Since it has been a couple of weeks since the last attempt to discuss this, I thought I would give it another chance. This time, some rules need to be established before we get going. I'm not trying to censor, but I am trying to stop this thread from having to be locked.
1) Keep it related to the realm of miniatures.
2) Any political or historical discussion will not be tolerated.
3) Provide legitimate evidence or support for your view, do not simply say it is "tradition".
If at any point the Mods. or Admins. decide that the boundaries have been broken, feel free to close this (not that you need permission to do so).
Also, if anyone can figure out better rules to keep everyone under control please share it.
Now, I will open by stating I believe people should be allowed to use miniatures, painted or unpainted, because it has no realistic impact on the way the game is played or how it is finished.
There is a difference between someone who has an entire unpainted army and someone who is demonstrably making attempts to paint their models.
Personally, it's completely immersion breaking seeing unpainted models. Even basic models look better than plastic. I realise we all have our own lives and things to do, but it is a hobby and when we start gaming you need to realise that there's more than yourself involved. If someone else finds it too jarring to see an army of grey then you need to accept they may not be too keen to play you.
Especially power players who just buy whatever works best, and again make no attempt at the painting side of it.
I hold down a job plus full time education alongside other responsibilities and still managed to put together a fully-painted DAK army for Bolt Action. I would never say it has to be 100% fully painted or nothing - because like I say people are allowed to work on things. But an entire army of grey? Nope. Not for me, thanks.
I'll go ahead and post before it becomes a dumpster fire. The answer to your question depends on the location:
1) At a Games Workshop retail store. Painted. If the store is allowing you to play in the store, your only cost is that you're advertising for Games Workshop. You're the live-action advert when other customers (some new) visit. Hence no third party models, and you should have your models painted. That's a completely reasonable and fair trade.
2) At a gaming convention. Painted. However, this depends on the event organizers obviously. Once again you're being allowed to partake in an event - an event is a product that the EO's are "selling" for future return business. It's their product and they're allowing you to attend (regardless of paying the cost of admission). Their event, their rules. I absolutely support events (those large enough to do it) requiring painted miniatures and hopefully they're providing quality painted terrain.
3) All other environments. Painted. This, however, is personal opinion. Wargaming is a social hobby. It's also an aesthetic hobby. It is based around the idea of placing painted miniatures on a nicely painted table and replicating a 3D battle. If this isn't something you're interested in, there are a vast number of alternate ways to play games. Board games, card games, video games, etc. There will inevitably be a ton of people in here who will yap the usual "it's my hobby!" excuse. That's accurate if you're collecting miniature to put on your shelf. The second you place your miniatures on the table across from an opponent, it becomes "our hobby". It's a social contract, both players (or all players) are here to partake in a combined experience. All players should be doing their best to pull their weight and add their quality to the game.
When I play a game against opponents, friends or strangers, it's a matter of showing respect for them - that I provide fully painted models/terrain, etc. My one goal in wargaming with regards to painting is to never lower the level of the game when I put my stuff on the table. Whether that's bringing a single miniature for a dungeon crawl, or putting a full army on display.
Do I expect other people to meet this standard? I'd like them to, absolutely. There's nothing wrong with expecting and desiring a better community. Holding yourself and others to higher standards is not a bad thing. In our group we provide a healthy dose of good natured ribbing to those who show up with unpainted models (and it happens often). No one is berating them or belittling them.
I was lucky enough to come up in a well run gaming group, run by some older guys. They inspired me to raise my game, and to bring my best to the table. I have no problem desiring others to do so.
As in most of these threads we'll get a wealth of "exceptional circumstances" of which, some will be real. Others will be tall-tales. There is no incredible painting standard people are demanding from other gamers. We live in the time of cheating. It's how I paint. Coloured primers, easily applied basing materials, dips, washes, etc. If you're new and you suck at painting...keep trying. I'd rather see poorly painted stuff on the table than unpainted stuff. To me, again, it shows a bit of disrespect to your opponent to show up and simply not bother. If you're that disinterested, let's play a board game instead. I'll gladly bust out Zombicide or BSieged, etc.
If I'm going to take the time, dedication, and money to present you with a visually attractive opposing army (on a visually attractive table), it's not much to ask you to put some work in.
Painted, period. Unpainted models look like and ruin the game. And it is extremely easy to paint to a basic tabletop standard, well within the abilities of the vast majority of people.
I mean, I play with an unpainted army because:
1) I don't have the time or skill to paint it. Even when I try, I grow increasingly frustrated and eventually drop it.
2) I don't have the money to get it properly painted, because even basic painting takes a lot of investment.
That said, I played 40K almost every week at a local gaming shop and not once did anyone say that I shouldn't be playing with unpainted models or that they had issue playing against someone who didn't have a painted army. That is just my experience though:
This topic is never civil. Like, ever. Everyone treats their opinion like fact. Everyone hobby-s 40k for different reasons.
It always comes down to local customs (Tournament rules? Garage? LFGS?) and the two people playing.
You may be playing somewhere it's not allowed. So you need painted minis. Or you might be playing somewhere it is allowed, so you can.
You might feel it's integral to the enjoyment of the game, in which case you're free to decline a game with someone. You may not care a fart in the wind, and play the game.
My experience is that it's nice to have painted minis on the table, better than unpainted. I find a sea of grey to make model recognition tougher, but that's me. I've never turned down a game, nor been turned down due to unpainted minis.
Like all social engagements, you tend to get out of it what you put into it. If I have unpainted minis, do I want to play against someone that would snub me for them? Probably not, so there's no loss there. If someone were to snub me for unpainted minis, they obviously wouldn't enjoy playing against me either. So while it's a bummer we don't get to play together, there are other fish in the sea, so to speak.
DeathKorp_Rider wrote: I mean, I play with an unpainted army because:
1) I don't have the time or skill to paint it. Even when I try, I grow increasingly frustrated and eventually drop it.
2) I don't have the money to get it properly painted, because even basic painting takes a lot of investment.
That said, I played 40K almost every week at a local gaming shop and not once did anyone say that I shouldn't be playing with unpainted models or that they had issue playing against someone who didn't have a painted army. That is just my experience though:
Painting is a skill in this hobby and a skill needs to be learned z that you ain't good out of the box isn't an excuse. Learn to paint and your enjoyment increases tenfold and your opponent will like you more forr it.
Unpainted models are fine. Sometimes unpainted is better than painted, look at how many complaints there's been in the Forgeworld News thread about the state of the "professionally" painted preview models.
This has been said on every Unpainted Model thread but I'll repeat it here, people just getting into the hobby probably haven't had time or the experience to paint their models before their first games. Telling a kid he can't play until his models are painted will just turn the kid off the hobby and just result in declining market audience.
DeathKorp_Rider wrote: I mean, I play with an unpainted army because:
1) I don't have the time or skill to paint it. Even when I try, I grow increasingly frustrated and eventually drop it.
2) I don't have the money to get it properly painted, because even basic painting takes a lot of investment.
That said, I played 40K almost every week at a local gaming shop and not once did anyone say that I shouldn't be playing with unpainted models or that they had issue playing against someone who didn't have a painted army. That is just my experience though:
Painting is a skill in this hobby and a skill needs to be learned z that you ain't good out of the box isn't an excuse. Learn to paint and your enjoyment increases tenfold and your opponent will like you more forr it.
Last time I checked, there was a line in the rulebook explaining you don't have to enjoy every aspect of the game. I for one do not like painting, so I don't want to spend time doing it. I would rather use what little time I have playing the game with other people.
Then pay someone to. Having a tabletop standard army is the bare minimum. Getting into this hobby you know painted armies are required.
It's literally not that hard.
hotsauceman1 wrote: Then pay someone to. Having a tabletop standard army is the bare minimum. Getting into this hobby you know painted armies are required.
It's literally not that hard.
I don't remember the line in the rules saying "painting is required".
I only play with painted models. Fully completed, based models.
I don't expect my opponents to do the same thing and I will play with people whose models are unpainted.
That said there is nothing quite as soul destroying as a grey lump of plastic obliterating a model you have spent countless hours pouring your dedication and craft into, particularly on the first turn. So I tend to gravitate away from playing those people whose armies aren't somewhat painted to a minimum standard.
I do not agree that painting is impossible for someone. Anyone can paint, the less skilled you are the longer it takes, in my experience. I have known people with disorders where they literally shake able to at least get colours on a model and do a quick dry brush and wash if nothing else. I can't explain how many levels better that is for someone like me when I play the game.
I don't think anyone can sit here and tell you how to hobby, but consider that it is much more enjoyable for your opponent to be wrecked by a beautifully painted army than unpainted plastic and if you are a considerate person you will presumably try to maximise your opponents' enjoyment as well as your own. I don't think anyone in your store or area would tell you this either. Its a bit of a faux pas to tell someone you'd rather play against a painted army and more so to say you'd rather play against a better painted army.
It's all a matter of social contracts. You should abide by the expectations of your peers, which in this case means "the people you game with" and not "the opinion of people online".
If your gaming group has a "painted" requirement - and that includes tournaments and stores if you attend either of those - then yes, you should paint your models.
If it does not have such a requirement, then you shouldn't feel obliged to paint if you don't want to.
Personally? I think a painted army looks better than an unpainted one aesthetically, but I'd never turn down a game against an unpainted army, and I have no qualms about bringing my own unpainted models to the table.
I'd rather play a close and exciting game against a fun opponent with a field of bare plastic than have a slog against a miserable foe with the most beautifully-painted army in the world.
My own armies vary from fully painted to bare grey, and I paint them when I get the time and inclination, but I don't feel pressured to paint when as a chore. It is, after all, supposed to be fun.
Painting is a skill in this hobby and a skill needs to be learned z that you ain't good out of the box isn't an excuse. Learn to paint and your enjoyment increases tenfold and your opponent will like you more forr it.
This sort of statement is precisely the reason these threads head south so often. It's a massive generalisation being presented as a fact.
Learning to do something well is no guarantee in the slightest that someone will enjoy doing it. I could sit here all day listing things that I can do well that I don't enjoy doing. And your opponent will only 'like you more for it' (even assuming that the 'you' in this situation gives a damn whether or not their opponent likes them) if they are expecting an opponent to have painted models. I've played against any number of people over the years who honestly couldn't care less, and would be unlikely to even notice whether or not the models were painted.
I personally prefer to play with and against painted models, but I fully understand that some people lack the time and/or the inclination to paint, and I'm not going to dictate to someone else how they should spend their hobby time.
I'm also consistently puzzled by the claims that unpainted miniatures are 'immersion breaking'. Frankly, I find bare grey miniatures far less distracting on the table than that marine whose face has been painted halfway down his chest. It's not an uncommon perception that unpainted miniatures look better than badly painted miniatures. (Although if you're playing with 'badly' painted miniatures, and you're happy with them, that's totally cool too!)
Again, it's all down to what you're expecting from the game. If you're playing 40K for the spectacle of fully painted armies, then sure, someone rocking up with an unpainted army might be disappointing for you. If you're playing 40K as just a different type of boardgame, then minis being unpainted is no different to having unpainted Monopoly pieces.
As with so many things in this hobby, I've found over the years that the best approach is to try to find like-minded gamers to play against, rather than try to force others to fit into your preconceptions of what the hobby should be.
Why is this always presented as a black-and-white choice?
Honestly, I prefer to play against painted armies. I'd prefer 100%, but 90% painted is better than 80 and so on. I'd prefer to see an army gradually get painted than stay grey forever... I reserve the right to decline a game against any opponent, but...
...whether the army is painted is just one factor in my decision of whether to play.
Playing against a fun opponent's unpainted plastic is better than playing against a tool's Golden Daemon army.
I wish people would stop portraying this as the most important factor in deciding whether to play a game. The opponent's attitude and "fun factor" are far more important.
Of course, in a GW store, the manager is entitled to hold you to higher standards.
In a tournament, the same applies. If I have paid to play against strangers, I like the organiser to ensure a certain minimum standard. I won't throw a hissy fit if the person did not quite manage to paint the last few models, but I'll be peeved if I am playing against purely grey plastic whilst my mate gets to compete against painted armies.
In a friendly paint-and-play campaign with friends, with expectations regarding painting, I'll recognise that we all have demands on our time, and just hope everyone has done their best.
Personally, I try to use mostly painted models, but often put works-in-progress on the table. Just ask Arbitorian! I'll respect the right of anyone to decline a game until I can get finished. I'll find it extreme, but it is their right to do so.
Honestly I think some people overplay this topic online to a serious degree. I seriously have a hard time believing that some would "NEVER" play against an unpainted army because I'm sure if someone were new to the game and club they'd be right there showing them the ropes of how to play and getting them involved even with an army not even primed!
The discussion tends to get people being very polarized in how they comment and choose to word things. I think part of it is a fear that if they say they'll accept unpainted armies the next thing will be a generation of wargamers who don't paint, don't bother to learn and wont' ever paint. So they really get heavy handed with their comments to make unpainted not just undesirable but unacceptable.
Personally I think its the wrong attitude. I would argue that very few gamers actually want to play with unpainted armies, but that there's a myriad of reasons why a person might have an unpainted army. Often I'd say the reason is that they've got a lack of skill with painting and a lack of confidence in learning. They might even be totally at sea in learning how to paint (self learning is a skill and not everyone has it).
Rather than exclusion they require inclusion within the group, acceptance and then building into active encouragement. That means more than "oh Dave paint your army" it means "Hey Dave you've not painted anything, want some help? I've not got a game setup for next week so how's about we grab a table and I help you get started".
One of those will likely get a negative reaction and continual exclusion/insult will drive a person out of the group. The other is more likely to get a positive reaction, reinforce their desire to remain part of the group and have a higher chance of getting them painting.
And sure there's going to be one or two here and there (who you might never find at your actual club) who refuse to paint; or who are changing armies so fast they've never the time to paint anything before they've moved onto the next power-army. But by and large they are like TFG and other such people. Those who command high attention in online discussions, but who are honestly very few and far apart and of which some of us might never encounter.
I personally always try to paint everything before playing with them, but if I don't manage to get everything painted before the next game at a friend's house or the FLG, then I'll field it grey/primed/whatevs. But I am long term unemployed, so time is all I have.
And like everyone else, I prefer to play against a painted army, though I am not so sure if a badly painted army is better than a grey army. I've seen one or two armies that looked like they had been painted by a slowed monkey on speed, and to me that is just a look of destroyed money. Like how some people buy new expensive models and just throw a Dremel and some GS at it to make it "Nurgle".
On the other hand, a grey army is kinda like a tabula rasa that I can't understand why the owner doesn't un-tabula rasa. ^^ Those grey minis are such a promise of creativity and expression, ever though it's basically a very advanced form of painting by numbers. So I am a tad torn.
The LEAST important thing to me is basing. I based my entire Tau army a couple of hours before a tournament, so it's crap. My DG are partially based, but I need to change those and do them all in a good way. The only army that is based good is my Custodes. Granted, it's only texture paint with washes, static grass tufts, pigments and drybrushing, but they do have trofies from every army they've defeated.
All-in-all: I'll play you and your army, no matter the degree of paint, though I have my preferences.
As a relative novice to the hobby (played a bit of FoW, still testing the waters on 40k), my view may be a little skewed, but for me an entirely unpainted army is... pointless. Not quite finished in time, or a couple brand new pieces you just want to get a feel for play-wise, fine, but if you have no intention of paining, then I wouldn't think this is your game/hobby.
I look at it this way: there are HUNDREDS of excellent war and strategy games involving hexes, cardboard squares, little wooden units etc. If you arnt into minis and the whole modeling hobby, wouldn't one be happier cultivating game-play on one of those instead?
I see NO excuse for 40k, age, necromunda etc players to constantly whinge "oh I have no time to paint 10 or 50 models I'm so busy whine whine whine"
And yet they have time to post about all about tournaments they spend 4 days attending. Or computer games they spend months on.
Yet you never see historical gamers with an unpainted army.
I think it mostly comes to GW gamers have zero respect for themselves or the game or their opponents.
If you're new and show progress each week that's fine. You're showing an interest and passion for your hobby and getting gak done every week.
If you've got no time to do anything except build every day (which takes time you idiots. Time you claim you don't have) then stick to your gak computer games
I see NO excuse for 40k, age, necromunda etc players to constantly whinge "oh I have no time to paint 10 or 50 models I'm so busy whine whine whine"
And yet they have time to post about all about tournaments they spend 4 days attending. Or computer games they spend months on.
Yet you never see historical gamers with an unpainted army.
I think it mostly comes to GW gamers have zero respect for themselves or the game or their opponents.
If you're new and show progress each week that's fine. You're showing an interest and passion for your hobby and getting gak done every week.
If you've got no time to do anything except build every day (which takes time you idiots. Time you claim you don't have) then stick to your gak computer games
See this is a prime example of such a negatively charged post and viewpoint. I'm sure there are many historical armies that don't get painted, then again I'd argue that historicals likely see a lot less recruitment of new players who are totally fresh to miniature hobbies. Warhammer and GW are a gateway product - GW is pushing marketing and attracting new people all the time with a lot of energy and drive. So its not that you're getting "gak computergame players" its that you're getting new gamers who are still learning their skills in the hobby.
I agree there is, in theory, little excuse for not being able to have the time to paint if they can have time to assemble armies; however often that's simply an excuse that is used to hide other underlaying issues. Lack of confidence, lack of painting knowhow, lack of proper tools/paints etc... Sometimes you've got to chip past that casual armour to get at the real issue which can then be tackled in a positive manner that results in them learnign and gaining experience, improving confidence and growing as a gamer and member of your local scene.
However if you spurn them and turn them away then you'll just push them out and you lose another gamer.
greatbigtree wrote: It always comes down to local customs (Tournament rules? Garage? LFGS?) and the two people playing.
You may be playing somewhere it's not allowed. So you need painted minis. Or you might be playing somewhere it is allowed, so you can.
Yeah this. All about context. Regardless of what any individual's opinion on the matter is, it depends on the broader context. Take an aesthetic and narrative driven game like Inq28; you'd be hard pressed to find anyone who says that grey plastic is acceptable in that context. Likewise, a game between two like-minded friends who don't care for painting obviously should not he held to some arbitrary '3 colour minimum' rule.
Obviously there are plenty of situations where the two people playing are not necessarily like-minded, but then it's down to the rules of the turf. Of your local GW wants your stuff painted, then you should respect that anf show up with stuff painted. If there's not such requirement, then don't get snobby if someone doesn't want to paint their army - it's their free time, if they don't want to paint then they shouldn't have to paint. A respectful disagreement is fine; just learn to accept that there are people you shouldn't olay with, doesn't have to be a drama.
