. It's not, nor should we delude ourselves to think that it is so, simply for the sake of good feelings and avoiding offense.
Just curious if you think this applies to other aspects of the hobby. For example those who never make conversions is they're involvement in the hobby less? What about those who never take the time to study competitive builds and play styles?
It's a very good question. conversions have never been an essential-and-required part of the hobby. They have existed for a long time, but in wargaming circles they really became more prevalent with the advent of GW's multipart kits, (plastic and metal). It's not something that gauges whether someone is fully participating. That said, if you have two similarly painted models and one has a particularly well executed conversion, I have not problem saying that the conversion is the better model. All things being equal I have no problem acknowledging that someone with mad green stuff skills who paints better models than me is a better hobbyist.
They've taken the time to refine skills that I haven't deserve to be commended for doing so. As with the comparison between unpainted and painted, the player with extensive conversions (assuming they're done well) just brings "more" to the table.
"Builds and Playstyles" on the other hand are a phenomenon unique to GW, PP and similar types of games. They only matter within the context of competitive gaming. Of course those players are going to be "better competitive players" but it's not a concern that can be extended to all wargames.
So, like I said - painted models look better. So guess what appears in books that have pictures? Oh right - painted models.
I've never doubted that people used to paint models for miniature wargaming. I have doubted that there's some "rise" in the amount of unpainted armies, which is what would be required for your statement to be true.
if you insist on some sort of longitudinal study on painted miniature prevalence you're not going to find it. Demanding such isn't any more supportive of your position than mine and doesn't advance the conversation.
Except you are basing everything you say on "It's always been this way."
Anecdotal evidence is what we have. I can offer you my personal observations over about 20 years of being in the hobby and if you ask most older wargamers -especially those whose experience predates the popularity of warhammer- they'll tell you the same thing. There have always been some folks who don't paint all their figures, but there has been rise in the number (and acceptance in certain circles) of unpainted armies. Even more recent is the the wide use of completely unpainted armies by folks who seem to have no intention of ever painting them.
As I said, I also play historical games with many different people. I've seen and played against unpainted armies in pretty much every game system I've played in. And these are guys who have literally never cracked a GW rule book. Most of the models eventually end up painted because, as I said, they like to do pictures and painted minis look good in pictures, but there have been unpainted armies many times.
Note that I did not deny the presence of unpainted models in the past, rather I pointed out two things that indicate a long-standing acceptance of painting as a vital part of the hobby and a trend away from that.
1- Fewer painted models in the past.
2- More acceptance now of completely unpainted miniatures by people who have no intention of painting them.
Your observation supports this, especially when you say that most of these historical players' "models eventually end up painted…". That reflects a strong adherence to the tradition (supported by shiny books) of painting at least as an ideal to aspire too. This is in stark contrast to the trends today (especially among some GW and PP gamers) where you have lots of people openly stating that they don't paint their miniatures. It's the difference of before when the expectation that folks were working toward a painted army as compared to now, where more and more (though probably not anywhere near a majority) folks acquire miniatures without the expectation of them ever being painted.
painted, even badly, generaly looks better then a flat coat of primer, I'd rather you base the entire model and paint the gun ignoring detail if thats all you can do.
Oh christ well yes if you paint in a remarkably obscure way but in general any kind of differentiation as opposed to a mono colour is going to make details stand out.
Does that mean I've found a universal rule? No I'm sure you could find someone a big enough arse out there to make it not so.
But as a general rule I am entirely correct. A sea of grey or black makes it very hard to pick things out.
Eilif wrote: Note that I did not deny the presence of unpainted models in the past, rather I pointed out two things that indicate a long-standing acceptance of painting as a vital part of the hobby and a trend away from that.
1- Fewer painted models in the past.
2- More acceptance now of completely unpainted miniatures by people who have no intention of painting them.
1- Anecdotal at best.
2- How can there be more acceptance when, according to this thread, the majority still see painting as a requirement and deride those that choose not to paint?
Your observation supports this, especially when you say that most of these historical players' "models eventually end up painted…". That reflects a strong adherence to the tradition (supported by shiny books) of painting at least as an ideal to aspire too. This is in stark contrast to the trends today (especially among some GW and PP gamers) where you have lots of people openly stating that they don't paint their miniatures. It's the difference of before when the expectation that folks were working toward a painted army as compared to now, where more and more (though probably not anywhere near a majority) folks acquire miniatures without the expectation of them ever being painted.
Some of the historical players didn't bother painting - and no one forced them to. Instead, we opted not to use their armies for picture days.
You're not a better "hobbyist" because you paint and I don't. You're a better painter. And I'm okay with that.
Eilif wrote: It's a very good question. conversions have never been an essential-and-required part of the hobby. They have existed for a long time, but in wargaming circles they really became more prevalent with the advent of GW's multipart kits, (plastic and metal). It's not something that gauges whether someone is fully participating. That said, if you have two similarly painted models and one has a particularly well executed conversion, I have not problem saying that the conversion is the better model. All things being equal I have no problem acknowledging that someone with mad green stuff skills who paints better models than me is a better hobbyist.
They've taken the time to refine skills that I haven't deserve to be commended for doing so. As with the comparison between unpainted and painted, the player with extensive conversions (assuming they're done well) just brings "more" to the table.
Interesting. Thanks for taking the time to answer. I am pleased that you hold conversions up alongside painting when considering how to attribute hobby quality. I am not sure why you think that whether or not something has been part of war gaming for 1000 years, 100 years, 50 years or 10 years makes it more or less a part of the hobby. That sounds to me like you are deciding what thinks count and don't based on tradition. A standard which I find quite flawed.
Eilif wrote: "Builds and Playstyles" on the other hand are a phenomenon unique to GW, PP and similar types of games. They only matter within the context of competitive gaming. Of course those players are going to be "better competitive players" but it's not a concern that can be extended to all wargames.
I disagree with your assertion I'm afraid. The competitive aspect of war gaming is far, far older than painting or converting. Additionally I know that play styles and builds, movement choices, statistical familiarity and game/system mastery have all been a part of this hobby for a long time. Even by your standard of tradition these things are at the core of what it is to be a war gamer. I'd argue that no part of the war gaming hobby can be extended to all war gaming, as there are games under that umbrella for which, either currently or historically, that aspect does not apply. The only exception to this is play. Strategy, tactics and such are what make it a war game and not simply a collection of statuettes.
