See title, answer poll.

Also, related to the poll (but can't really compress down to a multiple choice poll) is how quickly do you feel the need to see stuff painted? I mean, I would HOPE that if a newbie comes to the store for their first game of 40k, you'd not expect them to buy and paint models before they play, but how fast do you expect them to work? Or do you just want to see progress?

For me personally, I don't really care about painting at all. While I do like the look of 40k, I'm more invested in having a fun game (even with the rules as bunk as they are) than seeing cool pictures. I do love to see well-painted models, but I barely care if your models are unpainted or badly painted, so long as you're a good sport and we have fun.

I like to see a table where everyone has their models painted it looks a lot better even if the paint job is not that great. As long as people try to get them painted at whatever rate they can that is fine with me.

I definitely understand if someone want to start playing before getting models painted especially this time of year in the Midwest as it can be hard to prime models because of the cold weather.

I would absolutely not refuse to play someone just because their models are unpainted.

I started collecting in August. I haven't played a game yet because I want to finish painting all my stuff before I go try. I also keep buying stuff...

Playing with unpainted models is heresy. Simple as that.

Personally I would never use an unpainted model.
And if people hadn't had time to paint many models then I'd much rather play smaller games with painted models than larger games with unpainted ones.

Having painted armies is essential to immersion into the game for me. I could see if the rules are outstanding one could ignore the immersive aspect well enough, but is that the case?

Playing games to help new players without painted models isn't a problem, but the goal should always be for something higher, something better. That's why we play with painted armies and homebrew rules.

I won’t play a model until it’s painted and my paint standards are pretty high as well, so a new unit may not see the table for awhile, but that’s fine, I’m not chasing the meta, I really enjoy fielding a well painted army and chatting with people about painting

As for playing, I’ll play against gray plastic (especially a new player) but I would hope the next time I play someone there has been some forward progress on getting stuff painted

I prefer to see nicely painted models but I don;t care that much.

I buy painted and/or commision most of mine because:

I am awful at it.
I dont wish to spend the time on it
Badly painting increasingly expensive models seems a bad idea/waste
I like the idea of people getting money they might need.

The only time I am less impressed is when the same player just buys powerful stuff, half builds it and never paints it before selling it off for the next thing.

I'm impressed by paint jobs and such, but personally I don't find it necessary at all. but then, I focus a lot less on visuals than other people I know. id rather just play the game, painted models or no.

I used to not care, but as I get older the harder it is to find the time to play. So if im going to take hours out of my day to play a game, I want that game to be as great as it can be. I really need fully painted models, good terrain, a story and well rounded armies to be fully immersed into my game. I take the time to put in as much effort as possible otherwise I can't get into it.

I won't play with unpainted models anymore, not unless it's a pinch and somebody forgot to bring something and need a proxy.

Not just models, but terrain matters a lot to me. Hate when a table has stuff just randomly thrown on, much prefer themed cohesive tables. I love watching Striking Scorpion's BRs on YT simply because he makes such an effort with the terrain.

I prefer if my minis are painted but I won't judge someone else whose minis are unpainted. although I certainly appreciate a good paint job and make sure to praise well painted minis when I see them

Pretty important.
I don't play unpainted (and coated) miniatures.

Come from a Historical Minis background, so no unpainted minis for me, thanks. Don’t mind if -you- use unpainted, but will be less inclined to repeat the experience the more often they appear. Under coated with base painted green? Thumbs up from me. I suppose it could be considered judgemental, but if you can find the time to assemble, you can find the time to paint - happy to help if you need it. Ever expanding grey horde? Nah, Mate.

I won't play with, or against, unpainted models.

I don't mind unpainted models.

I very much like painting, but I'm kinda bad at it, so I couldn't really emphasize well painted models, plus I don't always find time to even actually get a few done each week (looking at you, afternoons spent at the range!!!)

My favorite aspect of wargaming are games and stories to create through your tin-soldiers' adventures, and I don't need painted models to immerse.

On a personal level, yes, painting is important. Its one of my favourite aspects of the hobby.