In tournaments, yes. In friendly games, I'll play against unpainted models. I'd rather have the correct models unpainted than a whole army of Counts As/Proxy Fest 40,000.
Honestly, imo even primed models look so much better than unpainted.
Non-drilled gun barrels out are still unplayable even if pro-painted.
Painting is a skill in this hobby and a skill needs to be learned z that you ain't good out of the box isn't an excuse. Learn to paint and your enjoyment increases tenfold and your opponent will like you more forr it.
This sort of statement is precisely the reason these threads head south so often. It's a massive generalisation being presented as a fact.
Learning to do something well is no guarantee in the slightest that someone will enjoy doing it. I could sit here all day listing things that I can do well that I don't enjoy doing. And your opponent will only 'like you more for it' (even assuming that the 'you' in this situation gives a damn whether or not their opponent likes them) if they are expecting an opponent to have painted models. I've played against any number of people over the years who honestly couldn't care less, and would be unlikely to even notice whether or not the models were painted.
I personally prefer to play with and against painted models, but I fully understand that some people lack the time and/or the inclination to paint, and I'm not going to dictate to someone else how they should spend their hobby time.
I'm also consistently puzzled by the claims that unpainted miniatures are 'immersion breaking'. Frankly, I find bare grey miniatures far less distracting on the table than that marine whose face has been painted halfway down his chest. It's not an uncommon perception that unpainted miniatures look better than badly painted miniatures. (Although if you're playing with 'badly' painted miniatures, and you're happy with them, that's totally cool too!)
Again, it's all down to what you're expecting from the game. If you're playing 40K for the spectacle of fully painted armies, then sure, someone rocking up with an unpainted army might be disappointing for you. If you're playing 40K as just a different type of boardgame, then minis being unpainted is no different to having unpainted Monopoly pieces.
As with so many things in this hobby, I've found over the years that the best approach is to try to find like-minded gamers to play against, rather than try to force others to fit into your preconceptions of what the hobby should be.
EDIT - Insaniak, how do you determine what is a badly painted model any way, most people would rather see the best effort of some one at least trying there best instead of just grey killing of tradition.
So you either didn't read or chose to ignore the OP?
DeathKorp_Rider wrote: This time, some rules need to be established before we get going. I'm not trying to censor, but I am trying to stop this thread from having to be locked.
1) Keep it related to the realm of miniatures.
2) Any political or historical discussion will not be tolerated.
3) Provide legitimate evidence or support for your view, do not simply say it is "tradition".
Stormatious wrote:EDIT - Insaniak, how do you determine what is a badly painted model any way, most people would rather see the best effort of some one at least trying there best instead of just grey killing of tradition.
Serious question - how do you know what "most people" prefer?
So you either didn't read or chose to ignore the OP?
DeathKorp_Rider wrote: This time, some rules need to be established before we get going. I'm not trying to censor, but I am trying to stop this thread from having to be locked.
1) Keep it related to the realm of miniatures.
2) Any political or historical discussion will not be tolerated.
3) Provide legitimate evidence or support for your view, do not simply say it is "tradition".
Stormatious wrote:EDIT - Insaniak, how do you determine what is a badly painted model any way, most people would rather see the best effort of some one at least trying there best instead of just grey killing of tradition.
Serious question - how do you know what "most people" prefer?
I didn't read it properly and skimmed it quickly my bad.
And i should say that i think most people would prefer that. But i don't know and neither does insaniak so im just saying i think his feelings are not shared widely.
The general rule of thumb is “don’t tell people how to use their stuff”. If you don’t like playing against grey plastic, then politely refuse games; don’t try to deny that person playing against anybody/everybody else as well (the way a certain obnoxious bird attempts to do on here). If you’re running a tournament and you don’t want unpainted models, then find some form of “handicap” against unpainted models. People will paint up or leave, but it’ll be on them. Flat out denying them access to play removes people from the hobby.
That's where I'd disagree. If you're running a tournament, you're selling a product. You want that product to look as good as possible. That is your advertising for future events. That's how you make your event stand out, and become a higher goal.
People need to get rid of the silly "gatekeeping" statements. No one is stopping anyone from playing this game. God forbid we try to hold people to the occasional standard for a large event.
From just a regular club night with the club regulars through to a multinational event drawing in hundreds of people as well as having stalls, livestreaming, etc...
At the lower end of the scale its little different to a regular club night; whilst at the other its a major event.
So whilst one can hope for even standards in general; the local situation is going to dictate what happens. The smaller more local tournament is likely to be more open to unpainted models and might even have to accept them to make up the numbers; meanwhile your major international event is at the opposite end of things and can afford to be more picky with the standards they require for entry.
I agree, even Reese (Reece?) from FLG etc. acknowledged that as their event grew their standards grew as well. I completely agree that your local 8-10 persona "tournament" at a shop will almost never have a limit on painted models.
But a large professionally run event? Absolutely should.
EDIT - Insaniak, how do you determine what is a badly painted model any way, most people would rather see the best effort of some one at least trying there best instead of just grey killing of tradition.
A few examples I've encountered over the years - The Space Marine army dipped (literally just held by the base and dipped head-first) in blue house paint. The 'three-colour minimum' tournament army where the models had been sprayed white, and then their feet dipped in blue paint, and their heads dipped in red paint. Or the less extreme examples of armies painted with no real care or attention to detail, because the painter is only painting them because he feels he 'has' to in order to use them, resulting in less than stellar results.
I'm not at all talking about people who have put in a best effort and just don't have the ability or the experience to paint at any given level. If you're putting effort into painting your models, that's fantastic, regardless of your level of ability. But if you would rather not paint models, then I would rather play against bare grey models than models that have been deliberately painted badly just because some guy on the internet thinks that you should do anything other than what you want to do with your models.
We're not talking sheep stations here. It's a hobby. A recreational activity. If there are parts of that activity that you don't enjoy, and that aren't essential to the parts of that you do enjoy, then don't waste your time on them. Better to have someone enjoying their hobby with unpainted models than someone who drops out because they never get anything painted.
I feel I should point out again that it's also not an uncommon view amongst those who don't paint their armies that they would rather have their models bare grey than 'spoil' them by putting paint on them. It's not about other people judging their painting ability, it's about them personally not being happy with the way their painting looks, and so not doing it. And that's fine... Their models, they can do, or not do, what they want with them.
I feel I should point out again that it's also not an uncommon view amongst those who don't paint their armies that they would rather have their models bare grey than 'spoil' them by putting paint on them. It's not about other people judging their painting ability, it's about them personally not being happy with the way their painting looks, and so not doing it. And that's fine... Their models, they can do, or not do, what they want with them.
There are two kinds of people with unpainted models.
The guy who hasn't painted them yet. Not everyone has a lot of time on their hands. Painting models takes quite a bit of time, and for some people- this game, or that particular army might not be their primary hobby. And sometimes, especially when it comes to Space Marines- people may want to try out a few things before they commit hundreds of dollars worth of models to a specific paint scheme.
And then...
The guy who isn't going to paint them. You can call me a jerk here, but I don't play with this person. And it may be me being judgemental, but in my years of experience- every single time without fail, when I've encountered the guy that does not paint his models at all- he's a WAAC player with some flavor-of-the-month list with models he bought and slapped together in an afternoon (often missing detail bits, covered in sprue-spurs, and mold lines you can shave with)- and just as soon as this list of his gets fixed in a FAQ, he tosses those 'Space Wolves' in a box or they show up next month as Dark Angels or whatever flavor of Space Marines he needs them to be in order to win.
For this guy, I don't think he sees them as 'models', he sees them as mandatory tokens to use in a game and the 'winning games' part of the hobby has come first... and quite honestly, avoiding this sort of person is the best decision one can make (in my opinion).
Like I said, it may sound mean or stupid or whatever, I get it- but it was just a repeated experience and it stuck with me, so when I see the same guy using grey plastic for months- without even blasting them with primer... I just assume the worst, and so far I've not been wrong.
This is from someone who paints a lot more than he plays, and generally paints what he assembles (so no shelves of unpainted stuff), but does not play with unpainted miniatures.
I will play against unpainted minis. However, it does reduce my enjoyment of the game, so I will seek out players with painted armies to improve my enjoyment of the hobby. So the people with unpainted armies are kind of the 'last kid chosen' for hobby time.
Beginners and people making progress in painting their army get generous amounts of slack in this regard.
Then play with me some time and I will prove you wrong. I almost always play WYSIWYG (and if I don't, it's one or two small details I alert the other players to before the game starts), and make sure to make my models look as clean as I can without stressing about breaking a piece, and I always have detailed point lists with breakdowns about wargear and values as well as any special qualities.
DeathKorp_Rider wrote: Then play with me some time and I will prove you wrong. I almost always play WYSIWYG (and if I don't, it's one or two small details I alert the other players to before the game starts), and make sure to make my models look as clean as I can without stressing about breaking a piece, and I always have detailed point lists with breakdowns about wargear and values as well as any special qualities.
All that with grey models.
So without me scrolling up, lemme ask- why are your models grey?
My issue with unpainted plastic has to do with the chapter/etc traits. I don't care if you want to run for example a Space marine chapter of your own devising that used pink polka dots. Great! that would be impressive! I do however, need to be able to recognize easily which portions of your army get the space wolves melee trait, and which get the dark angels I can't hit them with guard trait. That is my only concern on painted/unpainted. I try to paint my armies cohesively, and since I'm a garagehammer guy, run almost exclusive mono armies. I do not force that on opponents.
But...
For my sanity give me some way to tell which of your guys have which trait. As a player and modeler I WANT to see your cool ideas, creativity, etc, but if all you have is bases with the rim colored different, I will live. Some of the best friends and players I know have a super low skill level with paints, and I would never hold that against them. That said, they still have sprayed and washed their armies. It isn't that hard.
I do desperately miss when the game was more about modeling than collectible card game deck building. I understand the theory of youngsters have a cell phone to occupy their time so don't model etc and we need their money.
Because I don't like painting, and I would rather put my money towards getting the models with the correct pieces down (especially when I am running an army that is OOP) before I spend a lot more to make sure they have a uniform color scheme. Don't get me wrong, I will get them painted one day, but that is far down the road.
DeathKorp_Rider wrote: Because I don't like painting, and I would rather put my money towards getting the models with the correct pieces down (especially when I am running an army that is OOP) before I spend a lot more to make sure they have a uniform color scheme. Don't get me wrong, I will get them painted one day, but that is far down the road.
So you're the guy that hasn't painted them yet, not the guy who isn't going to paint them at all.
See my post again, maybe you skimmed over it or something or maybe I wasn't clear.
It's like turning up to a fancy dress party without a costume.
Yea you can come in, but your kinda dragging the vibe down and everyone is going to know you half arsed it!
DeathKorp_Rider wrote: Because I don't like painting, and I would rather put my money towards getting the models with the correct pieces down (especially when I am running an army that is OOP) before I spend a lot more to make sure they have a uniform color scheme. Don't get me wrong, I will get them painted one day, but that is far down the road.
So you're the guy that hasn't painted them yet, not the guy who isn't going to paint them at all.
See my post again, maybe you skimmed over it or something or maybe I wasn't clear.
I'll get someone to paint them, but that is likely years away, so in many ways I am probably seen as the people who don't get their models painted
I mean, there's absolutely nothing preventing someone from showing up at a game with an "army" consisting of plain, grey plastic cylinders of various appropriate sizes with the name and equipment of the model they represent written on them in Sharpie. The game's rules would function just as well, and there are loads of people out there who utterly despise assembling miniatures every bit as much as the folk who dislike painting despise doing that.
And yet, people don't do that. The very idea someone would do that without clearing it in advance with all involved is just bizarre, right?
You don't even really need to finish building most models, so long as they approximate the appropriate silhouette and their main equipment is easily identifiable, someone who disliked assembling models could easily half-arse the task and still have a perfectly playable albeit pretty visually unappealing army.
And yet, again, people don't really do that. If they do, they would certainly get a hard time about it.
Come at it from a different angle again - plenty of people out there care far, far more about making cool models, painting cool models, and making up cool stories than they do about the minutiae of the game system, but there is a very, very strong expectation that they will have a reasonable grasp of the rules when they show up to play another person.
It is expected that you will arrive at a game with a fully and completely assembled army of appropriate miniatures. It is expected that you will arrive at a game with a sufficient grasp of the rules to make playing it with you an enjoyable experience rather than a chore. Yet when anyone dares to suggest that it also be expected that you've put that same bare minimum level of effort into painting your models, the wails of "gatekeeper!" and "it's my hobby time I do whut I want!" begin.
Are you new to the game? Cool, everyone should be willing to cut new folk some slack, in all areas - if you forget a rule or assemble a model with the wrong gun folk will let it slide, and the same is and should be true for painting. If you have a group of buddies who all share your pet peeves and agree to waive normal expectations for one or more aspects of the hobby, great, you do you and have fun.
But if someone shows up to a venue - store, club, tournament, whatever - with people who're not buddies with whom they have a prior understanding, and said someone is not a new player who's only been in the hobby a short time, then yes, their army should be painted, just as it should be properly assembled, and just as they should know the rules well enough to play. Because that's just the basic level of respect for your fellow hobbyists that should be expected.
Of course, people are perfectly within their legal rights to ignore common courtesy altogether, but they don't then get to play the put-upon victim of ebil gatekeeping-gamer oppression if folk tell them to jog on.
lifeafter wrote: Non-drilled out gun barrels are still unplayable even if pro-painted.
This...so very much this. LOL
Agreed! ^^
Seriously though, if your models are nicely painted but the gun barrels aren't drillid it really ruins the whole model (a bit exaggerated). The same goes for the exhausts on tanks (Rhinos, I'm looking at you).
Though the barrels on REALLY thin gunbarrels might get a pass. I am one of those dumb-dumbs that drills the barrels of the Skitarii.
Excommunicatus wrote: I really, really, really, really, don't care what other people do with their time, money and possessions.
Fair enough, but it affects the opponent's experience too. I also don't care what other people do with their time, but I do when my time is affected
It doesn't affect your experience unless you choose to allow it to do so. If you don't want to paint against unpainted minis, don't.
All that's being said is that if you choose that path, acknowledge that you're doing it due to your own preferences, rather than because the other guy is somehow in the wrong.
DeathKorp_Rider wrote: I'll get someone to paint them, but that is likely years away, so in many ways I am probably seen as the people who don't get their models painted
If it's an OOP model range, then you can hardly be blamed for waiting to flesh out the entire range and get everything you want the way you want it to be before handing it over as one large project to someone for them to paint it. It's not something you can simply 'do over', and I wouldn't be too irked by that.
You gotta understand, "The guy that is never going to paint them" that I'm talking about? He wouldn't be the dude collecting OOP models as a completionist, or putting real effort into making the actual model itself look presentable. He'll find the cheapest and laziest proxy he can get away with, haphazardly glue it together and throw onto the table while it's still 'a hot list' and toss that junk once something better comes along or the rules get a FAQ.
The last time I saw this, the dude half-assed a Morty and Mags with some daemon princes, and the TO said "All models have to at least have three colors on them", and this dude literally went and borrowed three different colors of primer and just spray-blasted every model he had with a little bit of each so he could run some broken tournament list.
Excommunicatus wrote: I really, really, really, really, don't care what other people do with their time, money and possessions.
Fair enough, but it affects the opponent's experience too. I also don't care what other people do with their time, but I do when my time is affected
It doesn't affect your experience unless you choose to allow it to do so. If you don't want to paint against unpainted minis, don't.
All that's being said is that if you choose that path, acknowledge that you're doing it due to your own preferences, rather than because the other guy is somehow in the wrong.
Again - is it wrong to expect people to properly assemble their models? Is it wrong to expect people to have a reasonable grasp of the rules?
If it is, then why are those things extremely widely accepted, to the point where I've rarely ever encountered anyone who didn't meet that expectation? And if it isn't, then why is it wrong to also expect the same level of effort when it comes to painting?
Again - is it wrong to expect people to properly assemble their models? Is it wrong to expect people to have a reasonable grasp of the rules?
If it is, then why are those things extremely widely accepted, to the point where I've rarely ever encountered anyone who didn't meet that expectation? And if it isn't, then why is it wrong to also expect the same level of effort when it comes to painting?
You can expect whatever you want to expect. That's entirely up to you. The point is simply that the other guy isn't automatically in the wrong just because he didn't meet your expectations.
You're not 'wrong' for expecting your opponent to have a reasonable grasp of the rules... but you're going to be frequently disappointed in pick up games and tournie games, from my experience over the years, so I've learnt to not expect any given level of rules knowledge.
It's certainly reasonable to expect models to be assembled, since the game uses the physical profile of the models for rules interactions. The existence or lack thereof of paint on the models makes no difference to those rules interactions, however, and, ultimately, how big an issue the unassembled models are is down to how you choose to approach it. I'll repeat what I said in the last thread on this topic:
I've played against armies that included blank bases. I've faced units of Kroot legs. Armless marines. And in one tournament game, a Land Raider Crusader with no weapons and a hull held together with rubber bands. (although that latter model was at least sprayed black!)
I've played against Golden Demon level armies. I've faced Inkwashed Hordes. Three color standard armies. And one marine army that had literally been dipped in a tin of house paint.
In all of those cases, the attitude of my opponent counted far more towards whether or not the game was enjoyable than the amount of paint on the models did.
Excommunicatus wrote: I really, really, really, really, don't care what other people do with their time, money and possessions.
Fair enough, but it affects the opponent's experience too. I also don't care what other people do with their time, but I do when my time is affected
It doesn't affect your experience unless you choose to allow it to do so. If you don't want to paint against unpainted minis, don't.
All that's being said is that if you choose that path, acknowledge that you're doing it due to your own preferences, rather than because the other guy is somehow in the wrong.
Again - is it wrong to expect people to properly assemble their models? Is it wrong to expect people to have a reasonable grasp of the rules?
If it is, then why are those things extremely widely accepted, to the point where I've rarely ever encountered anyone who didn't meet that expectation? And if it isn't, then why is it wrong to also expect the same level of effort when it comes to painting?
Because models and rules are required to play the game and paint isn't.
This is like saying "If it's reasonable to expect people to bring the proper pieces and know the rules then why is it unreasonable to expect them to dress up black tie style for the game?" See how one part isn't required to play?
For an official tournament that is being published in a trade magazine, or website, I can see enforcing a 3 color minimum. But otherwise, who gives a flip?
You do not get to tell me how to enjoy the hobby, let alone how to enjoy the game.
40K is different things to different people. For me, it's about modeling, and I see painting as a necessary evil - I don't enjoy it, but I do it. They do look cooler when they're painted, I don't think there's any argument to be made there.