For this reason I'd say that whilst someone may love to model and paint and may be fantastic at it, if they never play they are not a war gamer, they are a collector (which is fine, awesome in fact if that's what you enjoy). For this reason by your metrics I'd argue that a person's play skill would have to weight equally with, or higher than the johnny come lately's of painting and converting.
For myself I don't think of people as being 'better' or 'worse' wargamers. As the primary purpose (currently, although not always historically) is enjoyment anyone having fun is the best wargamer possible. Saying that I recognise there are people objectively better at painting, modelling and playing than others and testing your skill in any arena by comparison can itself be fun and entirely valid. That make you better at x activity though, not a better hobbyist/wargamer.
So, like I said - painted models look better. So guess what appears in books that have pictures? Oh right - painted models.
I've never doubted that people used to paint models for miniature wargaming. I have doubted that there's some "rise" in the amount of unpainted armies, which is what would be required for your statement to be true.
if you insist on some sort of longitudinal study on painted miniature prevalence you're not going to find it. Demanding such isn't any more supportive of your position than mine and doesn't advance the conversation.
Except you are basing everything you say on "It's always been this way."
Anecdotal evidence is what we have. I can offer you my personal observations over about 20 years of being in the hobby and if you ask most older wargamers -especially those whose experience predates the popularity of warhammer- they'll tell you the same thing. There have always been some folks who don't paint all their figures, but there has been rise in the number (and acceptance in certain circles) of unpainted armies. Even more recent is the the wide use of completely unpainted armies by folks who seem to have no intention of ever painting them.
As I said, I also play historical games with many different people. I've seen and played against unpainted armies in pretty much every game system I've played in. And these are guys who have literally never cracked a GW rule book. Most of the models eventually end up painted because, as I said, they like to do pictures and painted minis look good in pictures, but there have been unpainted armies many times.
Note that I did not deny the presence of unpainted models in the past, rather I pointed out two things that indicate a long-standing acceptance of painting as a vital part of the hobby and a trend away from that.
1- Fewer painted models in the past.
2- More acceptance now of completely unpainted miniatures by people who have no intention of painting them.
Your observation supports this, especially when you say that most of these historical players' "models eventually end up painted…". That reflects a strong adherence to the tradition (supported by shiny books) of painting at least as an ideal to aspire too. This is in stark contrast to the trends today (especially among some GW and PP gamers) where you have lots of people openly stating that they don't paint their miniatures. It's the difference of before when the expectation that folks were working toward a painted army as compared to now, where more and more (though probably not anywhere near a majority) folks acquire miniatures without the expectation of them ever being painted.
I find this side discussion interesting in itself as I find the base assertion (that the tradition of the thing matters) to be specious. Why is it that you think the tradition of wargaming is relevant to assessing the validity of its current form. Every part of what you consider traditional started somewhere and, as I mentioned above, painting and modelling are far newer additions than the base of playing the game.
Eilif wrote: Consider the response one would get if they were to say that paint was not part of hobbies such as finescale modeling, classic car clubs, model railroading, etc.
I very strongly suspect that if someone was to say that they are into, say, restoring classic cars but only interested in doing the body work and they generally leave the painting to someone else, that nobody would bat an eye at it.
As for model railroading... I went to a local model railroad exhibition a couple of years ago. At least half of the setups on show used unaltered trains straight out of the box, and commercially-available scenery with little or no alteration. They've just glued everything together and laid down some flock. While there were some guys there who had done some conversion and repaint work, and some building scenery from scratch (and one guy building a loco completely from scratch out of brass, which was one of the most awesome things I have ever seen) it was far from being seen as a requirement to be a part of that hobby.
Painting does form a 'part' of those hobbies... but that doesn't make it a 'requirement' of those hobbies. Same thing here. Yes, many wargamers paint models. Many don't. You don't get to choose which of those groups are doing their hobby the 'right' way... You just get to choose which way you find more appealing.
Eilif wrote: It's a very good question. conversions have never been an essential-and-required part of the hobby. They have existed for a long time, but in wargaming circles they really became more prevalent with the advent of GW's multipart kits, (plastic and metal). It's not something that gauges whether someone is fully participating. That said, if you have two similarly painted models and one has a particularly well executed conversion, I have not problem saying that the conversion is the better model. All things being equal I have no problem acknowledging that someone with mad green stuff skills who paints better models than me is a better hobbyist.
They've taken the time to refine skills that I haven't deserve to be commended for doing so. As with the comparison between unpainted and painted, the player with extensive conversions (assuming they're done well) just brings "more" to the table.
Interesting. Thanks for taking the time to answer. I am pleased that you hold conversions up alongside painting when considering how to attribute hobby quality. I am not sure why you think that whether or not something has been part of war gaming for 1000 years, 100 years, 50 years or 10 years makes it more or less a part of the hobby. That sounds to me like you are deciding what thinks count and don't based on tradition. A standard which I find quite flawed.
That would indeed probably be the crux of our difference. Though Tradition is not infalible, I see it and history in general as a very valuable guide to the present.
Our perspectives are probably different, but let me share my point of view with you. It probably won't convince you of anything, but it might helpyou understand where I'm coming from.
I am so passionate about the value of painting is my observation of what the current trends in popular wargaming are leading to. I'm seeing what was once a hobby dedicated to "the spectacle of painted armies clashing on a beautiful tabletop" slowly turned into a boardgame where people spend exorbitant amounts of money for potentially beautiful models that will only ever see the table as colorless chits. I see folks taking a marvelous whole that combined artistic craftsmanship AND cunning tactics and dividing it up into separate parts that are each less magical on their own. I see standards that while not ever universally adhered to at least encouraged everyone to try harder and urged everyone's participation in ALL aspects of the hobby falling away in the name of "my hobby" , "my way", etc. All this while year by year, it seems that fewer and fewer of the figures at my FLGS are painted.
Perhaps this makes me merely a reactionary, but it's a reaction of on one who sees something beautiful becoming something less.
Eilif wrote: "Builds and Playstyles" on the other hand are a phenomenon unique to GW, PP and similar types of games. They only matter within the context of competitive gaming. Of course those players are going to be "better competitive players" but it's not a concern that can be extended to all wargames.
I disagree with your assertion I'm afraid. The competitive aspect of war gaming is far, far older than painting or converting. Additionally I know that play styles and builds, movement choices, statistical familiarity and game/system mastery have all been a part of this hobby for a long time. Even by your standard of tradition these things are at the core of what it is to be a war gamer. I'd argue that no part of the war gaming hobby can be extended to all war gaming, as there are games under that umbrella for which, either currently or historically, that aspect does not apply. The only exception to this is play. Strategy, tactics and such are what make it a war game and not simply a collection of statuettes.