But when it comes to gaming then the paint job is merely for function. Obviously its nice to have good looking models, but if an opponent is playing Ultramarines then a single blue undercoat, and a clear black base is good enough. The pre-coloured models in Blackstone Fortress, First Strike and Space Hulk come to mind, if one really doesn't want to paint.

If someone objected to my painting standard or not using the correct models then I would remind them that its a game, not an art gallery, nor a sales presentation for Games Workshop.

I have no problems with people fielding unpainted model but i personally only field painted models. That way it keeps me wanting to get stuff painted up

It varies MASSIVELY on the game.

For the context of 40k painting is a lower priority.
Why bother making any effort when most people you play against can't be arsed and you're not enjoying the game anyway.

Ask the same about WWII or Napoleonics etc and it's much MUCH higher

I've absolutely no interest in playing with, or against, unpainted models. Part of the enjoyment of 40K for me is the immersive experience and a load of half-built figures or grey plastic kinda ruin that. I'd rather wait til stuff's painted and skip the odd game.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Crimson wrote:

And if people hadn't had time to paint many models then I'd much rather play smaller games with painted models than larger games with unpainted ones.

Yep, 100% this. I don't see why people get so hung up on 40K having to only be played at one size of game. Even if it's just a case of dropping like 150 points or something to ensure fully-painted armies on both sides, I'd choose this every time.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Here's an addendum though – one which *should* go without saying, but we all know what this forum's like – if you're happy playing with half-built figures, with unpainted figures, with Lego men (or bricks!) standing in for your figures, and you have other people to play with who are also happy with that, then go nuts; enjoy yourselves. Who cares what anyone on the internet thinks as long as everyone involved is having fun?

I only put painted minis on the table.

I’d prefer the same from my opponents. But I’ll take what I can get. I do like to see progress though. I understand that painting armies is a time intensive WIP, but it should be in progress.

Painted armies are extremely important to me. Clearly a new player will not have that completely paint are if they are just starting out with kits ect. But I would encourage them to paint and even show some easy steps and other materials to help them if they were inclined at all to get their army painted..Or offer to paint their models for money. Both are fine choices.
I got really tired of taking any unfinished models out for games. It looks bad, I have the time to get things built and painted so I stopped being lazy I guess. That and my friends will refer people to me for painting services some times and it's bad to not have several good examples to show.
Over all it just makes the games more fun for me. On several occasions I had forgotten models were actually in play because they were freshly assembled grey plastic. I knew they were there but my brain thought, oh, that's just terrain or nothing of importance..and then it would kill some of my models and I would find myself confused.

If you have no interest in painting miniatures, let's play a board game. 40K's rules aren't good enough to justify playing the game simply for the game...

5/5 for me, if you're not going to bother making the effort to have a force look decent then why not play a game thats actually better as a game?

the draw of 40k is hardly the rules, its the depth of background and way the models can look for me.

note not saying it has to be golden daemon standard (mine certainly isn't) but its not hard to make stuff look decent.

not its only 40k and Fantasy/AoS (and occasionally Bolt Action) where this crops up, in all other systems painting seems normal enough people don't even comment on it, but then most other systems don't try to force the churn rate of models.

even just marines sprayed blue, a deep wash and drybrush with the blue, some metallic and shoulder trim & transfers makes a huge difference to how it looks

then you have the visual appeal that can also pull in new players, plus can provide the "its creative" hook that can make the game more acceptable to parents etc.

note I will and often do play against the grey/silver horde, with the right person its fine (avoid unpainted when the player is tiresome as well though), it just looks a hell of a lot better with some effort made

Important enough it was a factor in putting 40k on hold

I'm a bit slow at painting so having to paint Long Rifle Lara or Bolter Bob #6 to #30 (or whatever) fills me with a mild terror

Currently playing skirmish games and barring a few units that came as a part of an e-bay army that I wanted to test to establish those worth painting I havent put down unpainted in years

I'm incredibly slow at painting, and those I play regularly wouldn't be much faster.

As a result I'm happy to play with and against primed models, or models in various states of completion.