On the other hand, for people who just want to play it as a game and not a hobby, I can understand the feeling that painting their models makes as much sense as painting their monopoly pieces or giving their poker chips a 3 color pattern and wash. Who am I to tell them how to enjoy their little plastic army men?
When I painted my minis, it was for me, not so I can feel like I have the standing to force someone else to fit some arbitrary standard.
The whole thing seems silly, honestly.
Of course, tournaments should feel free to do whatever they like in terms of restrictions, that's a little different.
If they refuse to paint their models, then yes. I want them gone.
We all want different things. That doesn't mean it's going to happen or that we should enforce this will on others. If your playing a CCG like Magic, you don't need sleeves (except for tournaments). No one is going to go to a card shop and refuse to play you because you don't have sleeves.
I voted - Yes, but only under certain circumstances (please explain)
For me, this means local club level. Friday night friendly game situation, If say someone has just recently got into the hobby or they started a new army which is in the process of getting painted/built. Fine
If someone wanted to try out different units to see how they perform in the list with the already mostly painted so they can decide if they want to commit? Absolutely fine. Painting is a big time commitment and I respect that. Thats logical.
What I would mind is someone consistently turning up to a game with gray plastic, that has not even been based and primed? Yes I would. And I probably would avoid playing that person.
If they were an absolute beginner and they just built their first 500 point list? Bring on ya plastic and lets roll some dice!!!
I would personally never put a gray model in the field. I think cleaning your miniature's mold lines, gluing it together neatly and basing with some PVA/Sand and then priming is infinitely better than gray plastic. It shows that at least you are trying and making steps in the right direction. That's all anyone can ask for really. And I'm just going to say it; t really is not that difficult.
Like fancy dress If you are doing an excercise class, gym session or a sewing circle, or whatever else you have that involves more than one person to participate. We all seen that one one person that turns up and doesn't take the activity seriously, sometimes even mocks it, it just ruins the vibe. And war-gaming is whether you like ti or not an activity for more than one person.
And in majority of cases we are too polite to say anything.
It tells everyone what kind of person they are instinctively. Yeah its knee jerk. is it wrong or right? It doesn't matter, it is what it is.
DeathKorp_Rider wrote: We all want different things. That doesn't mean it's going to happen or that we should enforce this will on others. If your playing a CCG like Magic, you don't need sleeves (except for tournaments). No one is going to go to a card shop and refuse to play you because you don't have sleeves.
Whether or not I can convince stores/clubs/etc to ban the use of unpainted models it's still the right thing to do. I accept that I'm not going to have much luck with that, but I'm not going to pretend to have anything but contempt for people who refuse to paint their models or think that they should be seen in public.
And not playing with sleeves is not a reasonable comparison. It's stupid and self-destructive, but it doesn't change my enjoyment of the game if you trash your cards. But playing with unpainted models does, as it forces me to look at your gray plastic horde and severely damages the aesthetic appeal of the game. And it's a miniatures game, FFS. The whole reason we play with miniatures instead of cardboard tokens on a hex grid like so many other wargames is for the aesthetic value. If you don't care about that then why don't you play a game that doesn't use miniatures?
DeathKorp_Rider wrote: We all want different things. That doesn't mean it's going to happen or that we should enforce this will on others. If your playing a CCG like Magic, you don't need sleeves (except for tournaments). No one is going to go to a card shop and refuse to play you because you don't have sleeves.
Whether or not I can convince stores/clubs/etc to ban the use of unpainted models it's still the right thing to do. I accept that I'm not going to have much luck with that, but I'm not going to pretend to have anything but contempt for people who refuse to paint their models or think that they should be seen in public.
And not playing with sleeves is not a reasonable comparison. It's stupid and self-destructive, but it doesn't change my enjoyment of the game if you trash your cards. But playing with unpainted models does, as it forces me to look at your gray plastic horde and severely damages the aesthetic appeal of the game. And it's a miniatures game, FFS. The whole reason we play with miniatures instead of cardboard tokens on a hex grid like so many other wargames is for the aesthetic value. If you don't care about that then why don't you play a game that doesn't use miniatures?
Some people like the aesthetic of the models with or without paint.
DeathKorp_Rider wrote: So, just because I don't want to paint, something I don't enjoy and which has no relevance on how the actual game is played, I'm mocking the game?
It has relevance on how the game is played. The game looks like when you put unpainted models on the table.
And not playing with sleeves is not a reasonable comparison. It's stupid and self-destructive, but it doesn't change my enjoyment of the game if you trash your cards.
The requirement to use sleeves isn't about cards being damaged, it's about making sure players aren't marking their card backs.
But playing with unpainted models does, as it forces me to look at your gray plastic horde and severely damages the aesthetic appeal of the game.
Then that's a reason for you to not play against people with unpainted armies. And that's reasonable.
Expecting players that don't meet your standards to get the hell out of 'your' hobby? Not so much.
And it's a miniatures game, FFS. The whole reason we play with miniatures instead of cardboard tokens on a hex grid like so many other wargames is for the aesthetic value. If you don't care about that then why don't you play a game that doesn't use miniatures?
So, just to check, are we pretending that all of the previous times you've had this explained to you didn't happen?
The fact that you play miniatures games for their aesthetic value doesn't mean that everyone else shares those reasons.
The fact that you think that painted minis are aesthetically superior to unpainted miniatures for that purpose doesn't mean that everyone else shares that opinion.
The fact that you still don't get this after having it explained to you time and time again is seriously starting to suggest that you're just trolling by this point.
EDIT - Insaniak, how do you determine what is a badly painted model any way, most people would rather see the best effort of some one at least trying there best instead of just grey killing of tradition.
A few examples I've encountered over the years - The Space Marine army dipped (literally just held by the base and dipped head-first) in blue house paint. The 'three-colour minimum' tournament army where the models had been sprayed white, and then their feet dipped in blue paint, and their heads dipped in red paint. Or the less extreme examples of armies painted with no real care or attention to detail, because the painter is only painting them because he feels he 'has' to in order to use them, resulting in less than stellar results.
I'm not at all talking about people who have put in a best effort and just don't have the ability or the experience to paint at any given level. If you're putting effort into painting your models, that's fantastic, regardless of your level of ability. But if you would rather not paint models, then I would rather play against bare grey models than models that have been deliberately painted badly just because some guy on the internet thinks that you should do anything other than what you want to do with your models.
We're not talking sheep stations here. It's a hobby. A recreational activity. If there are parts of that activity that you don't enjoy, and that aren't essential to the parts of that you do enjoy, then don't waste your time on them. Better to have someone enjoying their hobby with unpainted models than someone who drops out because they never get anything painted.
I feel I should point out again that it's also not an uncommon view amongst those who don't paint their armies that they would rather have their models bare grey than 'spoil' them by putting paint on them. It's not about other people judging their painting ability, it's about them personally not being happy with the way their painting looks, and so not doing it. And that's fine... Their models, they can do, or not do, what they want with them.
I understand what you're saying, but this sort of attitude "its ok because we have more players" and "some people don't enjoy painting" is a major contributing factor to the watering down of what the core values of war gaming really is to the core base.
Stormatious wrote: I understand what you're saying, but this sort of attitude "its ok because we have more players" and "some people don't enjoy painting" is a major contributing factor to the watering down of what the core values of war gaming really is to the core base.
OK, once again for the back row: If I don't paint my miniatures, that has absolutely ZERO effect on your game experience, unless you choose to play against me with my unpainted miniatures.
Having more people in the hobby is ultimately more important than having everybody doing it the same way. The more people in the hobby, the better opportunity there is for the companies making the games we play to grow. And, rather handily, the better your chances are of finding like-minded people to play against - The bigger the pool of people to draw from, the bigger the number of people sharing any given opinion on how to play the game.
Edit - I AM NOT QUOTING YOU DIRECTLY INSANIAK.
Really? Because the part where you directly quoted me would seem to suggest otherwise...
insaniak wrote: The requirement to use sleeves isn't about cards being damaged, it's about making sure players aren't marking their card backs.
Yes, in tournaments. The post I was replying to specifically said "except for tournaments", and in non-tournament games with nothing at stake only TFGs are going to be marking their cards. Nobody cares if you play without sleeves outside of a tournament because you're only hurting yourself by doing so.
Expecting players that don't meet your standards to get the hell out of 'your' hobby? Not so much.
Why should I have to look at their unpainted hordes? Why should other players have to face the awkward situation of turning down a game when the store/club/etc can simply remove the objectionable players from the community? I'm enough of a dick to tell someone to paint their models or stop wasting my time, but some people think it's rude and are reluctant to refuse a game even when they know they aren't going to enjoy it much.
The fact that you play miniatures games for their aesthetic value doesn't mean that everyone else shares those reasons.
If you're spending thousands of dollars on miniatures when $20 cardboard token games provide an equal or better pure gameplay experience and you aren't enjoying the aesthetic value, well, I have to question your sanity.
The fact that you think that painted minis are aesthetically superior to unpainted miniatures for that purpose doesn't mean that everyone else shares that opinion.
Some people think that eating rotting cheese filled with maggots is an enjoyable experience. The fact that someone has an opinion doesn't mean that I have to consider that opinion to have any value or truth whatsoever.
The fact that you still don't get this after having it explained to you time and time again is seriously starting to suggest that you're just trolling by this point.
Considering your argument to be incredibly weak and unpersuasive is not the same thing as not getting it. I understand exactly what you are saying. You're just wrong.
Stormatious wrote: I understand what you're saying, but this sort of attitude "its ok because we have more players" and "some people don't enjoy painting" is a major contributing factor to the watering down of what the core values of war gaming really is to the core base.
OK, once again for the back row: If I don't paint my miniatures, that has absolutely ZERO effect on your game experience, unless you choose to play against me with my unpainted miniatures.
Having more people in the hobby is ultimately more important than having everybody doing it the same way. The more people in the hobby, the better opportunity there is for the companies making the games we play to grow. And, rather handily, the better your chances are of finding like-minded people to play against - The bigger the pool of people to draw from, the bigger the number of people sharing any given opinion on how to play the game.
Edit - I AM NOT QUOTING YOU DIRECTLY INSANIAK.
Really? Because the part where you directly quoted me would seem to suggest otherwise...
I mean not quoting your exact words, sorry my bad for not explaining that properly.
I feel its better to have a dedicated traditional core base that reflects the values to other newbies in a way where they realise its not ok to have greys and thus dont effect any watering down effect of what i think most people believe is an extremely important part of wargaming, and don't know why you say "having every one doing it the same way" ( i my self paint my own way with lots of ideas from other people but nothing exactly the same way )
Peregrine wrote: Nobody cares if you play without sleeves outside of a tournament because you're only hurting yourself by doing so.
Yup, nobody ever calls out cheaters in non-tournament games.
Why should I have to look at their unpainted hordes?
You don't...?
If you're spending thousands of dollars on miniatures when $20 cardboard token games provide an equal or better pure gameplay experience and you aren't enjoying the aesthetic value, well, I have to question your sanity.
Someone who likes the miniatures regardless of whether or not they are painted is not going to be any more interested in a cardboard token game than someone who likes painted miniatures.
But, again, this has been explained to you before.
Some people think that eating rotting cheese filled with maggots is an enjoyable experience. The fact that someone has an opinion doesn't mean that I have to consider that opinion to have any value or truth whatsoever.
Considering your argument to be incredibly weak and unpersuasive is not the same thing as not getting it. I understand exactly what you are saying. You're just wrong.
You can disagree with an opinion. That doesn't make that opinion wrong.
Continuing to make that sort of statement will be regarded as trolling.
insaniak wrote: Continuing to make that sort of statement will be regarded as trolling.
I see, the last resort of someone with a weak argument: declare that something you disagree with is "trolling", imply threat of moderator action if they keep saying it. And of course accusing someone of trolling is explicitly stated to be rude and a violation of forum rules, something that has earned me a temp ban for saying what you just said. Double standard, you think?
Melissia wrote: Meh, I don't mind. I'd rather have assembled unpainted minis than proxies.
But is this some thing you don't mind all the time? or just some times?, id imagine you would not like it if it was a casual occurrence perhaps. But any way if you don't mind overall, do you not care that you are contributing to future players greying the hobby up and slowly chipping away value and tradition.
insaniak wrote: Yup, nobody ever calls out cheaters in non-tournament games.
Not using sleeves =/= cheating. Please don't make straw man arguments.
You don't...?
Of course I do. People are playing with them in a public store/game club/etc. And people less confrontational than me have to deal with those armies because refusing a game can be a socially awkward thing to do, with open gaming space there's a lot of pressure to play against anyone who wants to play. It's much better to have a strict "no unpainted models" policy and improve the quality of the community, even if it means that some people will decide to quit as a result.
Someone who likes the miniatures regardless of whether or not they are painted is not going to be any more interested in a cardboard token game than someone who likes painted miniatures.
You're moving the goalposts here. Here are your words previously:
The fact that you play miniatures games for their aesthetic value doesn't mean that everyone else shares those reasons.
I respond that you'd have to be insane to invest thousands of dollars in a miniatures game if you don't enjoy the aesthetic value compared to cardboard tokens, and now you're arguing that someone who does value aesthetics isn't going to be interested in cardboard.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Melissia wrote: Meh, I don't mind. I'd rather have assembled unpainted minis than proxies.
Why do you have to accept one or the other? Why not enforce both WYSIWYG and painted models?
Because it has nothing to do with the actual game.
Elitism is toxic. Enforced elitism is disgusting. Ive said it before. These people are the absolute worst for the hobby. We would all be better off without the elitists.
Because it has nothing to do with the actual game.
Elitism is toxic. Enforced elitism is disgusting. Ive said it before. These people are the absolute worst for the hobby. We would all be better off without the elitists.
Yeah exactly it has nothing at all to do with the game so why are you mentioning that.
insaniak wrote: Yup, nobody ever calls out cheaters in non-tournament games.
Not using sleeves =/= cheating. Please don't make straw man arguments.
I never said that not using sleeves is cheating. I said that the reason that people expect others to use sleeves is to prevent cheating.
Of course I do. People are playing with them in a public store/game club/etc
Oh, the horror.
Oh, and, GASP! Look, up on the store walls! More unpainted miniatures!
How can you even stand to be in this place?
. ... with open gaming space there's a lot of pressure to play against anyone who wants to play.
In 25 years, that has never been my experience.
You're moving the goalposts here. Here are your words previously:
The fact that you play miniatures games for their aesthetic value doesn't mean that everyone else shares those reasons.
I respond that you'd have to be insane to invest thousands of dollars in a miniatures game if you don't enjoy the aesthetic value compared to cardboard tokens, and now you're arguing that someone who does value aesthetics isn't going to be interested in cardboard.
That's not moving goalposts, they're two separate points.
Someone who likes the miniatures for their aesthetics isn't going to be as interested in cardboard tokens.
Someone who likes the game regardless of the aesthetics isn't automatically going to be interested in a completely different game, particularly if 40K is the only game anyone they have access to is interested in playing. And that's not even getting into all of the ways that people can wind up with a 40K army without going out and buying it new.
insaniak wrote: Continuing to make that sort of statement will be regarded as trolling.
I see, the last resort of someone with a weak argument: declare that something you disagree with is "trolling", imply threat of moderator action if they keep saying it. And of course accusing someone of trolling is explicitly stated to be rude and a violation of forum rules, something that has earned me a temp ban for saying what you just said. Double standard, you think?
You know better than to claim that an opinion is wrong just because you disagree with it. And so, yes, doing that is trolling.
Because it has nothing to do with the actual game.
Elitism is toxic. Enforced elitism is disgusting. Ive said it before. These people are the absolute worst for the hobby. We would all be better off without the elitists.
IOW, you're an elitist about people you consider "elitists" and a hypocrite.
Because it has nothing to do with the actual game.
Elitism is toxic. Enforced elitism is disgusting. Ive said it before. These people are the absolute worst for the hobby. We would all be better off without the elitists.
IOW, you're an elitist about people you consider "elitists" and a hypocrite.
Because it has nothing to do with the actual game.
Elitism is toxic. Enforced elitism is disgusting. Ive said it before. These people are the absolute worst for the hobby. We would all be better off without the elitists.
IOW, you're an elitist about people you consider "elitists" and a hypocrite.
Its easy. You see, idiots with poor logic can try to argue that being intolerant of intolerance is itself counter to the goal. But its not.
The ideology of not accepting intolerant toxic elements in your circle/society/whatever is actually the right and duty of its every member to protect its every member and their continued existance and growth. You're welcome back as soon as you get the chip off your shoulder. Until then your attitude is the worst and again, we are all better off without you.
I don't imagine it'll remain particularly civil. Many of us have made our points, but we've reached the inevitable internet stage where people are somehow offended by said opinions. It's the usual bit of "if you don't want the answer...don't ask the question".
I imagine I'm older than probably 80% of the Dakka crowd (possibly more). Been gaming since the early 90's and since that time I've upped my hobby a ton. As an adult I have the funds, and time, and just enough ability to put forward my best efforts. I simply don't think it's unreasonable to ask for more from people in a communcal/social hobby. As I mentioned in my first response (and we've seen numerous times in the thread already), the "it's my hobby" thing is just not acceptable in many settings. It's a social game between two or more parties. You are an integral part of the game.
It's never wrong for a hobby community to want to raise the standard of their hobby. That should be something people want to strive to achieve. I've never seen someone turned down for a game because of their models being unpainted. If you're not allowed to a tournament because it - respect that. It's not gate-keeping, it's not kicking people out of the hobby. That should serve as motivation, if nothing else. If you're not good at painting...start working on it. I've never seen a single person who was incapable of a basic tabletop standard of painting. Ask people in your group for hints, tips, and tricks. It's not magic. But your lack of motivation or "time" (which we oddly have time to play but not paint - a common bizarre statement) is not the community's responsibility. It's yours.
Putting on an attractive, well assembled wargame is a team effort. As Yodhrin and myself have stated - it's about respecting your opponent enough to make an effort to bring your best to the table.
Do you believe that we need policies that enforce behaviour that has nothing to do with the game on people who are playing a game?
Yes? That is the text book definition of elitism.
Elistism is toxic.
The paradox of tolerance say your welcome to state your opinions especially if you can be rational and discuss those opinions with logic. If you refuse to do so the tolerant have a right to protect their society from you. Especially if any of the toxic elitist ideals start to gain ground and corrupt a otherwise tolerant society.
Ergo, i hear that you like painted models. But trying to enforce your likes as policy is bad for all of us and we have a right to say get out as soon as you're a problem.
If you don't want to paint miniatures...why for the love of god would you get involved in something that's 33% painting miniatures?
The logic of this is beyond staggering.
What I find hilarious is that it's usually the very early players who WANT to field entire painted armies.