For this reason I'd say that whilst someone may love to model and paint and may be fantastic at it, if they never play they are not a war gamer, they are a collector (which is fine, awesome in fact if that's what you enjoy). For this reason by your metrics I'd argue that a person's play skill would have to weight equally with, or higher than the johnny come lately's of painting and converting.
I think you are using "Builds and playsyles" beyond their definition.
First , Builds.
The popular idea that the miniatures in a game are determined individually by each player based on a complicated series of decisions about the effectiveness of each unit in synery with the other unit is a fairly recent addition to wargaming. Such games have existed for some time (HoTT comes to mind), but not in the majority. Previously, the miniatures that were used in a game were usually determined by the units that participated in the given military action the game was recreating, or by approximating the types of units a given force would have had access to in a given theater of war. There are still games of all types (even fantasy and sci-fi) that function this way, drawing the armies used from set army lists or from scenario guidelines.
The current trend in which players "build" an army in the same way that players "Build" a deck of MtG cards and with such building being as important as the game itself is not applicable to all wargaming.
Second, Playstyles.
I assume (though I could be wrong) that playstyles refers to certain predictable ways that a player uses his units within the current meta. This is again, something that is pretty linked to army builds and to games that have an active tournament scene.
Where I think we would agree is the study and application of strategy and tactics. This is something fairly universal to all games that can be learned and usually applied in-game. However, it's very different from the pre-game "Build-Phase" that has become so central to many popular wargames.
Eilif wrote: Consider the response one would get if they were to say that paint was not part of hobbies such as finescale modeling, classic car clubs, model railroading, etc.
I very strongly suspect that if someone was to say that they are into, say, restoring classic cars but only interested in doing the body work and they generally leave the painting to someone else, that nobody would bat an eye at it.
As for model railroading... I went to a local model railroad exhibition a couple of years ago. At least half of the setups on show used unaltered trains straight out of the box, and commercially-available scenery with little or no alteration. They've just glued everything together and laid down some flock. While there were some guys there who had done some conversion and repaint work, and some building scenery from scratch (and one guy building a loco completely from scratch out of brass, which was one of the most awesome things I have ever seen) it was far from being seen as a requirement to be a part of that hobby.
Painting does form a 'part' of those hobbies... but that doesn't make it a 'requirement' of those hobbies. Same thing here. Yes, many wargamers paint models. Many don't. You don't get to choose which of those groups are doing their hobby the 'right' way... You just get to choose which way you find more appealing.
As for cars and painting, I completely agree that the source of the painting is not the essential element. Note that in my arguments I've repeatedly said that painted can be self painted, machine painted, professionally painted, whatever, the point is that they are painted. The first wargaming figures in the modern era were toys soldiers that were purchased pre-painted.
Where your argument breaks down is if the person bondoed up their camaro but never had it painted his clubmates would definitely look sideways at that person.
The trains you mention are indeed painted or pre-painted,( though the scale involved generally has alot to do with whether the standard is for out-of-the-box or from a kit) or at least molded in several of the correct colors. The point is that they have color (usually paint), decals, and other details to create the sense of realism. You aren't going to see many uncolored (or monocolored, train cars with no livery details on a train layout. Do you really think people would go to see a train layout if all the buildings and trains and cars were the same plain white or grey plastic?
The point is that color/paint, whether self applied or otherwise is an essential part of both of those hobbies and to expect it to be part of wargaming is not unreasonable.
Eilif wrote: . The point is that they have color (usually paint), decals, and other details to create the sense of realism. You aren't going to see many uncolored (or monocolored, train cars with no livery details on a train layout. .
That's because the vast majority of them are sold already painted.
When wargaming miniatures are similarly sold painted, you tend to see a lot more painted miniatures on the table.
Eilif wrote: . The point is that they have color (usually paint), decals, and other details to create the sense of realism. You aren't going to see many uncolored (or monocolored, train cars with no livery details on a train layout. .
That's because the vast majority of them are sold already painted.
When wargaming miniatures are similarly sold painted, you tend to see a lot more painted miniatures on the table.
Yes they are, but the point is still the visual appeal and realism given to those models because they are. That appeal is lacking when there is no color.
A fair number of games are -and have been- sold painted, but folks still seem to flock to grey hordes.
So you issue is that you have chosen to play a game for which the gaming pieces are sold unpainted, and you just expect other gamers to make up for that lack in order to improve your own hobby experience?
Although we still come back to the 'how does someone else not painting their stuff affect your hobby in the slightest when you can just not play against them?'
jasper76 wrote: House rule at our gaming club: Painted models only, must be more than just a base coat.
I feel like this would drive players away. Why are new players expected to show up to play with painted armies? What about veterans who don't want/have time to paint? In an already small hobby, why are you driving people away?
jasper76 wrote: House rule at our gaming club: Painted models only, must be more than just a base coat.
I feel like this would drive players away. Why are new players expected to show up to play with painted armies? What about veterans who don't want/have time to paint? In an already small hobby, why are you driving people away?
Not my house, not my rules.
Actually though, it has helped get people into the hobby aspect of the game. The good painters in our club always help the newcomers out with painting their models if they need help.
insaniak wrote: So you issue is that you have chosen to play a game for which the gaming pieces are sold unpainted, and you just expect other gamers to make up for that lack in order to improve your own hobby experience?
Although we still come back to the 'how does someone else not painting their stuff affect your hobby in the slightest when you can just not play against them?'
That's exactly what I'm saying. Miniatures are meant to be painted and I have zero interest in pretending othewise. As for playing against them. I usually don't. My interest in encouraging higher standards is for what I see as the benefit of the hobby as a whole, though of course some will disagree.
jasper76 wrote: House rule at our gaming club: Painted models only, must be more than just a base coat.
I feel like this would drive players away. Why are new players expected to show up to play with painted armies? What about veterans who don't want/have time to paint? In an already small hobby, why are you driving people away?
Our whole club has the same rule, and if anything it's kept the club together for over 4 years now. We only meet every other week, but everyone knows that when they show up, they'll be treated to nothing but painted figures on nice terrain regardless of which member's home we meet at. That's kind of guarantee keeps people coming. We all have jobs, families, etc and our unofficial motto could be "life's too short to play with ugly minis".