I'd rather play against a horde of primer with a few beautifully painted minis than a horde of badly painted minis.

I wouldn't be a tournament player, very much a casual where the hobby is as important, if not more so than playing.

If anything the actual game is just to give us a target to build towards.

I game so infrequently now that I pretty much insist on doing it with only fully painted models when I do. The visual spectacle is a huge part of the fun of this hobby.

I also want good terrain to play on. Sad to put all this time into the minis and then play with them on an ugly battlefield.

I would rate myself at a 4.5/5 on your scale. I go out of my way to make sure my stuff has at least basic blocked in colors. I usually leave less painted models out of my forces in favor of more painted ones. And I try pretty hard have nicely painted models done to the best of my ability. My favorite part of the hobby is deployment with two nicely painted forces on a nicely constructed table. Part of the reason I like Kill Team is how easy that is to accomplish.

I am a bit bothered by my opponent's lack of painting, but I go out of my way not to say anything. It is my personal issue and not theirs. Just the same, this a photo list of all of the full table games (read: not Kill Team/Warcry) I have played recently:


This opponent had a fully painted army further along than mine at the time. To be fair to me, I had only had mine for less than a week with a job that had me putting in some overtime during that week. This was week 2 in an Escalation League that I joined and had to catch up with everything since I never really even looked at AoS before. Probably the worst looking army I have fielded in years.


My opponent had a couple of units painted. They seemed pretty new so it is understandable they have just started. I am not even sure if they had 2000 points yet as this was just a 1000 point game.


The photo is sort of a bad example as my opponent had a few units painted, but they suffered painted model syndrome and were removed almost instantly. This opponent also started this army only about a month ago as well for the Escalation League.


This opponent rarely gets the chance to play full 40k and is part of my Kill Team group where he mostly focuses his limited painting time. I don't think he gets much of an opportunity to break out is Forge World stuff which I also think he hasn't had all that long.


I think this opponent was more of a ITC tournament player with a newer army. He was also visiting from the other coast, so I wouldn't imagine he would bring well painted stuff. I think this game was most of a figuring out what he wants to do with it army before he paints it to ITC standards. Which worked out well enough as he toned it down for a casual game with me.

***

So as the photos show, I don't mind playing opponents with unpainted models, but sometimes can feel like that is all I get in which does affect my personal enjoyment a little. A lot of them are pretty new so it is also understandable they barely have the stuff built. I only bring my personal terrain (spoiler below) for Kill Team since free parking is much closer to the FLGS on Sundays so carrying extra stuff isn't as bad as other days. I also don't think I have enough for a full table to keep a consistent theme and much of it would just be decorative scatter terrain that I feel many opponents would be more annoyed by as it gets in the way of the game without providing anything useful.

In general, 4/5 or 5/5- however it will vary by opponent and game system.

I try my best to have everything 100% painted and I won't really use something if it is not painted (with a few exceptions). As for opponents, If it is a longtime friend, or someone I know then the priority of it's importance will slide down.

I hold it to be important with opponent's as IME, generally someone with an mass of unpainted stuff is a borderline TFG and is not worth my time playing. I've played too many games of WMH and 40k where the person with the unpainted masses of models is more interested in roflstomping you or performing an exercise in rolling dice than actually having an enjoyable game between the pair of you.

Now, this clearly is not always the case. You can tell more by the person before they even plop their army down of how enjoyable (or not) a game will be, but on the Venn diagram of "Complete and utter bellends playing wargames" and "unpainted armies" it is almost a complete circle. My time is just too precious nowadays to have to endure an ego stroke from the local wannabe "pro 40k player".

I feel like this question (from the way it was phrased in the OP) is not "How important is the act of painting to you" but instead "how important is it to you that your opponent has painted their entire army" and all the generally elitist baggage associated with that kind of question.

In which case I'd answer 1/5 probably. Because the only thing that really matters is that everyone is having fun and no one else is out to ruin fun by only playing unpainted power models because it's the way to win at all costs.

If the original question is actually how much do you value your own painting over say gaming then I would be a 4/5 and my partner a 5/5 because toy soldiers are just toy soldiers if you don't bring them to life in some way.