And then once they hit that middle ground they expect to have their choice of fielding grey plastic respected.
They'll be demanding a safe space next and a pronoun.
It's bad enough their seems to be a discussion over sleeves.
My hoody has sleeves.
I wear it.
Shut up and deal with it.
This is exactly why the wargaming community thinks GW and it's fanbase are a joke.
And worse the fanbase is ok with that...
No self respect. No pride.
Elbows wrote: That would, arguably, very much depend on your definition of 'elitism' wouldn't it?
How about this one.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elitism Elitism is the belief or attitude that individuals who form an elite—a select group of people with a certain ancestry, intrinsic quality, high intellect, wealth, special skills, or experience—are more likely to be constructive to society as a whole, and therefore deserve influence or authority greater than that of others.
The attitude of the individuals that believe that painted models have an intrisic quality that makes them more constructive to the hobby as a whole and therefore they deserve influence or authority to set policies of exclusion against those that dont have painted models.
Like how as of now 20 people voted that plastic bare models should not "be allowed".
For the sake of this discusion if i say elitist or elitism thats the definition im going with. Got one thats better?
ValentineGames wrote: If you don't want to paint miniatures...why for the love of god would you get involved in something that's 33% painting miniatures?
The logic of this is beyond staggering.
What I find hilarious is that it's usually the very early players who WANT to field entire painted armies.
And then once they hit that middle ground they expect to have their choice of fielding grey plastic respected.
They'll be demanding a safe space next and a pronoun.
It's bad enough their seems to be a discussion over sleeves.
My hoody has sleeves.
I wear it.
Shut up and deal with it.
This is exactly why the wargaming community thinks GW and it's fanbase are a joke.
And worse the fanbase is ok with that...
No self respect. No pride.
The waraming community thinks 40k players are a joke? I wouldn't know but hopefully that's just your opinion and not shared widely.
ValentineGames wrote: If you don't want to paint miniatures...why for the love of god would you get involved in something that's 33% painting miniatures?
Because the other 66% of the hobby is enjoyable to them?
Some people like modeling. Some people like the game. Some people like the lore. And, of course, plenty of people like the painting.
It's perfectly acceptable for someone to follow the assembly instructions to the letter (or I guess picture in GWs case) without a hint of creativity. It's acceptable for someone to use the game only as an avenue to showcase their models. It's (slightly less but still arguably) acceptable for someone to not give two gaks about the lore and just field what they think looks cool. Why is it that painting doesn't get the same treatment?
I've dredged through all of these threads and am continually astounded by how passionate people are over this.
Just because someone doesn't share your talent or interest in one particular facet of the game doesn't make them any less of a member of the hobby.
Elbows wrote: That would, arguably, very much depend on your definition of 'elitism' wouldn't it?
How about this one.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elitism Elitism is the belief or attitude that individuals who form an elite—a select group of people with a certain ancestry, intrinsic quality, high intellect, wealth, special skills, or experience—are more likely to be constructive to society as a whole, and therefore deserve influence or authority greater than that of others.
The attitude of the individuals that believe that painted models have an intrisic quality that makes them more constructive to the hobby as a whole and therefore they deserve influence or authority to set policies of exclusion against those that dont have painted models.
Like how as of now 20 people voted that plastic bare models should not "be allowed".
For the sake of this discusion if i say elitist or elitism thats the definition im going with. Got one thats better?
I'm actually concerned that you believe painting miniatures is some kind of societal blight, and that hobbyists are setting policies....(unless you mean owners of businesses, because they absolutely have the authority to determine what goes on in their events/property).
Elbows wrote: That would, arguably, very much depend on your definition of 'elitism' wouldn't it?
How about this one.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elitism Elitism is the belief or attitude that individuals who form an elite—a select group of people with a certain ancestry, intrinsic quality, high intellect, wealth, special skills, or experience—are more likely to be constructive to society as a whole, and therefore deserve influence or authority greater than that of others.
The attitude of the individuals that believe that painted models have an intrisic quality that makes them more constructive to the hobby as a whole and therefore they deserve influence or authority to set policies of exclusion against those that dont have painted models.
Like how as of now 20 people voted that plastic bare models should not "be allowed".
For the sake of this discusion if i say elitist or elitism thats the definition im going with. Got one thats better?
I'm actually concerned that you believe painting miniatures is some kind of societal blight, and that hobbyists are setting policies....(unless you mean owners of businesses, because they absolutely have the authority to determine what goes on in their events/property).
You can go to a sports match without the right gear, but this doesn't mean people should not be still enforcing the main values and reminding people of what the traditional requirments are.
Elbows wrote: That would, arguably, very much depend on your definition of 'elitism' wouldn't it?
How about this one. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elitism Elitism is the belief or attitude that individuals who form an elite—a select group of people with a certain ancestry, intrinsic quality, high intellect, wealth, special skills, or experience—are more likely to be constructive to society as a whole, and therefore deserve influence or authority greater than that of others.
The attitude of the individuals that believe that painted models have an intrisic quality that makes them more constructive to the hobby as a whole and therefore they deserve influence or authority to set policies of exclusion against those that dont have painted models.
Like how as of now 20 people voted that plastic bare models should not "be allowed".
For the sake of this discusion if i say elitist or elitism thats the definition im going with. Got one thats better?
I'm actually concerned that you believe painting miniatures is some kind of societal blight, and that hobbyists are setting policies....(unless you mean owners of businesses, because they absolutely have the authority to determine what goes on in their events/property).
No, I am saying that Peregrine, Stormacious, and others like them push an elitist ideology over a petty game. A game in a niche genre of games that could be really enjoyable for a lot more people except that their attitude IS toxic and has pushed people out from ever starting (I have mentioned in the past that I have seen this happen first hand). Peregrine and Stormacious are not quiet about WANTING to set policies. And in rebuttal, they should more or less be shunned.
It's the logical conclusion to the stance they take.
They fit the definition of elitist. They want to enforce elitist policy. And if those who enjoy the hobby want the hobby to be inclusive and tolerant then we shouldn't put up with that kind of crap.
Elbows wrote: That would, arguably, very much depend on your definition of 'elitism' wouldn't it?
How about this one.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elitism Elitism is the belief or attitude that individuals who form an elite—a select group of people with a certain ancestry, intrinsic quality, high intellect, wealth, special skills, or experience—are more likely to be constructive to society as a whole, and therefore deserve influence or authority greater than that of others.
The attitude of the individuals that believe that painted models have an intrisic quality that makes them more constructive to the hobby as a whole and therefore they deserve influence or authority to set policies of exclusion against those that dont have painted models.
Like how as of now 20 people voted that plastic bare models should not "be allowed".
For the sake of this discusion if i say elitist or elitism thats the definition im going with. Got one thats better?
I'm actually concerned that you believe painting miniatures is some kind of societal blight, and that hobbyists are setting policies....(unless you mean owners of businesses, because they absolutely have the authority to determine what goes on in their events/property).
No, I am saying that Peregrine, Stormacious, and others like them push an elitist ideology over a petty game. A game in a niche genre of games that could be really enjoyable for a lot more people except that their attitude IS toxic and has pushed people out from ever starting (I have mentioned in the past that I have seen this happen first hand). Peregrine and Stormacious are not quiet about WANTING to set policies. And in rebuttal, they should more or less be shunned.
It's the logical conclusion to the stance they take.
No ones shunning any one or telling them to go away, its just re in forcing what supposedly goes hand in hand with the "hobby" not "petty game", its like i said, go to sports match without the correct gear and you will probably be ok to still play, but that doesn't mean vigorious reminders and strong encouragment to do it the way its supposed to be done properly should't happen, because if it doesn't happen, what is the result?, it is watering down and disassembling the core structure of what makes the hobby what it is.
Before I got into tabletop, I was probably a Yes person. Now that I understand the culture and the product ecosystem, I am a No person. Unpainted models should not be tolerated; partially painted models are okay as long as there is an expectation that they eventually be finished; proxies are okay as long as there is an expectation they they be acquired down the line pending the results of testing; etc.
Three reasons:
1) Community
The tabletop community, like any community, is bound together by a set of shared values and experiences. This involves buying models, building them, painting them, and playing with them--preferably in that order. This undoubtedly sets a high barrier to entry. But this is a feature, not a bug. Because really, why should anyone bother painting their models or building terrain at all if the goal is to get as many people into the game as possible? Why even use models? Why not cardboard cutouts or chits?
By refusing to paint your miniatures or to allow people to participate without any expectation that they paint their miniatures, you are eroding the foundations of the community.
2) Productization
Because it is expected that players paint their models, an entire product ecosystem has arisen to support that expectation. This productization of the painting process can be seen in miniature-specific paints, washes, decals, etc.
Without the expectation that people paint their models, the product ecosystem that has grown around that expectation will wither. Thus hurting the people who do want to paint their models.
3) Cool Factor
One of the primary means by which we recruit players to tabletop is how cool the models look. Of course, there are other factors of appeal, but let's be honest, the rules of competitive 40k are not one of them. 8E is probably the least horribly balanced edition ever, but it's not great either. Furthermore, painting our models is one of the key ways that we differentiate our models and make it not just cool for others, but express ourselves. Gray and white plastic and resin is neither cool nor expressive.
Elbows wrote: That would, arguably, very much depend on your definition of 'elitism' wouldn't it?
How about this one. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elitism Elitism is the belief or attitude that individuals who form an elite—a select group of people with a certain ancestry, intrinsic quality, high intellect, wealth, special skills, or experience—are more likely to be constructive to society as a whole, and therefore deserve influence or authority greater than that of others.
The attitude of the individuals that believe that painted models have an intrisic quality that makes them more constructive to the hobby as a whole and therefore they deserve influence or authority to set policies of exclusion against those that dont have painted models.
Like how as of now 20 people voted that plastic bare models should not "be allowed".
For the sake of this discusion if i say elitist or elitism thats the definition im going with. Got one thats better?
I'm actually concerned that you believe painting miniatures is some kind of societal blight, and that hobbyists are setting policies....(unless you mean owners of businesses, because they absolutely have the authority to determine what goes on in their events/property).
No, I am saying that Peregrine, Stormacious, and others like them push an elitist ideology over a petty game. A game in a niche genre of games that could be really enjoyable for a lot more people except that their attitude IS toxic and has pushed people out from ever starting (I have mentioned in the past that I have seen this happen first hand). Peregrine and Stormacious are not quiet about WANTING to set policies. And in rebuttal, they should more or less be shunned.
It's the logical conclusion to the stance they take.
No ones shunning any one or telling them to go away, its just re in forcing what supposedly goes hand in hand with the "hobby" not "petty game", its like i said, go to sports match without the correct gear and you will probably be ok to still play, but that doesn't mean vigorious reminders and strong encouragment to do it the way its supposed to be done properly should't happen, because if it doesn't happen, what is the result?, it is watering down and disassembling the core structure of what makes the hobby what it is.
"Correct gear" for a sport is to save peoples lives and or ensure fairness and a even playing field across different venues. Paint does none of those things. You have a false equivalency there. Get a better argument. Playing a game of 40k is just that. A game. The hobby that surrounds it in the form of lore, painting and modeling is all well and good but the one does not set policy for the other. The only thing that matters for the game is the rules of the game. There is no rule requiring paint.
If it disassembles your elitism, good. Disassemble away.
Whether or not I can convince stores/clubs/etc to ban the use of unpainted models it's still the right thing to do. I accept that I'm not going to have much luck with that, but I'm not going to pretend to have anything but contempt for people who refuse to paint their models or think that they should be seen in public.
Elbows wrote: That would, arguably, very much depend on your definition of 'elitism' wouldn't it?
How about this one.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elitism Elitism is the belief or attitude that individuals who form an elite—a select group of people with a certain ancestry, intrinsic quality, high intellect, wealth, special skills, or experience—are more likely to be constructive to society as a whole, and therefore deserve influence or authority greater than that of others.
The attitude of the individuals that believe that painted models have an intrisic quality that makes them more constructive to the hobby as a whole and therefore they deserve influence or authority to set policies of exclusion against those that dont have painted models.
Like how as of now 20 people voted that plastic bare models should not "be allowed".
For the sake of this discusion if i say elitist or elitism thats the definition im going with. Got one thats better?
I'm actually concerned that you believe painting miniatures is some kind of societal blight, and that hobbyists are setting policies....(unless you mean owners of businesses, because they absolutely have the authority to determine what goes on in their events/property).
No, I am saying that Peregrine, Stormacious, and others like them push an elitist ideology over a petty game. A game in a niche genre of games that could be really enjoyable for a lot more people except that their attitude IS toxic and has pushed people out from ever starting (I have mentioned in the past that I have seen this happen first hand). Peregrine and Stormacious are not quiet about WANTING to set policies. And in rebuttal, they should more or less be shunned.
It's the logical conclusion to the stance they take.
No ones shunning any one or telling them to go away, its just re in forcing what supposedly goes hand in hand with the "hobby" not "petty game", its like i said, go to sports match without the correct gear and you will probably be ok to still play, but that doesn't mean vigorious reminders and strong encouragment to do it the way its supposed to be done properly should't happen, because if it doesn't happen, what is the result?, it is watering down and disassembling the core structure of what makes the hobby what it is.
"Correct gear" for a sport is to save peoples lives and or ensure fairness and a even playing field across different venues. Paint does none of those things. You have a false equivalency there. Get a better argument. Playing a game of 40k is just that. A game. Te hobby that surrounds it in the form of lore, painting and modeling is all well and good but the one does not set policy for the other. The only thing that matters for the game is the rules of the game. There is no rule requiring paint.
If it disassembles your elitism, good. Disassemble away.
Actually paint helps your opponent easily identify troop types/weapons and it stops contributing to the effects of people coming in to hobby just because they get the feeling most people think greys are all good also in alot of peoples eyes not painting your minis and bringing them to battle is not fair and rather insulting, and it inspires and keeps the hobbys core systems glued nicely together.
Sorry if i am coming accross as an elitist to you, not trying to be.
Lance845 wrote: The hobby that surrounds it in the form of lore, painting and modeling is all well and good but the one does not set policy for the other. The only thing that matters for the game is the rules of the game. There is no rule requiring paint.
This sort of reductivism is misleading. You cannot simply separate the game from the hobby that sustains it. Games Workshop does not sell us a game. It sells us a productized hobby.
Elbows wrote: That would, arguably, very much depend on your definition of 'elitism' wouldn't it?
How about this one. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elitism Elitism is the belief or attitude that individuals who form an elite—a select group of people with a certain ancestry, intrinsic quality, high intellect, wealth, special skills, or experience—are more likely to be constructive to society as a whole, and therefore deserve influence or authority greater than that of others.
The attitude of the individuals that believe that painted models have an intrisic quality that makes them more constructive to the hobby as a whole and therefore they deserve influence or authority to set policies of exclusion against those that dont have painted models.
Like how as of now 20 people voted that plastic bare models should not "be allowed".
For the sake of this discusion if i say elitist or elitism thats the definition im going with. Got one thats better?
I'm actually concerned that you believe painting miniatures is some kind of societal blight, and that hobbyists are setting policies....(unless you mean owners of businesses, because they absolutely have the authority to determine what goes on in their events/property).
No, I am saying that Peregrine, Stormacious, and others like them push an elitist ideology over a petty game. A game in a niche genre of games that could be really enjoyable for a lot more people except that their attitude IS toxic and has pushed people out from ever starting (I have mentioned in the past that I have seen this happen first hand). Peregrine and Stormacious are not quiet about WANTING to set policies. And in rebuttal, they should more or less be shunned.
It's the logical conclusion to the stance they take.
No ones shunning any one or telling them to go away, its just re in forcing what supposedly goes hand in hand with the "hobby" not "petty game", its like i said, go to sports match without the correct gear and you will probably be ok to still play, but that doesn't mean vigorious reminders and strong encouragment to do it the way its supposed to be done properly should't happen, because if it doesn't happen, what is the result?, it is watering down and disassembling the core structure of what makes the hobby what it is.
"Correct gear" for a sport is to save peoples lives and or ensure fairness and a even playing field across different venues. Paint does none of those things. You have a false equivalency there. Get a better argument. Playing a game of 40k is just that. A game. Te hobby that surrounds it in the form of lore, painting and modeling is all well and good but the one does not set policy for the other. The only thing that matters for the game is the rules of the game. There is no rule requiring paint.
If it disassembles your elitism, good. Disassemble away.
Actually paint helps your opponent easily identify troop types/weapons
It can but its not needed.
and it stops contributing to the effects of people coming in to hobby just because they get the feeling most people think greys are all good
This is that elitism again.
Let me be clear. I WANT people to come into the hobby because they think they might enjoy any single aspect of it. Including the game. With no expectation that they have to participate in ANY other facet to contribute. Greys ARE all good. Your attitude is bad.
also in alot of peoples eyes not painting your minis and bringing them to battle is not fair and rather insulting,
I don't care about the sensitive and unreasonable thoughts and feelings of unreasonable people.
and it inspires and keeps the hobbys core systems glued nicely together.
Sorry if i am coming accross as an elitist to you, not trying to be.
I hope some day to do something so well without trying.
Lance845 wrote: The hobby that surrounds it in the form of lore, painting and modeling is all well and good but the one does not set policy for the other. The only thing that matters for the game is the rules of the game. There is no rule requiring paint.
This sort of reductivism is misleading. You cannot simply separate the game from the hobby that sustains it. Games Workshop does not sell us a game. It sells us a productized hobby.
Yeah. Its a good business model. How much each of us buy into that is up to the individual. Just because YOU bought into all of it doesn't mean I have to. I could buy models to customize and kit bash and paint and never buy a single codex because I give zero gaks about the game and don't want to play. Are you going to force me to put my models on a table and play you for hours?
Ridiculous right? So why the hell should you attempt to force people to paint in order to play?
Elbows wrote: That would, arguably, very much depend on your definition of 'elitism' wouldn't it?
How about this one.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elitism Elitism is the belief or attitude that individuals who form an elite—a select group of people with a certain ancestry, intrinsic quality, high intellect, wealth, special skills, or experience—are more likely to be constructive to society as a whole, and therefore deserve influence or authority greater than that of others.
The attitude of the individuals that believe that painted models have an intrisic quality that makes them more constructive to the hobby as a whole and therefore they deserve influence or authority to set policies of exclusion against those that dont have painted models.
Like how as of now 20 people voted that plastic bare models should not "be allowed".
For the sake of this discusion if i say elitist or elitism thats the definition im going with. Got one thats better?
I'm actually concerned that you believe painting miniatures is some kind of societal blight, and that hobbyists are setting policies....(unless you mean owners of businesses, because they absolutely have the authority to determine what goes on in their events/property).