It helps also that many of the games we play are skimish or platoon level, though we do some Company (aka "mass battle") games too. We keep it friendly and open by always being willing to provide painted figures to newbies, guests and even regulars who might not have quite the interest or time to paint up a force for a given game. We also sometimes get together to paint and we often trade projects which shares the load of painting horde armies or lets folks specialize in what they enjoy. I often build and paint terrain for others in exchange for them painting a unit for me.
jasper76 wrote: House rule at our gaming club: Painted models only, must be more than just a base coat.
I feel like this would drive players away. Why are new players expected to show up to play with painted armies? What about veterans who don't want/have time to paint? In an already small hobby, why are you driving people away?
Not my house, not my rules.
Actually though, it has helped get people into the hobby aspect of the game. The good painters in our club always help the newcomers out with painting their models if they need help.
Good to hear its helped you guys. My point is I just feel like this wouldn't always work out and people would feel pressured/obligated to have painted stuff.
Eilif wrote: That's exactly what I'm saying. Miniatures are meant to be painted and I have zero interest in pretending othewise.
And action figures are meant to be played with. Does that mean that the people who buy them and put them in a box with the rest of their collection are doing something wrong?
When it comes down to it, they ae HIS models to do with as he wants. I'd rather see plain grey out of the box than stupid schemes like the hello kitty marines (which a while back someone insisted did not exist).
Your first option is to find out WHY they arent painted. If it is laziness or lack of ability, there is nothing wrong with offering to help despite what the others here say. If the person with the grey marines doesnt care and you dont mind, forget about the guys in an online forum telling you you shouldnt.
If the guy just doesnt wan them painted, thats up to him. Like I said, at least they arent hello kitty or some of those that are so horrible they would look better unpainted. You know the ones I'm tlking about. So many layers of oil basd you can hardly tell what race the model is (yet, its "painted).
For pre-painted models... meh, some arent bad but ive also seen horribly prepainted ones where the paint machine was set wrong and the eyes were painted out of the sockets and the jacket paint on the legs ect. Personally, I'd rather do it myself or if using pre-painted ones, I'd hafta check them out ell beforehand to make sure they werent rejects.
"Builds and Playstyles" on the other hand are a phenomenon unique to GW, PP and similar types of games. They only matter within the context of competitive gaming. Of course those players are going to be "better competitive players" but it's not a concern that can be extended to all wargames.
There is no such thing as non-competitive gaming.
You either play, in which case you compete in an attempt to win, or you don't.
If you don't research builds and playstyles, it means you don't take playing seriously.
How do you feel about people who don't take painting seriously ?
Right, I thought so.
And guess what ? This is a game before being about miniatures. But then, there's no wrong way of hobbying so you're safe too.
2- How can there be more acceptance when, according to this thread, the majority still see painting as a requirement and deride those that choose not to paint?
Worse than that.
Even in competitive circles, which focus on the "game" aspect of the hobby, painting is mandatory (3colors+) and even often counts for some kind of points in all but the most competitive tournaments !
jasper76 wrote: House rule at our gaming club: Painted models only, must be more than just a base coat.
I feel like this would drive players away. Why are new players expected to show up to play with painted armies? What about veterans who don't want/have time to paint? In an already small hobby, why are you driving people away?
Yep. One of the ideas championed by people saying miniatures need to be painted is that "there's no downside to everyone painting their miniatures". Except a huge downside is people who can't get their miniatures painted in reasonable time. This is why the local GW dropped their "must be painted" rule, because they realised people were coming in month after month and having to borrow store armies as they weren't getting their own models painted before they quit and moved on.
When people say their club/group/store has a painting requirement and is strong, my mind tends to not go to the "strong" aspect and goes more to the "how many people are not playing who would be playing if that requirement wasn't there".
And I'm not necessarily saying you shouldn't have painting requirements at clubs/tournaments, I understand the desire to maintain a nice aesthetic. But I don't think people should so casually shrug off people who don't paint, and certainly not get to the point of insulting them by calling them lazy or tell them they aren't meeting some all encompassing "hobby standard" that you invented.
I will also say, even without a painting requirement, it's not a slippery slope... we haven't had a painting requirement at our local store for many years and there's still lots of people who have painted awesome armies.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
EVIL INC wrote: When it comes down to it, they ae HIS models to do with as he wants. I'd rather see plain grey out of the box than stupid schemes like the hello kitty marines (which a while back someone insisted did not exist).
Your first option is to find out WHY they arent painted. If it is laziness or lack of ability, there is nothing wrong with offering to help despite what the others here say. If the person with the grey marines doesnt care and you dont mind, forget about the guys in an online forum telling you you shouldnt.
If the guy just doesnt wan them painted, thats up to him. Like I said, at least they arent hello kitty or some of those that are so horrible they would look better unpainted. You know the ones I'm tlking about. So many layers of oil basd you can hardly tell what race the model is (yet, its "painted).
For pre-painted models... meh, some arent bad but ive also seen horribly prepainted ones where the paint machine was set wrong and the eyes were painted out of the sockets and the jacket paint on the legs ect. Personally, I'd rather do it myself or if using pre-painted ones, I'd hafta check them out ell beforehand to make sure they werent rejects.
I feel you indirectly hit on one of my points.
Even if you want to maintain standards, "painted vs unpainted" is still an arbitrary standard, it's not...
a) Universally true that painted is better than unpainted.
b) Universally true that painted vs unpainted is the only standard or even the best standard to which we need to hold this imaginary "the hobby".
It wasnt inadvertant at all. I haveseen "painted" armies thaaaaaaat were horrible. Saw in another posssst herere someone found a model from a apainted army and they literally ad to post a pictre of it asking what it was. Sad part I couldnt tell if it was supposed to be aaaaaa mmmmmmmaaaarine or an ork.Heck, I win competitions for painting NOW but looking back on my earlier models, I'd be ashamed to take them to a table because unpainted would look better.
Some of the "bad idea" paint jobs can be embarrassing as well. I know I'm stepping on someone's toes here because I was told these armies did not exist and were impossible, but I've seen hello kitty marines, Nazi themed armies, slannesh armies that would make a porn star blush and even armies bade to look like smurfs with mushroom house drop pods and marines based on football teams. I'd rather play grey marines than those.
To me, yes a well painted army is generally more fun to play against and I enjoy hearing stories explaining uniuqe schemes and explaining mine. But at the end of the day, it is about playing a game with good people whose company you enjoy creating an imaginary story usuing rules and models. I'd rather play a buddy in a friendly game than a jerk with a golden daemon sword winning army.