No, I am saying that Peregrine, Stormacious, and others like them push an elitist ideology over a petty game. A game in a niche genre of games that could be really enjoyable for a lot more people except that their attitude IS toxic and has pushed people out from ever starting (I have mentioned in the past that I have seen this happen first hand). Peregrine and Stormacious are not quiet about WANTING to set policies. And in rebuttal, they should more or less be shunned.
It's the logical conclusion to the stance they take.
No ones shunning any one or telling them to go away, its just re in forcing what supposedly goes hand in hand with the "hobby" not "petty game", its like i said, go to sports match without the correct gear and you will probably be ok to still play, but that doesn't mean vigorious reminders and strong encouragment to do it the way its supposed to be done properly should't happen, because if it doesn't happen, what is the result?, it is watering down and disassembling the core structure of what makes the hobby what it is.
"Correct gear" for a sport is to save peoples lives and or ensure fairness and a even playing field across different venues. Paint does none of those things. You have a false equivalency there. Get a better argument. Playing a game of 40k is just that. A game. Te hobby that surrounds it in the form of lore, painting and modeling is all well and good but the one does not set policy for the other. The only thing that matters for the game is the rules of the game. There is no rule requiring paint.
If it disassembles your elitism, good. Disassemble away.
Actually paint helps your opponent easily identify troop types/weapons
It can but its not needed.
and it stops contributing to the effects of people coming in to hobby just because they get the feeling most people think greys are all good
This is that elitism again.
Let me be clear. I WANT people to come into the hobby because they think they might enjoy any single aspect of it. Including the game. With no expectation that they have to participate in ANY other facet to contribute. Greys ARE all good. Your attitude is bad.
also in alot of peoples eyes not painting your minis and bringing them to battle is not fair and rather insulting,
I don't care about the sensitive and unreasonable thoughts and feelings of unreasonable people.
and it inspires and keeps the hobbys core systems glued nicely together.
Sorry if i am coming accross as an elitist to you, not trying to be.
I hope some day to do something so well without trying.
How is it elitism, i feel im stating facts... Incase you arn't aware most people prefer painted minis ( just on a side note ) ( not counting this poll on this thread, since the question is too vague.)
Cite the study that says most people prefer painted minis? Cause right now the vote at the top of this page says your less than 50% which is very objectively not "most".
You are not stating facts. You are stating opinions that enforce a policy of snubbing the people who don't want to do what you want them to do.
Lance845 wrote: Cite the study that says most people prefer painted minis? Cause right now the vote at the top of this page says your less than 50% which is very objectively not "most".
You are not stating facts. You are stating opinions that enforce a policy of snubbing the people who don't want to do what you want them to do.
I just said ignore this poll because its too vague and not stating the situation in which one prefers painted models so you cant look at this poll to determine the question.
Look back a a couple of pages on 40k general discussion and see the polls related to this very topic for your answer. In other words, if you were aware of these type of threads recently you would see why i say most people.
Lance845 wrote: Cite the study that says most people prefer painted minis? Cause right now the vote at the top of this page says your less than 50% which is very objectively not "most".
You are not stating facts. You are stating opinions that enforce a policy of snubbing the people who don't want to do what you want them to do.
I just said ignore this poll because its too vague and not stating the situation in which one prefers painted models so you cant look at this poll to determine the question.
Look back a a couple of pages on 40k general discussion and see the polls related to this very topic for your answer.
No. I won't. YOU dig up the data to support your ridiculous unsubstantiated claims.
But lets even pretend you do. It doesn't matter what "most" prefer. You have no say in how anyone else spends their leisure time.
Lance845 wrote: Cite the study that says most people prefer painted minis? Cause right now the vote at the top of this page says your less than 50% which is very objectively not "most".
You are not stating facts. You are stating opinions that enforce a policy of snubbing the people who don't want to do what you want them to do.
I just said ignore this poll because its too vague and not stating the situation in which one prefers painted models so you cant look at this poll to determine the question.
Look back a a couple of pages on 40k general discussion and see the polls related to this very topic for your answer.
No. I won't. YOU dig up the data to support your ridiculous unsubstantiated claims.
But lets even pretend you do. It doesn't matter what "most" prefer. You have no say in how anyone else spends their leisure time.
It does matter what most people prefer, most people make up the core structure, with out that it all falls down over time. Im in no way saying how some is supposed to spend their leisure time, litteraly i am just telling you what the facts are.
Painting and wargaming have always been hand in glove, and how is it not factual for me to say you are contributing to the watering down of a ( word that starts with T ) when you don't highly encourage and enforce it.
Honestly I've never met anyone at any of the local clubs ive been to that wouldint like or prefer to have/play against a painted army or are not at least looking to improve. Of course that does not mean I can say this anectodal experiance speaks for the entire communtiy.
Call a spade a spade... Nothing wrong with being lazy. Everybody is to one degree or another. But trying to portray it as some sort of grand philosphical argument is just silly, Painitng is hard work. If someone CBF to do it, it is what it is so be it.
I just fail to understand not seeing the benefit of taking pride in something I invest a lot of money and time into and am trying to improve...Set a challange, complete, improve. Its satisfying If someone doesnt get that, i won't enjoy spending time with them. I don't want to play with them or be around them because theres an extremely high chance im going to have a bad time so im hedging my bets. The free time I have is precious to me. I want to spend with like minded people.
Ehh . this thread is a dumpster fire. Ive so bitten into it
ValentineGames wrote: If you don't want to paint miniatures...why for the love of god would you get involved in something that's 33% painting miniatures?
Because the other 66% of the hobby is enjoyable to them
Then they can go play Heroclix.
And the reason so many of us get passionate about it and feel passionately about it is because some of us have self respect and pride in what we do and have the common decency to show that respect to others by not playing against them with trash.
You don't spend thousands of pounds on overpriced toys just to leave them grey and slap them in your opponents fully painted face and expect there to be no resentment from us who have used our time to get gak done.
And in this age of colour primers and washes and textured base paints you have no excuse.
If I can get 50 English civil war models tabletop standard in a saturday ready for sunday after five 12 hour shifts working I expect my opponent to be able to manage 1 squad of 10 a week...
Even if it's just 1 or 2 hours a day. Or 30 minutes.
Spray (let's say 10 guardsmen) green Monday.
Boots, belts, straps Tuesday.
Metallics Wednesday.
Flesh Thursday.
Wash, base and varnish Friday.
Ready for weekend.
When i say enforce i mean highly encourage im not saying you HAVE TO do this or that or should be barred from some thing. Like enforce as in, enforce the "idea" of what great wargaming is or enforce the idea of "values/tradition".
Not once in the 2 years I played 40K at my local gaming shop did anyone refuse to play my unpainted army, say anything about me being disrespectful by not having an unpainted army, or suggest any kind of ban on people playing with grey figures. The tournaments they held required painted models, but that was all. For me it was always about building the models and playing the game, and no one argued with me about it.
The two people I play against the most hardly paints at all. All their painted models (bar a few) is painted by me. The rest of their models is a mix of primes, pure grey of haphazard attempts at painting. Both of them REALLY dislike painting and gluing. And no, why would they play another game like Heroclix if it THIS game they like?
Sure, I prefer to play against properly painted models, but exactly where is the line between "i won't play against you" and "Painted enough"? Is it enough to spray paint the models with three different rattle can paints? Do they have to be as well painted as yours -or better?
I'd much rather play against a nice dude/dudette with bare plastic models than a douche with a GD army. If I would hear someone refusing to play against someone because they don't have painted their models (at all or good enough) I would never play that s.o.b. I would probably not even talk to them. Why would I willingly suffer fools?
And another thing. The argument that is someone has the time to play, then they have time to paint is so wrong. If someone has 3 hours per week to EITHER play OR paint, many would choose to play. 3 hours of free time doesn't mean 3 hours to play AND 3 hours to paint.
And another thing 2: I'm glad to see that people (especially people that are losing an argument) aren't focusing on poor English and typos. (Y) Kudos to y'all!
Lance845 wrote: Cite the study that says most people prefer painted minis? Cause right now the vote at the top of this page says your less than 50% which is very objectively not "most".
You are not stating facts. You are stating opinions that enforce a policy of snubbing the people who don't want to do what you want them to do.
I just said ignore this poll because its too vague and not stating the situation in which one prefers painted models so you cant look at this poll to determine the question.
Look back a a couple of pages on 40k general discussion and see the polls related to this very topic for your answer. In other words, if you were aware of these type of threads recently you would see why i say most people.
The issue with this is that, by its very nature, a forum attracts a particular subset of the overall community - generally, people who are already sufficiently invested in "the hobby" (whatever that means) to decide to spend their free time searching for online resources, then stick around long enough to create an account etc, and then care enough about painting to actually get involved in a thread like this. Can you see how this might not give you a representative view of the wider community?
The way I see it, there are about five aspects to the GW hobby:
- Enjoying the backstory / fluff
- Building models (which can include converting / kitbashing)
- Painting models
- Theorising over gameplay / listbuilding
- Playing the game
Of these, 1 and 4 can be done without ever touching a model kit. You can enjoy building models (2) without ever painting or playing the game, too.
You need to have some element of model building in order to paint, unless you buy pre-built models - and some people do exactly that, buying second-hand to repaint.
You can theoretically play the game (5) without models, but it's not really accurate since things like line of sight are a thing, so using empty bases forces a level of abstraction. So I would say that either building models or buying pre-built ones makes a definite impact on the game.
But aside from things like telling factions apart, I can't see what difference painting makes to the actual playing of the game. So if you're only interested in the gaming side, I don't see why painting should be a requirement, any more than having a backstory for your army that fits into official 40K canon or spending hours considering the pros and cons of different lists.
ValentineGames wrote: If you don't want to paint miniatures...why for the love of god would you get involved in something that's 33% painting miniatures?
It might be 33% for you.
For another person it's 100%
For yet another it is 5%.
And for yet another 0%.
You don't decide how much something is of hobby(or if you do please show your credentials as The Arbitator Of What Hobby Is For Each Person. Did United Nations give you such authority? Hopefully you aren't going to claim God Himself did it ). Hobby is to each what he makes it to be.
Please stop.
This has got beyond ridiculous.
Telling people to get out of the hobby because they haven't painted THEIR models is just plain narrow mindedness, telling people what to do in THEIR hobby time is insulting, wrong and downright offensive.
People can enjoy this hobby for all of it's facets, they may like building the models and playing the game but don't enjoy painting, that is perfectly fine. Ignore the people saying otherwise there are plenty of people who will play against you and your grey army.
Rolsheen wrote: Please stop.
This has got beyond ridiculous.
Telling people to get out of the hobby because they haven't painted THEIR models is just plain narrow mindedness, telling people what to do in THEIR hobby time is insulting, wrong and downright offensive.
People can enjoy this hobby for all of it's facets, they may like building the models and playing the game but don't enjoy painting, that is perfectly fine. Ignore the people saying otherwise there are plenty of people who will play against you and your grey army.
This, i like to play against a painted army, or sometimes i even like to paint, however i am terrible slow. It would be moronical to force myself to paint everything i have just for some obscure people that demand it that way. Same applies to my fellow players , some just love to build convert and kitbash but can't hold a paintbrush. (incidentaly i fall close to that category) however it is the owners decision with what he shows up.
Unpainted models should not be allowed in tournaments or official events. Why?
1) Painting is part of the hobby. Disagree as hard as you can, but it just is. It always was and hopefully always be.
2) Painted models look way better than unpainted ones.
3) Identification. Colors help with identification on the tabletop to some degree, be it individual models, squad markings, chapters/regiments etc or weapons. You know, that blue thingy is a Plasma gun, okay?
4) Advertising. (tied with point 2), imagine being someone who never saw a tabletop game. There is a table where people play with nothing but gray, unpainted models and next to them are players who have their models painted in nice colors. In which game would you rather observe and which models you'd rather take a close look at?
However, there was a tournament in my country that allowed unpainted or partially painted armies to participate, but it was in a separate category and you were not allowed to position in the top 10 in the overall score.
How you play in your private, I don't care.
In other words, would you choose to play Basketball at high levels and then demanded the baskets were put lower because you can't jump that high? Doesn't make sense, right?
1) Painting is part of the hobby. Disagree as hard as you can, but it just is. It always was and hopefully always be.
"it is so because it was always that way" is a bad argument.
2) Is debatable and if you have and or are collecting a OOP army then you would automatically be more vary then others. However i tend to agree from there on out.
The value of painting for unit identification is questionable. I mean, yes, in an ideal world that would be the case (although writing a squad number on the base with a whiteout pen is arguably more effective than 2mm tall numbers on shoulder pads, regardless of whether or not the rest of the model is painted...) - but from my experience, the vast majority of people don't put unit markings on their models.
I can't remember who said or even if it was said in this thread or not but it was such an apt term, it immediately rang a chord with me. I describe myself as an 'unskilled perfectionist'
What do I mean by that, well, in aspirational terms, I would love to have fully painted armies. In reality, what with job, family and other interests, the time I have to devote to painting is minimal and all that for an aspect of the hobby I tolerate at best. It means I might get a spurt of creativity and attempt to paint an army that quickly falls by the wayside as my actual skill does not meet my vision - I end up getting quickly discouraged. I expect one day, far in the future when I ma retired most likely and have sufficient time to devote to it, I might actually end up with everything painted but until then, it's an aspiration not a reality.
I appreciate that, for some, playing fully painted armies is a glorious thing to behold but you need to be aware that it simply is not the reality for others. Talking in absolutes about how people 'must' do this or that, does none of us any favours. Some people in this thread really need to dial back the judgment and appreciate that in a varied hobby, not everyone's goals align perfectly.
If I had the money to fund my own games club, I'd do that. Like the Groucho, but with minis games. I'd say like the Diogenes Club, but it's hard to play wargames without speaking to one another.
I don't like using unpainted miniatures. At a stretch, I'll used unfinished minis as long as they're at "tabletop standard" (i.e. every part is covered in paint and it's reasonably neat). I'm also strictly WYSIWYG. I've had the same Imperial Guard/Astra Militarum Cadian platoon since they came out in the mid 1990s, and I've always fielded the 1st squad with a flamer and heavy bolter all that time - even when that was a completely pointless combination of weapons. Likewise with Necromunda, Kill Team or Mordheim - I equip fighters to match the miniatures I have; if I want something else I get a new miniature or convert one.
I don't hold my opponents to the same standards - although all else being equal, I'd avoid the person with the grey horde. For me, the look of the game is important. I didn't get in to wargaming looking at pictures of unpainted miniatures with no arms plonked onto a board covered in lumps of polystyrene, and it's simply not a fun experience. It's not the whole of the experience, of course; my fellow player is the main thing, but it's definitely the second thing I consider.
I don't go to tournaments; the thought of facing off against four unpainted armies in a weekend isn't the sole reason for that, but it's a factor, yes. If I were to run an event, painted armies would be a requirement, because that's an element of the hobby I'd want to promote. If someone doesn't agree, then I'm not forcing them to attend, so it's OK.
If you like playing 40k, but don't want painted miniatures, then that's fine. Just accept we're in it for different reasons, and if our paths ever cross and I turn you down for a game it's not because I think you're inferior, it's just because we like different things.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
insaniak wrote: The value of painting for unit identification is questionable. I mean, yes, in an ideal world that would be the case (although writing a squad number on the base with a whiteout pen is arguably more effective than 2mm tall numbers on shoulder pads, regardless of whether or not the rest of the model is painted...) - but from my experience, the vast majority of people don't put unit markings on their models.
It's not even that - I find that with painted models, the various bits are more distinguishable. Even if you paint all your models so that the armour is blue, all the weapons (be they bolters, flamers, lascannons, whatever) are blak and the skin is pink, then it's more visible to me that that guy is a sergeant, that one has a flamer, the one next to him has a plasma gun, etc. It affects me more in Infinity than in 40k, because Infinity has more units with similar silhouettes, and the smaller weapons means they can get "lost" against the model's body more easily. I played one game (where my fellow player was using the faction I use most often, so I was reasonably familiar with the models) where because his models were primed black, and because the lighting in our club venue is poor, I spent the whole game asking "who is that guy again? Is that a multi-rifle or a shotgun?"
TL;DR - it's not about distinguising units, it's about distinguishing models, for me at least. (although I do have platoon and squad markings on my Guard infantry )
In these kind of debates i just usualy say, do you paint your Risk gaming pieces?
There is no difference between a tabletop game and a board game. If board games are and can be unpainted in order to play the game, then the same goes for tabletop games.
If a 30-40 y/o person do not WANT to paint, who am i to argue against that?
FrozenDwarf wrote: In these kind of debates i just usualy say, do you paint your Risk gaming pieces?
There is no difference between a tabletop game and a board game. If board games are and can be unpainted in order to play the game, then the same goes for tabletop games.
If a 30-40 y/o person do not WANT to paint, who am i to argue against that?
Lance845 wrote: Playing a game of 40k is just that. A game. The hobby that surrounds it in the form of lore, painting and modeling is all well and good but the one does not set policy for the other. The only thing that matters for the game is the rules of the game. There is no rule requiring paint.
No, there's no rule. However, just because you can enjoy a game of 40k as some abstract thing doesn't mean I can or should. For me (and Peregrine, and plenty of others), having painted models on a painted battlefield is what the game is all about. For the the rules are secondary (of course they are, IMO, since there's been 8 official versions, not including Kill Team or using any other set of rules); it's the narrative and the experience.
Where I'll choose to differe from Peregrine is that I don't care what you do with other like-minded individuals. however, don't dare to call me "elitist" if i refuse a game against you because you've not painted your army. Just as I'm letting you do your thing, you don't get to say my thing is wrong.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
FrozenDwarf wrote: In these kind of debates i just usualy say, do you paint your Risk gaming pieces?
There is no difference between a tabletop game and a board game. If board games are and can be unpainted in order to play the game, then the same goes for tabletop games.
If a 30-40 y/o person do not WANT to paint, who am i to argue against that?
Where I'll choose to differe from Peregrine is that I don't care what you do with other like-minded individuals. however, don't dare to call me "elitist" if i refuse a game against you because you've not painted your army. Just as I'm letting you do your thing, you don't get to say my thing is wrong.
I'll play against unpainted armies, but it is certainly one of my requirements when vetting potential opponents. I don't get a lot of opportunities to play 40k right now (through no fault of my own...) so if you have an unpainted horde then that is a black mark against you and I will prioritise an opponent with a painted army over an unpainted one, mainly due to the other factor that IME overlaps neatly in the Venn diagram of "people with constantly unpainted armies". The meta chasing powergamer.