Of course, playing my budy with both of us using well painted armies would be best for me which is why Ifind out why it isnt painted and refer to my earlier post. I've painted armies that werent mine just to help a buddy out and given painted armies away to them for the same reason, to keep them "in the family" and make sure they have a painted army.
I've seen things you people wouldn't believe. A rhino tank with paint so thick that rockets bounced harmlessly from it. I've encountered a guardsman with no face, just an oozing slab of...paint. And colour schemes so terrible that even a grey knight would go insane looking at them.
Give me an opponent with a bare plastic army rather than endure such sights again.
"Builds and Playstyles" on the other hand are a phenomenon unique to GW, PP and similar types of games. They only matter within the context of competitive gaming. Of course those players are going to be "better competitive players" but it's not a concern that can be extended to all wargames.
There is no such thing as non-competitive gaming.
You either play, in which case you compete in an attempt to win, or you don't.
If you don't research builds and playstyles, it means you don't take playing seriously.
How do you feel about people who don't take painting seriously ?
Right, I thought so.
And guess what ? This is a game before being about miniatures. But then, there's no wrong way of hobbying so you're safe too.
Apparently you didn't read my post 11 posts above yours. Do that first. It will answer all your questions about my stance and clarify how "Build and Playstyle" relate only to certain games, while "Strategy and Tactics" are universal.
Eilif wrote: That's exactly what I'm saying. Miniatures are meant to be painted and I have zero interest in pretending othewise.
And action figures are meant to be played with. Does that mean that the people who buy them and put them in a box with the rest of their collection are doing something wrong?
And seatbelts are made to be worn, but some people don't. Some people kick Basketballs.
See, I can drag the conversation off topic with unrelated examples too!
thegreatchimp wrote: I've seen things you people wouldn't believe. A rhino tank with paint so thick that rockets bounced harmlessly from it. I've encountered a guardsman with no face, just an oozing slab of...paint. And colour schemes so terrible that even a grey knight would go insane looking at them..
One of the old-timers at the first gaming club I joined used to tell of a player who, in order to meet the 3-colour requirement for thier local tournies, had sprayed his models white, and then dipped their heads into a pot of blue paint, and their feet into a pot of red.
(And for the record, that was 20 years ago... People being unwilling to paint their models is not a new thing.)
thegreatchimp wrote: I've seen things you people wouldn't believe. A rhino tank with paint so thick that rockets bounced harmlessly from it. I've encountered a guardsman with no face, just an oozing slab of...paint. And colour schemes so terrible that even a grey knight would go insane looking at them..
One of the old-timers at the first gaming club I joined used to tell of a player who, in order to meet the 3-colour requirement for thier local tournies, had sprayed his models white, and then dipped their heads into a pot of blue paint, and their feet into a pot of red.
Actually, let the non-painters live. I paint mine and won an Ork Bommer for me boyz for Best Painted (my Dark Eldar) at a tourney.
And they only give you those prizes if ALL your figs are painted.
thegreatchimp wrote: I've seen things you people wouldn't believe. A rhino tank with paint so thick that rockets bounced harmlessly from it. I've encountered a guardsman with no face, just an oozing slab of...paint. And colour schemes so terrible that even a grey knight would go insane looking at them..
One of the old-timers at the first gaming club I joined used to tell of a player who, in order to meet the 3-colour requirement for thier local tournies, had sprayed his models white, and then dipped their heads into a pot of blue paint, and their feet into a pot of red.
France Marines!
With red heads and blue feet they'd be from the Netherlands.
If the dude who did them was Dutch, then mad props to him for that
thegreatchimp wrote: I've seen things you people wouldn't believe. A rhino tank with paint so thick that rockets bounced harmlessly from it. I've encountered a guardsman with no face, just an oozing slab of...paint. And colour schemes so terrible that even a grey knight would go insane looking at them..
One of the old-timers at the first gaming club I joined used to tell of a player who, in order to meet the 3-colour requirement for thier local tournies, had sprayed his models white, and then dipped their heads into a pot of blue paint, and their feet into a pot of red.
France Marines!
With red heads and blue feet they'd be from the Netherlands.
If the dude who did them was Dutch, then mad props to him for that
Maybe they were laying down in surrender?
Bad jokes at the expense of the French aside, there's a lot of projecting around this topic. Someone likes seeing their army painted and therefore expect others to reciprocate. Personally I don't care if my opponent paints or not. It's your army, do what you like with it, you spent enough $$$ I'm sure. Having just started Imperial Guard I'm going to be spending quite some time getting everything done, for someone to deny me a game for the year or more it will take me to finish seems stupid and somewhat selfish to me.
I painted up 750 points of space marines before I went into the flgs. O thought people would laugh or not want to play me if I went in with unpainted models.
Interestingly enough....the guy I was playing was playing with half painted models and grey stuff lol
I just like what a fully painted army looks like on the table. Problem is I've stepped away from 40k at my flgs (rarely played there anyways) but now I play fantasy. I play Skaven and my 2500 point standard list has about 200 models so its a lot to paint. I have all the big stuff painted tho and enough clanrats/slaves that it doesn't look bad on the table.
A fully painted and ranked up fantasy army looks great and most players in my area have great looking fully painted armies
Players who don't play as competitive as possible, who bring units just because they like their look, who don't understand the reason between spacing models at maximum coherency, those who can't grasp what a denied flank deployment is, those who can't bubble-wrap against deep-strikers really ruin the game for me and should just stop playing Warhammer40k. If they are so much into looks and models, they should start collecting model trains or something. If they are not playing the game right, they are worthless members of the community and should sell their armies.
I hate it when one of those fluff-bunnies wastes my game time and tosses away all chances of winning by fielding an army like tyranids or sisters of battle instead of eldar. And then they use all those lazy excuses like "I wanted to try something new.", "I simply like the aesthetics of that army", "I don't like allies", "I've been collecting this army for 20 years now" or the worst "I don't have anything else painted yet". Who cares if your marines are colored black and white and used to have a codex? If you even consider picking the Black Templars chapter tactics, you're in the wrong hobby. It's wargaming for Christ's sake, not warlooking-at-models-I-like-while-having-beer-and-pretzels.