This is not to say this is always the case, but personal experience has taught me if you see a guy with a big army that has not a lick of paint on it then avoid at all costs. Grey is like the black and yellow of the wargaming world. Our FLGS experienced this in the store's first WMH tournament. He didn't specify a painting requirement and the winner was a local TFG turned up with his unpainted Cryx army (despite every other player having fully painted armies, including several new players) and romped to victory. Had he specified a painting requirement then he may have had to have been more discerning with his army selection and could have swung the tournament in another direction. It was jut disheartening after we finally get an FLGS (which, as you probably know are not that common in the UK) and as a form of promotion for the store to see the guy with the unpainted masses as the advert for the pinnacle of your game locally.
From my limited experience of 1st edition Warmachine tournaments, getting the models assembled was a step too far for some people. At that point, I'd just give up on miniatures altogether - get some wooden dowel cut to the right lengths and clue a picture of the mini to the front.
As it happens, in the Necromunda campaign I'm running, I've not made painted models mandatory. I've not had any bad games, but I'd have enjoyed them more if the minis had been painted.
I dont game, but personally if I did I dont think I'd have a problem with people using unpainted.
young kids often cant afford all the materials needed to paint their models, yet still want to be able to play.
As a display painter my mindset is to paint everything as perfectly as I am able, so I can sympathize if people want to put a lot of effort in and not rush models to get them onto the table.
obviously if you have the time and means then you should make best efforts to ensure your dudes are painted, especially if youre playing in a big tournament or something, but for games at the local shop, I dont see an issue.
Lance845 wrote: Playing a game of 40k is just that. A game. The hobby that surrounds it in the form of lore, painting and modeling is all well and good but the one does not set policy for the other. The only thing that matters for the game is the rules of the game. There is no rule requiring paint.
No, there's no rule. However, just because you can enjoy a game of 40k as some abstract thing doesn't mean I can or should. For me (and Peregrine, and plenty of others), having painted models on a painted battlefield is what the game is all about. For the the rules are secondary (of course they are, IMO, since there's been 8 official versions, not including Kill Team or using any other set of rules); it's the narrative and the experience.
Where I'll choose to differe from Peregrine is that I don't care what you do with other like-minded individuals. however, don't dare to call me "elitist" if i refuse a game against you because you've not painted your army. Just as I'm letting you do your thing, you don't get to say my thing is wrong.
See, I am not talking about you. YO are not trying to create a set a rules that bar others from participation. You don't think that painting a model means you have a bigger say then others in how things should be run. You are not elitist. You are just n the hobby for other reasons. Which is fine.
After thinking this over, I've got a sort of more to add to an opinion.
I know a lot of guys that don't paint their models for a while because they're still deciding on a paint scheme. Others hire a painter for their models, and painters-for-hire in my area stay busy year round- I mean, I just got my Deathwatch back after purchasing them last year and playing with "black primer, one silver arm and shoulder" for like 6 months until my painter could get some free time. I'm doing the same with my Raptors.
Hell, nowadays a lot of guys I know have a primer-painted Army, and a Kill Team painted in full detail to completion because there are a lot more kill-team games happening during weekdays.
There's also a lot of people I know who have 'basic colors' painted on their models- one or two paint colors- and they will keep them that way for years without trying to add more to it than a basic slapjob, and I won't lie- that annoys me.
Making stores 'ban' unpainted models... counterproductive. You want to have people in that store with their models playing on the table to 'advertise' the game quite often, and there are a few models I've seen in their default color that doesn't appeal to me, then I see an unpainted one fully assembled and I'm more interested in them- an example would be the Genestealer Cultists- the standard colors look boring, but then I realized that they would look good orange like some kind of Hazmat Cosmonaut or something.
And like I said, I can understand people holding off on painting. I'm not good at painting (though people tell me otherwise, I may judge myself a bit too harshly). Hell, the Raptors I'm working on now are green with a drybrush and some shade, the rest is a WIP with some friends helping me.
Look at who you're responding to and ask yourself honestly if that person really has to exercise any effort in driving people away from a game with him. His default setting is 'rude' online, man. Best thing you can do is tune that guy out, because you're about as likely to get a civil and reasonable conversation from that guy as you are to get a Honey Bun in an email from me.
Also if you know a way to email Honey Buns that would be awesome information to disclose because of reasons.
If I were of a mindset to run tournaments, I absolutely would bar people from participating with unpainted miniatures. On the other hand, I wouldn't be attending events that do allow unpainted armies and then complain about all the people with unpainted miniatures.
Someone mentioned painting boardgame pieces. Apart from my foray into painting Monopoly pieces 30 years ago, I don't bother. Primarily because all those boardgames with plastic minis tend not to be as good as the ones with counters and wooden blocks or meeples, so I generally don't own them. I did make a start on painting the minis from Doom: The Boardgame, but stopped playing that before I got further than one single marine, so I stripped him down again so he didn't stand out. I played Silver Tower with unpainted minis, and cringed a little, inside, every time I did so. I made sure I had Blackstone Fortress all painted before bringing that to the club.
AndrewGPaul wrote: If I were of a mindset to run tournaments, I absolutely would bar people from participating with unpainted miniatures. On the other hand, I wouldn't be attending events that do allow unpainted armies and then complain about all the people with unpainted miniatures.
Someone mentioned painting boardgame pieces. Apart from my foray into painting Monopoly pieces 30 years ago, I don't bother. Primarily because all those boardgames with plastic minis tend not to be as good as the ones with counters and wooden blocks or meeples, so I generally don't own them. I did make a start on painting the minis from Doom: The Boardgame, but stopped playing that before I got further than one single marine, so I stripped him down again so he didn't stand out. I played Silver Tower with unpainted minis, and cringed a little, inside, every time I did so. I made sure I had Blackstone Fortress all painted before bringing that to the club.
I'll play against any grey army and proxies as long as it's somewhat clear what they are and I get a few takebacks if my mistakes are based on the lack of correct model/painted models on my opponent's part.
BUT! Tournaments should always have enforced rules about painted, based and WYSIWYG models. Maybe one or two proxies are okay, but it should be an exception, not a rule.
Unpainted army? No tournament for you!
Small local tournaments can be way more relaxed since it's basically just playing with pals anyway, though such an event with some paint requirements can be good incentive for people to paint.
I'd like to agree with the point several people have made about painted models: Unit identification is FAR easier with painted models. Unit identification is IMO so important that I stopped doing 'realistic' camo over a decade ago, because it made it hard for ME to identify which unit was which, never mind an opponent who was unfamiliar with my models. These days, I'll put my Tau HQ units on slightly larger bases (32mm vs 25mm) to make them easier to pick out, or include areas of strong contrast on my weapons to make them easy to identify. My gun drones are painted differently from my shield drones and you can tell which is which across the table. Squad sergeants get different colored helmets - etcetera.
A big grey horde, however, is a problem. I've seen people pull of casualties of their special weapons or leaders from the grey horde. I've seen them pull off models from different units by accident, or remove HQ units when they should have pulled off a trooper. I've seen them completely confuse one unit for another, similar unit with different equipment. Of course, I've seen this with painted units as well, but not nearly as often.
Painting your models makes it easier for you, and easier for your opponent, to have a fair game that moves smoothly. This is IMO the primary reason tournaments should have a 'painted armies only' rule, along with WYSIWYG.
Like I said earlier, I'll play an unpainted army, but that person is NOT making the experience a smooth and enjoyable one, even if we put aesthetic considerations aside. They are forcing me to constantly guess and double check about their army because from 2-3 feet away a grey blob is a grey blob.
Stormatious wrote: Ok now this has become official uncivil. Come on please stop, i dont want another locked grey thread.
Exactly
Notice how one person has vehemently worked to get these threads locked. Don’t lock the thread, just give the bird a suspension. It’s that simple. Everyone is rather civil until she shows up. One toxic user to get rid of, and the thread is fine. I mean, arguing with the mod and telling him why he’s so wrong...after getting two similar threads locked in the past couple weeks...just suspend her and get it over with, so the rest of us can enjoy these sorts of discussions.
Like I said earlier, I'll play an unpainted army, but that person is NOT making the experience a smooth and enjoyable one, even if we put aesthetic considerations aside. They are forcing me to constantly guess and double check about their army because from 2-3 feet away a grey blob is a grey blob.
Yup, played against a DE player the other week. Now I'll preface this by saying what was painted was painted amazingly (and converted too. The Haemonculus made from the AMHQ guy was spot on. ) and he was a great opponent. However, them Reavers, which had not been painted yet (okay, the unit leader on the grav windsurfing board was fething cool ) were a bit of a shock to me when I discovered they had 3 Blasters in the unit, which I would have seen a lot easier had they been painted.
On a side note as well, unpainted stuff just looks a mess to me. I've just finished making my own converted Lord Discordant on his ol' Murderpede and it's a mishmash of green stuff, metal bits, Reaper bones, bare plastic and other bits and pre undercoat it looks off to anyone not named me as they don't know what bit is what. I do, as I sculpted them. All of these bits will become apparent when I paint it (or at the very least undercoat it), but right now I look at it just to the right of me as I'm typing this and see what a mess it looks right now and wonder how anyone could think that would look good to put on the table.
Stormatious wrote: Ok now this has become official uncivil. Come on please stop, i dont want another locked grey thread.
Exactly
Notice how one person has vehemently worked to get these threads locked. Don’t lock the thread, just give the bird a suspension. It’s that simple. Everyone is rather civil until she shows up. One toxic user to get rid of, and the thread is fine. I mean, arguing with the mod and telling him why he’s so wrong...after getting two similar threads locked in the past couple weeks...just suspend her and get it over with, so the rest of us can enjoy these sorts of discussions.
Stormatious wrote: Ok now this has become official uncivil. Come on please stop, i dont want another locked grey thread.
Exactly
Notice how one person has vehemently worked to get these threads locked. Don’t lock the thread, just give the bird a suspension. It’s that simple. Everyone is rather civil until she shows up. One toxic user to get rid of, and the thread is fine. I mean, arguing with the mod and telling him why he’s so wrong...after getting two similar threads locked in the past couple weeks...just suspend her and get it over with, so the rest of us can enjoy these sorts of discussions.
While Peregrine is a consistently negative and toxic influence in this type of thread (and many others), they've hardly been the only poster racing towards the bottom.
"Should people be obliged to paint?" needs to be banned as a topic of discussion, like politics was. This board collectively fails at being capable of civility on the matter, and every thread turns out the same, with zero exceptions.
So I've said it before, but my opinions are pretty simple and bland. I like painting miniatures, and I like playing with and against painted miniatures. I will, however, just as easily play with and against unpainted miniatures (in fact, I just played a game yesterday with unpainted miniatures, though in my defense I spent all my hobby time painting an army for a tournament this past weekend). I also use printed tokens and paper standees for certain projects.
I do consider painting and painted miniatures an intrinsic part of the miniature wargaming as a whole, although I do understand the argument that it may not be a part of an individual's hobby. I think "tradition" is a valid argument. HG Wells painted his miniatures and terrain when he played, and the expectation continues. Most rulebooks talk about the painting of miniatures.
I encourage incremental painting and painted units - paint 15-30 minutes a day, and that time adds up. Finish a unit a month, and you'll eventually have a painted army. I also think people get into a headspace where they want their miniatures to look like what's on the box or in the articles they see online or in magazines. The process becomes too involved and intimidating. If they pulled back and painted with simpler techniques and using the three-foot rule, then I don't think painting would be seen as such a hassle. I also don't have a problem with people sending out their miniatures to be painted by others (entering those miniatures into a painting competition part of a tournament, on the other hand, should always be forbidden).
I do think there are times when painted miniatures should be required - tournaments and shows/conventions. The shows/convention assumption is pretty simple. We're putting on displays of our hobby, so we want it to look as good as possible. I also like it when tournaments have painting requirements.
So yeah. TLDR; I'll play with and against unpainted miniatures, but I prefer painted, and painting is an intrinsic part of the hobby.
Stormatious wrote: Ok now this has become official uncivil. Come on please stop, i dont want another locked grey thread.
Exactly
Notice how one person has vehemently worked to get these threads locked. Don’t lock the thread, just give the bird a suspension. It’s that simple. Everyone is rather civil until she shows up. One toxic user to get rid of, and the thread is fine. I mean, arguing with the mod and telling him why he’s so wrong...after getting two similar threads locked in the past couple weeks...just suspend her and get it over with, so the rest of us can enjoy these sorts of discussions.
Wait....
Lil pontificating Perri's a woman?
Not that it actually matters, since a toxic poster is a toxic poster, but yeah, seems that way.
Honestly, on the topic though...I love painting. It's what originally got me into the hobby. But I also love building/converting, and sometimes THAT itch is stronger. So I have a pile of unpainted grey still. But I'm working through it. And I try to field painted models every chance I get, and avoid grey plastic as much as possible. Let's face it...when it's on the table, even a poorly painted army looks better than grey plastic. But it should be enjoyed; not rammed down peoples' throats to play for fun in such a militaristic way that they get told "paint, or GTFO of this hobby". Tournaments with requirements are one thing, since it's written into the rules of the tournament. But a pickup game? Hell no. I like when tournaments give a "reward" to painted armies over unpainted, but if they insist models be painted for a tournament...that's a rule of the tournament.
And yes, any time I've gone to a tournament that required the models be painted, I made sure every last one was painted (even if it wasn't my best work).
I'll never understand where some people get off telling others what they can and cant do. Unfortunately it seems their self-worth is directly tied to their gatekeeping.
You should want to paint your models, but if you dont that's ok too.
I would much rather play against a nice player with all grey than an as shole with a fully painted one.
When I do play against another fully painted army;
1. My immersion level goes up.
2. it looks visually stunning once in combat. (Think about the best batreps on YouTube, I have yet to watch one with all grey)
3. I take pictures
I still have fun playing the game whether or not my opponent is all grey. since starting back up w 8th I have tried to help others @ my flgs with their painting. It is much easier to teach/help someone to paint than to just give them the brush off.
Once again there's a wide range of opinion on the subject covering the whole spectrum. Back in my RT days as a teenager I didn't paint my miniatures and nor did my friends. Now, in 8th edition, I have a fully painted army, and so does everyone at my local gaming group. It's certainly nice to see two fully painted armies on the table, but I'd still be happy to play against an unpainted army.
<----- EDIT: Except this guy. He's my avatar, not part of my army, and is therefore my only unpainted miniature
Racerguy180 wrote: I'll never understand where some people get off telling others what they can and cant do. Unfortunately it seems their self-worth is directly tied to their gatekeeping.
You should want to paint your models, but if you dont that's ok too.
I would much rather play against a nice player with all grey than an as shole with a fully painted one.
When I do play against another fully painted army;
1. My immersion level goes up.
2. it looks visually stunning once in combat. (Think about the best batreps on YouTube, I have yet to watch one with all grey)
3. I take pictures
I still have fun playing the game whether or not my opponent is all grey. since starting back up w 8th I have tried to help others @ my flgs with their painting. It is much easier to teach/help someone to paint than to just give them the brush off.
I have to say that you have pretty much captured my feelings on the subject!
In my gaming community there is a wide variety of painting on display on any given tabletop. A few players with absolutely stunning forces on the tabletop, a few with a grey tide and the rest of us in between. I can't think of a time when I have put unpainted minis on the table for a game at the FLGS, but I wouldn't even think of refusing a game due to lack of painting by my opponent. Our annual Club Championships require "fully painted" armies and have a strong painting component to the final score, but the other tournaments are more relaxed as far as painting goes. As the Flames of War tournament organizer I have yet to make painting mandatory for tourneys - yes, even "historical wargamers" have been known to play with unpainted miniatures.
I have one opponent who rarely has fully painted models but I really enjoy playing against him. His lists are both varied and good, he is a skilled player and also fun to throw dice with a couple of hours. I can absolutely look past the army of black undercoat to see a great opponent. Refusing a game would diminish my own enjoyment.
Excommunicatus wrote: I really, really, really, really, don't care what other people do with their time, money and possessions.
Fair enough, but it affects the opponent's experience too. I also don't care what other people do with their time, but I do when my time is affected
It doesn't affect your experience unless you choose to allow it to do so. If you don't want to paint against unpainted minis, don't.
All that's being said is that if you choose that path, acknowledge that you're doing it due to your own preferences, rather than because the other guy is somehow in the wrong.
Again - is it wrong to expect people to properly assemble their models? Is it wrong to expect people to have a reasonable grasp of the rules?
If it is, then why are those things extremely widely accepted, to the point where I've rarely ever encountered anyone who didn't meet that expectation? And if it isn't, then why is it wrong to also expect the same level of effort when it comes to painting?
Because some people, no matter how hard they try, just cannot paint to the standard THEY want for their minis? Maybe they have more important things to do with their time than paint hundreds of minis trying to learn how to paint them well? And maybe they have more important things to do with their money than pay someone else to do it? And all in all they think bare grey plastic looks better on THEIR minis - not your minis, THEIR minis - than a crummy paint job?
In the end it's your - YOUR - choice to play them or not. If they didn't want to play, they wouldn't have bought the minis and shown up at the game store with them, right? But don't pretend that YOUR not the one making that choice.
Elbows wrote: That would, arguably, very much depend on your definition of 'elitism' wouldn't it?
How about this one.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elitism Elitism is the belief or attitude that individuals who form an elite—a select group of people with a certain ancestry, intrinsic quality, high intellect, wealth, special skills, or experience—are more likely to be constructive to society as a whole, and therefore deserve influence or authority greater than that of others.
The attitude of the individuals that believe that painted models have an intrisic quality that makes them more constructive to the hobby as a whole and therefore they deserve influence or authority to set policies of exclusion against those that dont have painted models.
Like how as of now 20 people voted that plastic bare models should not "be allowed".
For the sake of this discusion if i say elitist or elitism thats the definition im going with. Got one thats better?
I'm actually concerned that you believe painting miniatures is some kind of societal blight, and that hobbyists are setting policies....(unless you mean owners of businesses, because they absolutely have the authority to determine what goes on in their events/property).
I'm actually concerned that you misconstrued his post that badly.
Now that you've had some time, re-read his post and see if you think your response is still appropriate. Because from here it looks an awful lot like a straw-man.
Elbows wrote: That would, arguably, very much depend on your definition of 'elitism' wouldn't it?
How about this one.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elitism Elitism is the belief or attitude that individuals who form an elite—a select group of people with a certain ancestry, intrinsic quality, high intellect, wealth, special skills, or experience—are more likely to be constructive to society as a whole, and therefore deserve influence or authority greater than that of others.
The attitude of the individuals that believe that painted models have an intrisic quality that makes them more constructive to the hobby as a whole and therefore they deserve influence or authority to set policies of exclusion against those that dont have painted models.
Like how as of now 20 people voted that plastic bare models should not "be allowed".
For the sake of this discusion if i say elitist or elitism thats the definition im going with. Got one thats better?