If you aren't a good player, that's ok, at least copy a netlist from BLOS or something. Just don't bring stupid stuff like thousand sons or flayers, you might as well not play at all. In the mean time, I expect you to spend all your free time on reading tactics forums and playing practice games and you should refuse to play against anyone who isn't bringing at least a decently powerful list. I can live with a new player starting out chaos space marines or something, but by the time they have a couple of games under their belt, I fully expect them to change over to eldar or at least tau. If you are not playing one of the top three armies, you are worse hobbyist than me, and you should feel bad. You are actively ruining other people's games by being too lazy to learn tactics and buy a good army.
To me, someone who brings a bad or fluffy army is just as bad as someone who hasn't showered in days.
The amount of effort you put in to making a sarcastic post is quite impressive... I spent most the time reading it thinking you were meaning to post it in the "Why do people always equate competitive play with tournament lists?" thread
This discussion comes up from time to time, as do other discussions on this board that relate to annoying people that enjoy this hobby. One group of people that this community seems to find annoying are people with BO. Another group have been named as little Timmys and they tend to annoy people with screaming. There are other catagories of annoying players that have also been described in these forums, such as the table flipping guy, a sub catagory of the infamous tfg.
The point is all these different behaviors exist on a spectrum. Unpainted armies exist within this spectrum. Where we all choose to put them is up to us as individuals. When l see an unpainted army l am reminded of this spectrum that exists in wargaming communities.
Radiation wrote: This discussion comes up from time to time, as do other discussions on this board that relate to annoying people that enjoy this hobby. One group of people that this community seems to find annoying are people with BO. Another group have been named as little Timmys and they tend to annoy people with screaming. There are other catagories of annoying players that have also been described in these forums, such as the table flipping guy, a sub catagory of the infamous tfg.
The point is all these different behaviors exist on a spectrum. Unpainted armies exist within this spectrum. Where we all choose to put them is up to us as individuals. When l see an unpainted army l am reminded of this spectrum that exists in wargaming communities.
The thing about those other things you mentioned... they are personal traits.
BO is an issue of personal hygiene.
"Little Timmy" is a kid being obnoxious.
An unpainted army has very little to do with a flaw in the actual person. I've played against unpainted armies played by awesome dudes who are heaps of fun to play. Oddly enough, one of the best painted armies I've played against, a Lizardmen army who I played against with my Brets, was played by a total d-bag.
Unpainted armies aren't as good as painted armies... yeah... but it's not even in the same ballpark as people who are legitimately obnoxious, at least not for me.
I don't object to a non painted army. As long as the person across from me is a good sport and makes the game enjoyable, then a sea of grey is not really a problem. Hell, in 20 years of playing table top war games I have very rarely fielded an entirely painted army
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Jidmah wrote: Players who don't play as competitive as possible, who bring units just because they like their look, who don't understand the reason between spacing models at maximum coherency, those who can't grasp what a denied flank deployment is, those who can't bubble-wrap against deep-strikers really ruin the game for me and should just stop playing Warhammer40k. If they are so much into looks and models, they should start collecting model trains or something. If they are not playing the game right, they are worthless members of the community and should sell their armies.
I hate it when one of those fluff-bunnies wastes my game time and tosses away all chances of winning by fielding an army like tyranids or sisters of battle instead of eldar. And then they use all those lazy excuses like "I wanted to try something new.", "I simply like the aesthetics of that army", "I don't like allies", "I've been collecting this army for 20 years now" or the worst "I don't have anything else painted yet". Who cares if your marines are colored black and white and used to have a codex? If you even consider picking the Black Templars chapter tactics, you're in the wrong hobby. It's wargaming for Christ's sake, not warlooking-at-models-I-like-while-having-beer-and-pretzels.
If you aren't a good player, that's ok, at least copy a netlist from BLOS or something. Just don't bring stupid stuff like thousand sons or flayers, you might as well not play at all. In the mean time, I expect you to spend all your free time on reading tactics forums and playing practice games and you should refuse to play against anyone who isn't bringing at least a decently powerful list. I can live with a new player starting out chaos space marines or something, but by the time they have a couple of games under their belt, I fully expect them to change over to eldar or at least tau. If you are not playing one of the top three armies, you are worse hobbyist than me, and you should feel bad. You are actively ruining other people's games by being too lazy to learn tactics and buy a good army.
To me, someone who brings a bad or fluffy army is just as bad as someone who hasn't showered in days.
insaniak wrote: So you issue is that you have chosen to play a game for which the gaming pieces are sold unpainted, and you just expect other gamers to make up for that lack in order to improve your own hobby experience?
Although we still come back to the 'how does someone else not painting their stuff affect your hobby in the slightest when you can just not play against them?'
That's not a "lack" that's what the product is supposed to be. Bottom line is they're sold unpainted for a reason. Thinking it's weird that people don't paint them is perfectly valid. The back of every box says "models require painting and assembly." It is in no way a lack or fault of the manufacturer, in fact it's part of what you paid for.
Why would you pay a premium on a product that you consider lacking? Why not just play a prepainted game if painting bothers you so much? It seriously boggles my mind how you people decided to drop hundreds of dollars to get into a hobby in which you hated the thing that draws most people to it and makes it stand out the most from other pastimes (it's aesthetic value)
That's not a "lack" that's what the product is supposed to be. Bottom line is they're sold unpainted for a reason. Thinking it's weird that people don't paint them is perfectly valid. The back of every box says "models require painting and assembly."
Why would you pay a premium on a product that you consider lacking? Why not just play a prepainted game if painting bothers you so much? It seriously boggles my mind how you people decided to drop hundreds of dollars to get into a hobby in which you hated the thing that draws most people to it and makes it stand out the most from other pastimes (it's aesthetic value)
Firstly, packets of cigarettes regularly have 'Smoking Kills' or some other such dire warning. That doesn't stop people from smoking though does it? So if you were a slave to everything you read on a box, what kind of life would you have?
Secondly, "You people"? If you don't play 40k, as that statement implies, then why are you posting in this thread?
Got any numbers to back up that statement of yours?
Because if that is another one of your personal experience type of things, I can just contra-pose my own that I never met anyone that got into 40k because of the possibility to paint miniatures, everyone that I've ever met in this hobby has started it either because they liked the background or the game aspect of it.
Las wrote: Thinking it's weird that people don't paint them is perfectly valid.
Understanding why people like something is not a prerequisite for respecting that they like something.
Why would you pay a premium on a product that you consider lacking?
Because of the 40k universe, because of the game, because friends play it.