I'm actually concerned that you believe painting miniatures is some kind of societal blight, and that hobbyists are setting policies....(unless you mean owners of businesses, because they absolutely have the authority to determine what goes on in their events/property).
No, I am saying that Peregrine, Stormacious, and others like them push an elitist ideology over a petty game. A game in a niche genre of games that could be really enjoyable for a lot more people except that their attitude IS toxic and has pushed people out from ever starting (I have mentioned in the past that I have seen this happen first hand). Peregrine and Stormacious are not quiet about WANTING to set policies. And in rebuttal, they should more or less be shunned.
It's the logical conclusion to the stance they take.
No ones shunning any one or telling them to go away, its just re in forcing what supposedly goes hand in hand with the "hobby" not "petty game", its like i said, go to sports match without the correct gear and you will probably be ok to still play, but that doesn't mean vigorious reminders and strong encouragment to do it the way its supposed to be done properly should't happen, because if it doesn't happen, what is the result?, it is watering down and disassembling the core structure of what makes the hobby what it is.
"Correct gear" for a sport is to save peoples lives and or ensure fairness and a even playing field across different venues. Paint does none of those things. You have a false equivalency there. Get a better argument. Playing a game of 40k is just that. A game. Te hobby that surrounds it in the form of lore, painting and modeling is all well and good but the one does not set policy for the other. The only thing that matters for the game is the rules of the game. There is no rule requiring paint.
If it disassembles your elitism, good. Disassemble away.
Actually paint helps your opponent easily identify troop types/weapons ...
Ah... not really. How does painting your whole army blue with black weapons and white trim help me identify all-black weapon A from all-black weapons B, C, and D? How does painting the overall mini blue help me distinguish blue squad A from blue squads B, C, and D?
I've played against 'grey legion' and I've played against painted armies. I still have to squint and look closely to see whether that's an assault squad or a tactical squad; a melta from a plasma from a bolter.
Ironically, one of the easiest 'weapon ID' armies I've played against was primed white and washed in black; a 'high contrast' grey legion, if you will. Made identifying the weapons dead easy from across the table. Looked... well, I've seen better, but it certainly busts your argument that painting minis to your standard helps make them easy to identify.
EDIT: I was going to read the rest of this thread, but it's clear it's run it's usual course. It's already failed to remain civil, and I expect it will only become even more uncivil as time passes.
So.... yeah. I'm done. Go ahead and throw poo at each other until the thread inevitably gets locked. I've got painting to do.
I dont like this threads polls at all, the question is merkey and unclear. Should unpainted minis be allowed? but no specifics at all, people might think unpainted minis should be allowed between a extremely causal game between some good friends, or mabye they think they should be allowed as long as its not the whole army. So this thread should have been shut down ages ago before every one had seen the poll that is vague and spreads a mis conception.
Edit - Other threads asking this question in a specific manner have had the majority voting for Painted minis are preferred over greys and would rather have them painted but dont mind. ( so GW LOVES THIS THREAD )
It's not unclear at all, it's a simple yes or no question on whether someone will allow unpainted minis or not. You just don't like it because the results don't agree with your assertions.
Platuan4th wrote: It's not unclear at all, it's a simple yes or no question on whether someone will allow unpainted minis or not. You just don't like it because the results don't agree with your assertions.
"should painted minis be allowed", how is that clear, what situation are they referring to, how often is it ok etc etc etc. Its very unclear.
Platuan4th wrote: It's not unclear at all, it's a simple yes or no question on whether someone will allow unpainted minis or not. You just don't like it because the results don't agree with your assertions.
"should painted minis be allowed", how is that clear, what situation are they referring to, how often is it ok etc etc etc. Its very unclear.
No, it's not, you're just trying to add conditions because you want different results. It's a very simple question: Should unpainted models be allowed in 40K, yes or no?
Platuan4th wrote: It's not unclear at all, it's a simple yes or no question on whether someone will allow unpainted minis or not. You just don't like it because the results don't agree with your assertions.
"should painted minis be allowed", how is that clear, what situation are they referring to, how often is it ok etc etc etc. Its very unclear.
No, it's not, you're just trying to add conditions because you want different results. It's a very simple question: Should painted models be allow in 40K, yes or no?
No you're wrong, its not clear, explain to me how the poll question is telling us what kind of situation or how often greys should be allowed. If you don't understand the question posed if incredibly vague i cant help you sorry.
Platuan4th wrote: It's not unclear at all, it's a simple yes or no question on whether someone will allow unpainted minis or not. You just don't like it because the results don't agree with your assertions.
"should painted minis be allowed", how is that clear, what situation are they referring to, how often is it ok etc etc etc. Its very unclear.
No, it's not, you're just trying to add conditions because you want different results. It's a very simple question: Should painted models be allow in 40K, yes or no?
No you're wrong, its not clear, explain to me how the poll question is telling us what kind of situation or how often greys should be allowed. If you don't understand the question posed if incredibly vague i cant help you sorry.
Platuan4th wrote: It's not unclear at all, it's a simple yes or no question on whether someone will allow unpainted minis or not. You just don't like it because the results don't agree with your assertions.
"should painted minis be allowed", how is that clear, what situation are they referring to, how often is it ok etc etc etc. Its very unclear.
No, it's not, you're just trying to add conditions because you want different results. It's a very simple question: Should painted models be allow in 40K, yes or no?
No you're wrong, its not clear, explain to me how the poll question is telling us what kind of situation or how often greys should be allowed. If you don't understand the question posed if incredibly vague i cant help you sorry.
The irony in this statement is hilarious.
Expand and explain, or just leave if you have nothing constructive to add.
Platuan4th wrote: No, it's not, you're just trying to add conditions because you want different results. It's a very simple question: Should unpainted models be allowed in 40K, yes or no?
And the point is that a black and white yes/no question over-simplifies the issue and skews the results. If your position is "only painted models, except for a new player's first game with the starter set" then you're overwhelmingly on the "painting is expected" side of the debate but you have to answer "yes" to the poll question because there is at least one situation where unpainted models should be permitted. The "yes" answers get all the genuine "yes" votes along with all of the "maybe" votes, while the clear "no" vote only gets the absolute strongest opposition votes. Whether this is deliberate or not I have no idea, but it's certainly not a fair and unbiased poll.
I've already explained how your assertion regarding the question is incorrect, you just refuse to accept it.
Claiming I don't understand while you miss the obvious is ironic, especially since you also feign to take a pretentious, intellectually superior attitude about it.
Platuan4th wrote: No, it's not, you're just trying to add conditions because you want different results. It's a very simple question: Should unpainted models be allowed in 40K, yes or no?
And the point is that a black and white yes/no question over-simplifies the issue and skews the results. If your position is "only painted models, except for a new player's first game with the starter set" then you're overwhelmingly on the "painting is expected" side of the debate but you have to answer "yes" to the poll question because there is at least one situation where unpainted models should be permitted. The "yes" answers get all the genuine "yes" votes along with all of the "maybe" votes, while the clear "no" vote only gets the absolute strongest opposition votes. Whether this is deliberate or not I have no idea, but it's certainly not a fair and unbiased poll.
No poll on this issue would be unbiased. Does it skew the results? Yes, but the question isn't unclear.
Platuan4th wrote: I've already explained how your assertion regarding the question is incorrect, you just refuse to accept it.
Claiming I don't understand while you miss the obvious is ironic, especially since you also feign to take a pretentious, intellectually superior attitude about it.
Platuan4th wrote: No, it's not, you're just trying to add conditions because you want different results. It's a very simple question: Should unpainted models be allowed in 40K, yes or no?
And the point is that a black and white yes/no question over-simplifies the issue and skews the results. If your position is "only painted models, except for a new player's first game with the starter set" then you're overwhelmingly on the "painting is expected" side of the debate but you have to answer "yes" to the poll question because there is at least one situation where unpainted models should be permitted. The "yes" answers get all the genuine "yes" votes along with all of the "maybe" votes, while the clear "no" vote only gets the absolute strongest opposition votes. Whether this is deliberate or not I have no idea, but it's certainly not a fair and unbiased poll.
No poll on this issue would be unbiased.
Hmm? So i refuse to accept what your saying, i "feign" a attitude...Please say some thing worth while or meaningful to this thread. Instead of de constructive combativeness inputs.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Platuan4th wrote: I've already explained how your assertion regarding the question is incorrect, you just refuse to accept it.
Claiming I don't understand while you miss the obvious is ironic, especially since you also feign to take a pretentious, intellectually superior attitude about it.
Platuan4th wrote: No, it's not, you're just trying to add conditions because you want different results. It's a very simple question: Should unpainted models be allowed in 40K, yes or no?
And the point is that a black and white yes/no question over-simplifies the issue and skews the results. If your position is "only painted models, except for a new player's first game with the starter set" then you're overwhelmingly on the "painting is expected" side of the debate but you have to answer "yes" to the poll question because there is at least one situation where unpainted models should be permitted. The "yes" answers get all the genuine "yes" votes along with all of the "maybe" votes, while the clear "no" vote only gets the absolute strongest opposition votes. Whether this is deliberate or not I have no idea, but it's certainly not a fair and unbiased poll.
No poll on this issue would be unbiased. Does it skew the results? Yes, but the question isn't unclear.
Obviously the question technically isn't unclear... But its unclear in terms of what the recipients ( dakka ) would think the question is referring to, or what we are talking about here.
Obviously the question technically isn't unclear...
Thank you for finally getting it. That's what I was stating. There's actually an answer for what you want, BTW, it just asks you to expand in the thread.
How is it relevant that the question is technically clear? i could say, Are greys acceptable? ( its technically a clear question... obviously ) but as a question, but its vague in terms of what the recipients would think the question is referring to, so in that sense its unclear... do you get my point?
Obviously the question technically isn't unclear...
Thank you for finally getting it. That's what I was stating. There's actually an answer for what you want, BTW, it just asks you to expand in the thread.
How is it relevant that the question is technically clear? i could say, Are greys acceptable? as a question, but its vague in terms of what the recipients would think the question is referring to, so in that sense its unclear... do you get my point?
I always got your point, I just disagreed with your assertion that as presented it was unclear, especially since the poll asks to have answers expanded upon if your yes is conditional.
Should unpainted miniatures be allowed?
Yes 55% [ 75 ]
No 24% [ 32 ]
Yes, but only under certain circumstances (please explain) 21% [ 29 ]
Total Votes : 136
If you voted "No", then I REALLY hope you're either buying painted minis or at least paint them on the sprue since you think unpainted minis aren't allowed. If you've got unpainted minis at home you're a hypocrite.
If the question would have been "Should unpainted models be allowed at tournaments?" or "Should unpainted models be allowed at gaming stores?" then people (me included) would have voted differently.
Kall3m0n wrote: If you voted "No", then I REALLY hope you're either buying painted minis or at least paint them on the sprue since you think unpainted minis aren't allowed. If you've got unpainted minis at home you're a hypocrite.
Obviously the question technically isn't unclear...
Thank you for finally getting it. That's what I was stating. There's actually an answer for what you want, BTW, it just asks you to expand in the thread.
How is it relevant that the question is technically clear? i could say, Are greys acceptable? as a question, but its vague in terms of what the recipients would think the question is referring to, so in that sense its unclear... do you get my point?
I always got your point, I just disagreed with your assertion that as presented it was unclear, especially since the poll asks to have answers expanded upon if your yes is conditional.
Any question is usually clear unless they spell some thing incorrect etc, my point is its vague and unclear to what the main recipients interpret it as.
Kall3m0n wrote: If you voted "No", then I REALLY hope you're either buying painted minis or at least paint them on the sprue since you think unpainted minis aren't allowed. If you've got unpainted minis at home you're a hypocrite.
Yeah, no. That's not even a realistic argument.
Yes is it. The question is super clear: Should unpainted mins be allowed?. If you don't think they should be allowed then you have many problems with handling your own greys before they are painted because you don't think they are allowed. The question/poll never specifies under what circumstances they should or should not be allowed. Just allowed. Period.
When I ran a Necromunda event, I made it a rule that after the first game night, there was a week between games- and I expected models to be at least primed and basecoated.
I work as many hours, even more than most people I play with- and I had time to do the basic colors on Sector Mechanicus terrain for a 4x4 table.
I was pretty up front with that. Plus, we had 'paint day' every week where all we did was get together and paint and help each other painting and working models. Some guys are good at edge highlighting, some can do little designs very well, some guys are conversion gurus.
No one had an issue with it. I expect the same in my Kill Team campaign event. Painting requirements also pretty standard for any kind of tournament or league here, and the exception to this is usually "show a receipt from the last few days or last week that this is brand new and you get a pass", otherwise you're not prohibited from playing, but points are deducted from your score.
I won't say "You should have to paint your models". Dude, it's your property and you can do whatever you want with it.
I CAN say that I don't enjoy playing against a horde of unpainted models over and over.
And I CAN say I won't allow someone to play through my events without painting to some degree.
At the end of the day, I have no control, nor do I want any control over what you do with your personal property. I do have control over those whom I interact with and allow to participate in my event, and that's my prerogative.
Obviously the question technically isn't unclear...
Thank you for finally getting it. That's what I was stating. There's actually an answer for what you want, BTW, it just asks you to expand in the thread.
How is it relevant that the question is technically clear? i could say, Are greys acceptable? as a question, but its vague in terms of what the recipients would think the question is referring to, so in that sense its unclear... do you get my point?
I always got your point, I just disagreed with your assertion that as presented it was unclear, especially since the poll asks to have answers expanded upon if your yes is conditional.
Any question is usually clear unless they spell some thing incorrect etc, my point is its vague and unclear to what the main recipients interpret it as.
Yeah, I got that, thanks. I believe it's intentionally open ended so as more people use that 3rd option and encourage conversation, but it seems most of us want to boil it down to simplicity.
Kall3m0n wrote: Should unpainted miniatures be allowed?
Yes 55% [ 75 ]
No 24% [ 32 ]
Yes, but only under certain circumstances (please explain) 21% [ 29 ]
Total Votes : 136
If you voted "No", then I REALLY hope you're either buying painted minis or at least paint them on the sprue since you think unpainted minis aren't allowed. If you've got unpainted minis at home you're a hypocrite.
If the question would have been "Should unpainted models be allowed at tournaments?" or "Should unpainted models be allowed at gaming stores?" then people (me included) would have voted differently.
Are you ok in the head? I voted No and have about 2 yrs of back log of grey plastics, some prepped and ready to be painted, some still on sprue; I also have a vast of miniatures painted to a high standard, some(Tau, IG) were stripped and repainted as my skills increased.
I played this guy with a grey army once, he lost, wanted a rematch with new list( I kept the same list), he lost; he came back next week and wanted to game with grey plastic, I refused to play as it was not enjoyable for me, I did the minimum to play anybody no matter the army or state of their army at least once(rematch if opponent lost), people like him in this hobby can GTFO and play MtG or games that have pre painted minis.
I will support someone who enjoys painting, encouraging them to paint their miniatures; especially someone who is good at it. Someone who doesn't have the time, energy, or talent to paint, I'm not gonna begrudge them that. Not everyone can afford to hire someone else to paint the army for them.
As for "contributing to the graying of the hobby", the painting and modeling portion of the hobby is as big as ever, if not bigger than ever.
If you have time to play the game you have time to paint your models. If you have time to post on forums about 40k you have time to paint your models. Very, very few people are genuinely unable to paint their models before playing, the vast majority simply refuse to do their part to create an enjoyable game experience and expect everyone else to lower their standards to accommodate their refusal.
Obviously the question technically isn't unclear...
Thank you for finally getting it. That's what I was stating. There's actually an answer for what you want, BTW, it just asks you to expand in the thread.
How is it relevant that the question is technically clear? i could say, Are greys acceptable? as a question, but its vague in terms of what the recipients would think the question is referring to, so in that sense its unclear... do you get my point?
I always got your point, I just disagreed with your assertion that as presented it was unclear, especially since the poll asks to have answers expanded upon if your yes is conditional.
Any question is usually clear unless they spell some thing incorrect etc, my point is its vague and unclear to what the main recipients interpret it as.
You LITERALLY started a thread asking to create policy that enforced rules of no non-painted models allowed inside stores. If you had grey plastic play at home. That was LITERALLY your stance. The question "Should non-painted models be allowed" "No" "Yes" "Yes but with conditions, please explain".
If your answer wasn't "yes" then you think you have some say in enforcing a rule against others for not doing the extra work you do. Which makes you an elitist. Which makes you wrong.
Kall3m0n wrote: Should unpainted miniatures be allowed?
Yes 55% [ 75 ]
No 24% [ 32 ]
Yes, but only under certain circumstances (please explain) 21% [ 29 ]
Total Votes : 136
If you voted "No", then I REALLY hope you're either buying painted minis or at least paint them on the sprue since you think unpainted minis aren't allowed. If you've got unpainted minis at home you're a hypocrite.
If the question would have been "Should unpainted models be allowed at tournaments?" or "Should unpainted models be allowed at gaming stores?" then people (me included) would have voted differently.
Are you ok in the head? I voted No and have about 2 yrs of back log of grey plastics, some prepped and ready to be painted, some still on sprue; I also have a vast of miniatures painted to a high standard, some(Tau, IG) were stripped and repainted as my skills increased.
I played this guy with a grey army once, he lost, wanted a rematch with new list( I kept the same list), he lost; he came back next week and wanted to game with grey plastic, I refused to play as it was not enjoyable for me, I did the minimum to play anybody no matter the army or state of their army at least once(rematch if opponent lost), people like him in this hobby can GTFO and play MtG or games that have pre painted minis.
I'm trying to show how this poll is extremely poor. He asks if greys should be allowed. PERIOD. He doesn't specify when, where or why. There needs to be a specification. If you think that unpainted models shouldn't be allowed PERIOD, then that includes everywhere, no matter why.
Peregrine wrote: If you have time to play the game you have time to paint your models. If you have time to post on forums about 40k you have time to paint your models. Very, very few people are genuinely unable to paint their models before playing, the vast majority simply refuse to do their part to create an enjoyable game experience and expect everyone else to lower their standards to accommodate their refusal.
This isn't a question of time or ability. Nobody has to do what you want them to do. You wanting to enforce policy that gate keeps them makes you a toxic element of the community. I would rather RAISE the standards of the community by driving you out.
Obviously the question technically isn't unclear...
Thank you for finally getting it. That's what I was stating. There's actually an answer for what you want, BTW, it just asks you to expand in the thread.
How is it relevant that the question is technically clear? i could say, Are greys acceptable? as a question, but its vague in terms of what the recipients would think the question is referring to, so in that sense its unclear... do you get my point?