Why not just play a prepainted game if painting bothers you so much?
It bothers "you" so much, not the people who are playing with them.
It seriously boggles my mind how you people decided to drop hundreds of dollars to get into a hobby in which you hated the thing that draws most people to it and makes it stand out the most from other pastimes (it's aesthetic value)
It seriously boggles my mind that it boggles your mind that you can't accept someone likes something for a reason different to the reason you like it
Got any numbers to back up that statement of yours?
Because if that is another one of your personal experience type of things, I can just contra-pose my own that I never met anyone that got into 40k because of the possibility to paint miniatures, everyone that I've ever met in this hobby has started it either because they liked the background or the game aspect of it.
Got any numbers to disprove me? Everything in this discussion is anecdotal.
That's not a "lack" that's what the product is supposed to be. Bottom line is they're sold unpainted for a reason. Thinking it's weird that people don't paint them is perfectly valid. The back of every box says "models require painting and assembly."
Why would you pay a premium on a product that you consider lacking? Why not just play a prepainted game if painting bothers you so much? It seriously boggles my mind how you people decided to drop hundreds of dollars to get into a hobby in which you hated the thing that draws most people to it and makes it stand out the most from other pastimes (it's aesthetic value)
Firstly, packets of cigarettes regularly have 'Smoking Kills' or some other such dire warning. That doesn't stop people from smoking though does it? So if you were a slave to everything you read on a box, what kind of life would you have?
Secondly, "You people"? If you don't play 40k, as that statement implies, then why are you posting in this thread?
No, what your referencing is a warning for the harmful side effects of smoking, not the intended effect of the cigarette. That would be analogous to the age suggestion on your model kit which warns about the choking hazards of small objects to infants and very young children.
Again, it's not about doing or not doing, or right or wrong. It's about defining what the hobby is. People get their panties in a squeeze because for whatever reason they can't admit there's a pillar of 40k they either don't care for or are too lazy to do. I have no idea why. Just say "I don't like painting" instead of "painting has nothing to do with 40k". It's ridiculous.
Yeah I do play 40k. By "you people" I mean people who think painting has nothing to do with 40k and that it's some kind of extra side thing, unlike building and playing, which are apparently the only things fundamental to the hobby.
Yeah I do play 40k. By "you people" I mean people who think painting has nothing to do with 40k and that it's some kind of extra side thing, unlike building and playing, which are apparently the only things fundamental to the hobby.
A good term for people that just want to play a game is gamers, when you say "you people" it comes off as a derogatory term you're using to try to dodge the forum rules.
Las wrote: That would imply that people who enjoy all aspects of the hobby are not gamers.
If you enjoy playing the game you are a gamer, If you enjoy painting your a painter, If you enjoy modeling your a modeler. If you enjoy all 3, then you are all 3 of these.
How in the name of Russ did this thread get to smoking warning on cigarette packets? No actiually I don't know want to know.
I don't know what the general consensus is but 40k isn't my life, it's something I partake in to get away from the seriousness of life. I'm surprised at how absolute some posters are in their views on how the hobby "should be."
Jidmah wrote: Players who don't play as competitive as possible, who bring units just because they like their look, who don't understand the reason between spacing models at maximum coherency, those who can't grasp what a denied flank deployment is, those who can't bubble-wrap against deep-strikers really ruin the game for me and should just stop playing Warhammer40k. If they are so much into looks and models, they should start collecting model trains or something. If they are not playing the game right, they are worthless members of the community and should sell their armies.
I hate it when one of those fluff-bunnies wastes my game time and tosses away all chances of winning by fielding an army like tyranids or sisters of battle instead of eldar. And then they use all those lazy excuses like "I wanted to try something new.", "I simply like the aesthetics of that army", "I don't like allies", "I've been collecting this army for 20 years now" or the worst "I don't have anything else painted yet". Who cares if your marines are colored black and white and used to have a codex? If you even consider picking the Black Templars chapter tactics, you're in the wrong hobby. It's wargaming for Christ's sake, not warlooking-at-models-I-like-while-having-beer-and-pretzels.
If you aren't a good player, that's ok, at least copy a netlist from BLOS or something. Just don't bring stupid stuff like thousand sons or flayers, you might as well not play at all. In the mean time, I expect you to spend all your free time on reading tactics forums and playing practice games and you should refuse to play against anyone who isn't bringing at least a decently powerful list. I can live with a new player starting out chaos space marines or something, but by the time they have a couple of games under their belt, I fully expect them to change over to eldar or at least tau. If you are not playing one of the top three armies, you are worse hobbyist than me, and you should feel bad. You are actively ruining other people's games by being too lazy to learn tactics and buy a good army.
To me, someone who brings a bad or fluffy army is just as bad as someone who hasn't showered in days.
Someone who'd post something like this seriously would get murdered on these forums. Why is it ok for people to act like this about painting?
…?
People who don't play competitively are still playing the game. People who don't paint… uh don't paint. You see how that's a false equivalency right?
What you wrote would make sense if this was a thread where people were complaining about bad painters who don't highlight/wash/wet-blend/whatever. But it isn't.
Jidmah wrote: Players who don't play as competitive as possible, who bring units just because they like their look, who don't understand the reason between spacing models at maximum coherency, those who can't grasp what a denied flank deployment is, those who can't bubble-wrap against deep-strikers really ruin the game for me and should just stop playing Warhammer40k. If they are so much into looks and models, they should start collecting model trains or something. If they are not playing the game right, they are worthless members of the community and should sell their armies.
I hate it when one of those fluff-bunnies wastes my game time and tosses away all chances of winning by fielding an army like tyranids or sisters of battle instead of eldar. And then they use all those lazy excuses like "I wanted to try something new.", "I simply like the aesthetics of that army", "I don't like allies", "I've been collecting this army for 20 years now" or the worst "I don't have anything else painted yet". Who cares if your marines are colored black and white and used to have a codex? If you even consider picking the Black Templars chapter tactics, you're in the wrong hobby. It's wargaming for Christ's sake, not warlooking-at-models-I-like-while-having-beer-and-pretzels.
If you aren't a good player, that's ok, at least copy a netlist from BLOS or something. Just don't bring stupid stuff like thousand sons or flayers, you might as well not play at all. In the mean time, I expect you to spend all your free time on reading tactics forums and playing practice games and you should refuse to play against anyone who isn't bringing at least a decently powerful list. I can live with a new player starting out chaos space marines or something, but by the time they have a couple of games under their belt, I fully expect them to change over to eldar or at least tau. If you are not playing one of the top three armies, you are worse hobbyist than me, and you should feel bad. You are actively ruining other people's games by being too lazy to learn tactics and buy a good army.