I always got your point, I just disagreed with your assertion that as presented it was unclear, especially since the poll asks to have answers expanded upon if your yes is conditional.
Any question is usually clear unless they spell some thing incorrect etc, my point is its vague and unclear to what the main recipients interpret it as.
You LITERALLY started a thread asking to create policy that enforced rules of no non-painted models allowed inside stores. If you had grey plastic play at home. That was LITERALLY your stance. The question "Should non-painted models be allowed" "No" "Yes" "Yes but with conditions, please explain".
If your answer wasn't "yes" then you think you have some say in enforcing a rule against others for not doing the extra work you do. Which makes you an elitist. Which makes you wrong.
Enforce is probably the wrong word, i really should say highly encourage and highly discourage, so my bad. I dont mean enforce as in barring people, or telling them go away, but have rules applied in a general sense, but exceptions for understandable reasons.
Kall3m0n wrote: Should unpainted miniatures be allowed? Yes 55% [ 75 ] No 24% [ 32 ] Yes, but only under certain circumstances (please explain) 21% [ 29 ] Total Votes : 136
If you voted "No", then I REALLY hope you're either buying painted minis or at least paint them on the sprue since you think unpainted minis aren't allowed. If you've got unpainted minis at home you're a hypocrite.
If the question would have been "Should unpainted models be allowed at tournaments?" or "Should unpainted models be allowed at gaming stores?" then people (me included) would have voted differently.
Are you ok in the head? I voted No and have about 2 yrs of back log of grey plastics, some prepped and ready to be painted, some still on sprue; I also have a vast of miniatures painted to a high standard, some(Tau, IG) were stripped and repainted as my skills increased.
I played this guy with a grey army once, he lost, wanted a rematch with new list( I kept the same list), he lost; he came back next week and wanted to game with grey plastic, I refused to play as it was not enjoyable for me, I did the minimum to play anybody no matter the army or state of their army at least once(rematch if opponent lost), people like him in this hobby can GTFO and play MtG or games that have pre painted minis.
I'm trying to show how this poll is extremely poor. He asks if greys should be allowed. PERIOD. He doesn't specify when, where or why. There needs to be a specification. If you think that unpainted models shouldn't be allowed PERIOD, then that includes everywhere, no matter why.
Correct. And if you think greys should ONLY be allowed under specific circumstances then you choose "Yes, but only under certain circumstances (please explain)". and then explain. It's a very clear poll. If you don't think they should be allowed always choose option 3.
Enforce is probably the wrong word, i really should say highly encourage and highly discourage, so my bad.
Let me be clearer. Highly discourage is also bad. You can encourage people to paint. You can't give people gak for not painting. Well, you can, but it makes you a prick.
Kall3m0n wrote: Should unpainted miniatures be allowed?
Yes 55% [ 75 ]
No 24% [ 32 ]
Yes, but only under certain circumstances (please explain) 21% [ 29 ]
Total Votes : 136
If you voted "No", then I REALLY hope you're either buying painted minis or at least paint them on the sprue since you think unpainted minis aren't allowed. If you've got unpainted minis at home you're a hypocrite.
If the question would have been "Should unpainted models be allowed at tournaments?" or "Should unpainted models be allowed at gaming stores?" then people (me included) would have voted differently.
Are you ok in the head? I voted No and have about 2 yrs of back log of grey plastics, some prepped and ready to be painted, some still on sprue; I also have a vast of miniatures painted to a high standard, some(Tau, IG) were stripped and repainted as my skills increased.
I played this guy with a grey army once, he lost, wanted a rematch with new list( I kept the same list), he lost; he came back next week and wanted to game with grey plastic, I refused to play as it was not enjoyable for me, I did the minimum to play anybody no matter the army or state of their army at least once(rematch if opponent lost), people like him in this hobby can GTFO and play MtG or games that have pre painted minis.
I'm trying to show how this poll is extremely poor. He asks if greys should be allowed. PERIOD. He doesn't specify when, where or why. There needs to be a specification. If you think that unpainted models shouldn't be allowed PERIOD, then that includes everywhere, no matter why.
Correct. And if you think greys should ONLY be allowed under specific circumstances then you choose "Yes, but only under certain circumstances (please explain)". and then explain. It's a very clear poll. If you don't think they should be allowed always choose option 3.
Enforce is probably the wrong word, i really should say highly encourage and highly discourage, so my bad.
Let me be clearer. Highly discourage is also bad. You can encourage people to paint. You can't give people gak for not painting. Well, you can, but it makes you a prick.
I dont mean enforce as in barring people, or telling them go away, but have rules applied in a general sense, but exceptions for understandable reasons.
And i dont mean highly discourage in a negative way, just literally what the definition of what im saying means.
Lance845 wrote: This isn't a question of time or ability. Nobody has to do what you want them to do. You wanting to enforce policy that gate keeps them makes you a toxic element of the community. I would rather RAISE the standards of the community by driving you out.
Gatekeeping is not always a bad thing. Requiring painted models makes the community a better place even if it means that some people decide to leave. It's just like how we "gatekeep" people by expecting them to assemble their models instead of using a bunch of random space marine legs on bases and cardboard boxes as a "Tau" army, run tournaments with chess clocks even though it means that slower players aren't discouraged from participating, etc. Those rules improve the experience for the people who stay, and if someone doesn't like a store telling them that they have to buy legitimate models to use their table space then that's just the cost of having a quality gaming experience.
Peregrine wrote: If you have time to play the game you have time to paint your models. If you have time to post on forums about 40k you have time to paint your models. Very, very few people are genuinely unable to paint their models before playing, the vast majority simply refuse to do their part to create an enjoyable game experience and expect everyone else to lower their standards to accommodate their refusal.
This isn't a question of time or ability. Nobody has to do what you want them to do. You wanting to enforce policy that gate keeps them makes you a toxic element of the community. I would rather RAISE the standards of the community by driving you out.
Do you want general rules in a general way about painted models?
No, None.
By the literal definition of highly discourage. By the literal definition of SLIGHTLY discourage. I disagree with you. Fundamentally and in all ways.
At no point, on any level, do I think you or anyone else should feel entitled to discourage anyone for playing with their toy soldiers how they see fit.
Lance845 wrote: At no point, on any level, do I think you or anyone else should feel entitled to discourage anyone for playing with their toy soldiers how they see fit.
So you're fine with people making a Nurgle army by covering the models in actual plague filth and bringing it to a game? Or did you mean to say "no point, on any level, except the level where I think there should be limits"? Because literally "no limits at all" is a pretty extreme position to hold and I don't think anyone genuinely agrees with it.
Lance845 wrote: This isn't a question of time or ability. Nobody has to do what you want them to do. You wanting to enforce policy that gate keeps them makes you a toxic element of the community. I would rather RAISE the standards of the community by driving you out.
Gatekeeping is not always a bad thing.
Yes it is.
Requiring painted models makes the community a better place even if it means that some people decide to leave.
No it doesn't.
It's just like how we "gatekeep" people by expecting them to assemble their models instead of using a bunch of random space marine legs on bases and cardboard boxes as a "Tau" army,
No it's not. Assembled models are needed to make proper measurements to follow the rules of the game. Paint isn't.
run tournaments with chess clocks even though it means that slower players aren't discouraged from participating, etc. Those rules improve the experience for the people who stay, and if someone doesn't like a store telling them that they have to buy legitimate models to use their table space then that's just the cost of having a quality gaming experience.
False equivalency. Paint is none of the examples you gave. Clocks prevent forms of cheating like attempting to run out the clock on limited time matches. Paint does nothing and prevents nothing.
No ones telling any one what they have to do. In a casual situation you can do what you want, its all about the re enforcing the general core idea of what is generally and widly preferred and traditional done. So when people turn up to gw shops or what ever they come with painted models, generally most people dont want them flooded with greys, you can see that with my other threads on this subject that this is true.
Lance845 wrote: No it's not. Assembled models are needed to make proper measurements to follow the rules of the game. Paint isn't.
Define "proper measurements" according to GW's rules. Last time I checked GW doesn't specify any particular configuration for a model, so measuring LOS/distance to a set of space marine legs on a base representing a "crisis suit" is 100% acceptable. It just means that the model will be very small and hard to draw LOS to. So it sure sounds like you're gatekeeping people by expecting them to comply with your personal opinions about "proper measurements".
False equivalency. Paint is none of the examples you gave. Clocks prevent forms of cheating like attempting to run out the clock on limited time matches. Paint does nothing and prevents nothing.
Cheating according to what rules? Your personal gatekeeping policy about what strategies are permitted? Are you not aware of the anti-gatekeeping arguments that have been made against chess clocks by people who feel that they unfairly exclude horde players and people who have trouble playing at a fast pace? It sure sounds like you're ok with gatekeeping as long as you feel that the benefits of doing so are worth it.
Lance845 wrote: At no point, on any level, do I think you or anyone else should feel entitled to discourage anyone for playing with their toy soldiers how they see fit.
So you're fine with people making a Nurgle army by covering the models in actual plague filth and bringing it to a game? Or did you mean to say "no point, on any level, except the level where I think there should be limits"? Because literally "no limits at all" is a pretty extreme position to hold and I don't think anyone genuinely agrees with it.
Good straw man idiotic arguments again.
How about this one instead. If someone brings a totally converted from 3rd party models nurgle army that fits roughly the right bases and roughly the right dimensions then I am 100% happy to play their 100% not GW army.
Again, having the models dimensions being within the range of size and scope is needed to play the game. Paint isn't. Why don't you try to find some argument for how paint is actually needed to play?
How about this one instead. If someone brings a totally converted from 3rd party models nurgle army that fits roughly the right bases and roughly the right dimensions then I am 100% happy to play their 100% not GW army.
Again, having the models dimensions being within the range of size and scope is needed to play the game. Paint isn't. Why don't you try to find some argument for how paint is actually needed to play?
Oh I know why. There are none.
It's not a straw man at all. You're the one who said "no point, on any level" as an absolute statement. If you don't like the fact that "no point, on any level" means what it says you are free to amend your policy to "people should not be discouraged for reasons that I don't agree with" and drop the idea that you have some universal no-discouragement policy. Or you can deal with the fact that an absolute no-discouragement policy includes permitting the plague filth army.
You keep saying this but I can keep quoting you and Peregrine for saying exactly that.
In a casual situation you can do what you want, its all about the re enforcing the general core idea of what is generally and widly preferred and traditional done.
I don't give a single quantum of a gak about your idea of tradition, generally, wildly, or mostly, or any other words you use to imply that a majority agrees with you even though you have no data to support that.
So when people turn up to gw shops or what ever they come with painted models, generally most people dont want them flooded with greys, you can see that with my other threads on this subject that this is true.
I can see that the same few people feel that way and that others disagree. But I don't actually care what you think when your position is one of elitism.
How about this one instead. If someone brings a totally converted from 3rd party models nurgle army that fits roughly the right bases and roughly the right dimensions then I am 100% happy to play their 100% not GW army. Again, having the models dimensions being within the range of size and scope is needed to play the game. Paint isn't. Why don't you try to find some argument for how paint is actually needed to play?
Oh I know why. There are none.
It's not a straw man at all. You're the one who said "no point, on any level" as an absolute statement. If you don't like the fact that "no point, on any level" means what it says you are free to amend your policy to "people should not be discouraged for reasons that I don't agree with" and drop the idea that you have some universal no-discouragement policy. Or you can deal with the fact that an absolute no-discouragement policy includes permitting the plague filth army.
I will respond to you again when you have something to say of value.
Yes thats true, with out highly discouraging greys its factual to say that opens up the possibility of a great influx of people who come in and never paint only using greys because people are giving so much leniency to the idea that you can do what you want in the general sense of what war gaming is about ( obviously you can do what you want casual y )
@LANCE please quote me if you don't mind, because you are wrong IN MY OPINION i didn't say that.
IOW, rather than admit that you were wrong to state "no discouragement, period" as an absolute rule and that you and I both favor discouraging objectionable behavior and only disagree on what particular things should be discouraged you're going to hide behind "LOOK AT ME I'M IGNORING YOU". That's your right, but it's the last resort of someone who has utterly lost the argument.
@LANCE please quote me if you don't mind, because you are wrong IN MY OPINION i didn't say that.
Please just quote me saying that.
We need a revolution. There needs to be massive discouragement to any one who thinks it is acceptable to bring a non painted mini to a battlefield in this hobby. Tradition needs to be re enforced. GW is guilty of encouraging people to just play with greys because we all know why, let me not bother explaining. So if you think this is mean because you for various reasons are unable to paint, choose another hobby. You don't see racing car drivers turning up with no wheels and just a steering wheel, and yes ill make the comparison between race cars and war gaming because i could make the comparison with almost any other hobby ( racing is a hobby ).
And since when did elitism become such a bad thing? Why is "we only want people who are willing to invest a minimum of effort into having an enjoyable game experience" a bad thing, and why is maximizing member count the most important goal for a community? Why should we seek to retain all these people who don't give a about quality and insist on putting the absolute strict-RAW minimum effort into their armies? If they're so apathetic towards the game that they can't even bother to paint their models to a basic tabletop standard then why do you feel that their presence is so valuable?
@LANCE please quote me if you don't mind, because you are wrong IN MY OPINION i didn't say that.
Please just quote me saying that.
We need a revolution. There needs to be massive discouragement to any one who thinks it is acceptable to bring a non painted mini to a battlefield in this hobby. Tradition needs to be re enforced. GW is guilty of encouraging people to just play with greys because we all know why, let me not bother explaining. So if you think this is mean because you for various reasons are unable to paint, choose another hobby. You don't see racing car drivers turning up with no wheels and just a steering wheel, and yes ill make the comparison between race cars and war gaming because i could make the comparison with almost any other hobby ( racing is a hobby ).
Sorry mate, don't understand how that is me telling some one what they have to do.
Peregrine wrote: And since when did elitism become such a bad thing? Why is "we only want people who are willing to invest a minimum of effort into having an enjoyable game experience" a bad thing, and why is maximizing member count the most important goal for a community? Why should we seek to retain all these people who don't give a about quality and insist on putting the absolute strict-RAW minimum effort into their armies? If they're so apathetic towards the game that they can't even bother to paint their models to a basic tabletop standard then why do you feel that their presence is so valuable?
Because the hobby does not equal the game. The game is only a single facet of the hobby. Just like painting is not the hobby. Only a single facet. The more people in the hobby the more chances we have to encourage those people to branch out into any other facet of the hobby. And elitist pricks keep people out. We all loose out on pure opportunity because you exist. Again, get out. You're the worst element of the whole community. We all pay for the chip on your shoulder. We would all be better off with out you. You are going to stay anyway, and I can't stop you. But if anyone needs discouragement and rules put in place against them it's you and those like you.
Peregrine wrote: And since when did elitism become such a bad thing? Why is "we only want people who are willing to invest a minimum of effort into having an enjoyable game experience" a bad thing, and why is maximizing member count the most important goal for a community? Why should we seek to retain all these people who don't give a about quality and insist on putting the absolute strict-RAW minimum effort into their armies? If they're so apathetic towards the game that they can't even bother to paint their models to a basic tabletop standard then why do you feel that their presence is so valuable?
Well, the more people playing means the more enjoyment can be spread and bring people together. Turning someone away can only serve to keep the number of people playing it small. If anything, a rule that's says you can't play games here is only going to hurt the community and business. I for one would discourage my friends from using a venue that is more about discouraging people than having fun. In fact, that's what happens with MtG. I can't tell you how many times of heard people refuse to go to a certain shop because of their attitude towards casual players or the elitist mindset of the players who go there.
@LANCE please quote me if you don't mind, because you are wrong IN MY OPINION i didn't say that.
Please just quote me saying that.
We need a revolution. There needs to be massive discouragement to any one who thinks it is acceptable to bring a non painted mini to a battlefield in this hobby. Tradition needs to be re enforced. GW is guilty of encouraging people to just play with greys because we all know why, let me not bother explaining. So if you think this is mean because you for various reasons are unable to paint, choose another hobby. You don't see racing car drivers turning up with no wheels and just a steering wheel, and yes ill make the comparison between race cars and war gaming because i could make the comparison with almost any other hobby ( racing is a hobby ).
Sorry mate, don't understand how that is me telling some one what they have to do.
Merely suggestions.
I am beginning to think English is not your first language. You don't have a great grasp of its meaning. Thats not trying to be insulting. No problems if it's not. Totally understandable. But you are having some massive problems with your sentences.
Lance845 wrote: At no point, on any level, do I think you or anyone else should feel entitled to discourage anyone for playing with their toy soldiers how they see fit.
So you're fine with people making a Nurgle army by covering the models in actual plague filth and bringing it to a game? Or did you mean to say "no point, on any level, except the level where I think there should be limits"? Because literally "no limits at all" is a pretty extreme position to hold and I don't think anyone genuinely agrees with it.
Good straw man idiotic arguments again.
How about this one instead. If someone brings a totally converted from 3rd party models nurgle army that fits roughly the right bases and roughly the right dimensions then I am 100% happy to play their 100% not GW army.
Again, having the models dimensions being within the range of size and scope is needed to play the game. Paint isn't. Why don't you try to find some argument for how paint is actually needed to play?
Oh I know why. There are none.
Eyes is one of our sensory organs, one we use quite often. colors differentiate marine chapters, squads for in game purposes. Ask yourself this, do you mostly enjoy watching film in black & white or in color?
@LANCE please quote me if you don't mind, because you are wrong IN MY OPINION i didn't say that.
Please just quote me saying that.
We need a revolution. There needs to be massive discouragement to any one who thinks it is acceptable to bring a non painted mini to a battlefield in this hobby. Tradition needs to be re enforced. GW is guilty of encouraging people to just play with greys because we all know why, let me not bother explaining. So if you think this is mean because you for various reasons are unable to paint, choose another hobby. You don't see racing car drivers turning up with no wheels and just a steering wheel, and yes ill make the comparison between race cars and war gaming because i could make the comparison with almost any other hobby ( racing is a hobby ).
Sorry mate, don't understand how that is me telling some one what they have to do.
Merely suggestions.
I am beginning to think English is not your first language. You don't have a great grasp of its meaning. Thats not trying to be insulting. No problems if it's not. Totally understandable. But you are having some massive problems with your sentences.
Lol how is what i said telling someone what they have to do seriously what the heck?
and ruin the game. And it is extremely easy to paint to a basic tabletop standard, well within the abilities of the vast majority of people.
Like the Groucho, but with minis games. 
) and he was a great opponent. However, them Reavers, which had not been painted yet (okay, the unit leader on the grav windsurfing board was fething cool 
) were a bit of a shock to me when I discovered they had 3 Blasters in the unit, which I would have seen a lot easier had they been painted.