To me, someone who brings a bad or fluffy army is just as bad as someone who hasn't showered in days.
Someone who'd post something like this seriously would get murdered on these forums. Why is it ok for people to act like this about painting?
…?
People who don't play competitively are still playing the game. People who don't paint… uh don't paint. You see how that's a false equivalency right?
What you wrote would make sense if this was a thread where people were complaining about bad painters who don't highlight/wash/wet-blend/whatever. But it isn't.
No, what your referencing is a warning for the harmful side effects of smoking, not the intended effect of the cigarette. That would be analogous to the age suggestion on your model kit which warns about the choking hazards of small objects to infants and very young children.
Again, it's not about doing or not doing, or right or wrong. It's about defining what the hobby is. People get their panties in a squeeze because for whatever reason they can't admit there's a pillar of 40k they either don't care for or are too lazy to do. I have no idea why. Just say "I don't like painting" instead of "painting has nothing to do with 40k". It's ridiculous.
Yeah I do play 40k. By "you people" I mean people who think painting has nothing to do with 40k and that it's some kind of extra side thing, unlike building and playing, which are apparently the only things fundamental to the hobby.
Actually, it's not instructions, it's a legal disclaimer. It prevents people buying and starting a civil action against GW under 'misleading advertisement'. Similar reason to why bags of nuts say 'Warning. Contains Nuts'.
I paint slowly, for a number of reasons, but I paint to a decent standard when I have the time. If someone were to tell me that I wasn't a proper hobbyist because my army wasn't completely painted, something unfortunate would happen. I'll be damned if I let some jumped up ....... tell me that I'm 'doing the hobby wrong'. I'm all for people having their own opinion, but keep it to yourself if it's something along those lines.
I also have to agree with the sentiment that this is a small enough hobby as it is. Why are you acting in a fashion that is quite likely to turn someone off it?
Where did I say anyone was doing the hobby wrong? All I've said and continue to say is that painting is part of the hobby. Whether or not you choose to partake in that is up to you. I'm refuting the idea that painting has nothing to do with 40k, nothing more.
insaniak wrote: [quote=thegreatchimp 618783 7285439 03456f1e9b3a4cd86b020f4e2cb3538c.jpg
One of the old-timers at the first gaming club I joined used to tell of a player who, in order to meet the 3-colour requirement for thier local tournies, had sprayed his models white, and then dipped their heads into a pot of blue paint, and their feet into a pot of red.)
Baha! That is pushing the limits to be sure. Reminds me of a lad I gamed who bought an old D&D led figure called "the Black Bear," and yep you guesssed, he dipped it into Humbrol enamal black and put it straight out onto the battlefield! And then had the bad sense to ask if we thought it was good...
Las wrote: Where did I say anyone was doing the hobby wrong? All I've said and continue to say is that painting is part of the hobby. Whether or not you choose to partake in that is up to you. I'm refuting the idea that painting has nothing to do with 40k, nothing more.
Don't be so defensive.
To be fair the thread was originally about the OP wanting to force his friend to paint, I imagine quite a few people are in an "anti-painter" mood due to that. Also quite a few of the pro-paint crowd ARE telling people they are "doing it wrong" by not partaking in the painting aspect, so you're probably getting associated with them even if you're not saying it yourself. Not to mention the people sharing their "methods" of forcing others to paint.
Not really trying to justify anything, just saying the mentality in the thread doesn't lend itself well to talking about the structure of 40k as hobby without angering someone.
Las wrote: Where did I say anyone was doing the hobby wrong? All I've said and continue to say is that painting is part of the hobby. Whether or not you choose to partake in that is up to you. I'm refuting the idea that painting has nothing to do with 40k, nothing more.
Don't be so defensive.
Apologies, that wasn't addressed at you. I'm fine with people saying that painting is 'part' of this, for want of a better word, I'm of the same opinion, but I dislike the tone that was expressed by other posters further up the thread, in regards to forcing and 'not proper hobbyists'.
Probably the most informative essay on Wargaming I've ever read!
Automatically Appended Next Post: I love to paint, and I love to play games that are good. Sometimes, if a model is superbly sculpted and cast, I'll paint it monochrome and call it a day. The aesthetic enjoyment I get out of looking at the piece as it was sculpted is sometimes as rewarding as painting it all the way with trompe l'oeil and stuff.
Man, I really need to get on this "primer and 2 coats" painting business. I could make tens of dollars!
"... I'll be damned if I let some jumped up ....... tell me that I'm 'doing the hobby wrong'. I'm all for people having their own opinion, but keep it to yourself if it's something along those lines.
I also have to agree with the sentiment that this is a small enough hobby as it is. Why are you acting in a fashion that is quite likely to turn someone off it?"
Seems a little im polite. Am I to take this tomean your ok with expressing your opinion but others are not allowed to? From the post, that is exactly what you are saying.
Now dont get me wrong, I agree with you in your sentiment , just not the delivery. If I wanted to use unpainted models, I'd use them and if the other guy didnt like it he has the right to tell me.I also have the right to say "So, they are my models, I'll do as I please with them. Dont like it, dont play me" if I play with unpainted models and someone online tells me I'm doing the hobby wrong. Meh, I'll tell them, I do it my way, you do it yours".
There are few enough players as it is and sometimes, it IS hard to find an opponent who has a painted army and sometimes the guy with the painted army is a jerk for one reason or another that you dont want to associate with.
I havent see where anyone is FORCING others to paint. I have seen where situations have been decribed to encourage painting or make the guy feel bad and so forth though. his is why I personal ascibe to just talking with them and finding out WHY. As has ben pointed out, it can be multiple reasons. One of which is "I just dont wanna do it". A pro-paint player (I am one ofthese) can then know why your army is unpainted and go from there which could be offering tips or offering to help/do it for you. Then the ball is in your court. I CAN say that I enjoy to paint while watching tv or a movie I've seen before, but I'm not gonna bushwhack you by inviting you over to watch and plopping paints in front of you. I might say, come on over and watch, hope ya dont mind if I paint. That would leave no onus on you to paint at all with no hard feelings but if ya DID want to, that would be ok too.
fit because then when a third person observes YOU are 
Twisting words to try and make a point? Here's what I wrote before
).
)