It's the most important aspect. Period.

I don't understand why people even bother shoving minis around the board with unpainted stuff. Hmm, it seems to me these are the same people who are okay with putting soda cans on the table as terrain or even, God forbid, models.

A better hobby would be for them MtG but as lazy as these guys are they wouldn't even take an effort to put their cards into sleeves.

Thank you to everyone for keeping it civil and polite. I really appreciate that no one's been crapping on others just for enjoying the hobby differently!

 bocatt wrote:
I feel like this question (from the way it was phrased in the OP) is not "How important is the act of painting to you" but instead "how important is it to you that your opponent has painted their entire army" and all the generally elitist baggage associated with that kind of question.

Mate, nobody's being "elitist" by stating a preference.

I answered 5/5 because to me it is the biggest part of the hobby. The game of 40k is pretty much supplementary. It’s cool that I can spend hours painting these models, then push them around a board playing toy soldiers. I don’t mind someone having a badly painted army if they’ve tried with it. My models are no golden daemon winners, but I don’t really want to play against a grey hoard, I just don’t enjoy it that way.

Meta chasers tend to have perpetually ugly armies with minimal, rushed paint jobs.

I have little patience for those.

I dig the visual aspect, but I'd never refuse to play an opponent with unpainted models.

That said, I'd sooner play one with painted models

Now for ME? I want at least my models to be primed, ut i play with entirely different lists all the time, i always get about 8-10k points in any army i play other than a couple, playing something different for me and my opponent is more fun than fixating on 1 list and getting it painted. I paint my favorite models first.

For others?
Some people are players, some are painters. Who am i to judge someone else's hobby time.

To me its not important at all (and i'm a painter) b.c i know some people that almost can't paint at all (nerve damage, color blind, eye sight problems, etc..) or just love the story and game but not the painting. Why should i get upset that they don't paint their models?

 Nazrak wrote:

 bocatt wrote:
I feel like this question (from the way it was phrased in the OP) is not "How important is the act of painting to you" but instead "how important is it to you that your opponent has painted their entire army" and all the generally elitist baggage associated with that kind of question.

Mate, nobody's being "elitist" by stating a preference.

Now, now...remember, if you like anything nice, or hold yourself and others to a higher standard you're an elitist "gatekeeper", etc.

I think if you're playing friends or new players then non painted models are fine. If you're playing at a tournement that's different, you're paying to play top quality 40k and playing against someone who has sprayed 3 random colours over all their models (which I've experienced on a handful of occasions) is just not fun when you've spent hours painting your army to look half decent.

I'm not bothered about the quality of the painting but everyone can slap some contrast on and spend a couple of hours putting some detail on their models.

Same goes for proxies in my mind. If you're trying something new or testing before buying models that's fine but if you're playing with half the army as something it's not then I'll just play someone else.

 small_gods wrote:
I think if you're playing friends or new players then non painted models are fine. If you're playing at a tournement that's different, you're paying to play top quality 40k and playing against someone who has sprayed 3 random colours over all their models (which I've experienced on a handful of occasions) is just not fun when you've spent hours painting your army to look half decent.

And what if three random colours is what the person your playing against thinks that looks decent? Or they've painted the models like that for a reason?

For me it's 5/5. I thought about it, and realized I probably wouldn't even play the game at all if it wasn't for beautifully painted miniatures that I worked on myself.

It just feels sooooo good to get down to eye level with nicely painted minis and decently painted terrain. Really immerses you in the game!

I see it more as a missed opportunity. A painted model brings some story that the hobbist created during the process of painting it. If the model is not painted then it is a little story less in the game.

Besides that, playing against somebody who never paints his or her soldiers could be an indication that is a "that guy". Perhaps she or he would not paint it because of other reasons which are fine for me. But if the reason is that always wants to bring the latest cheese to the table without caring on reduce the fun and enjoyment of your opponent that would bring the missed opportunity to play a fully painted game, then no. It´s not okay.

I will definitely not participate in a tournament that allows painted models up to the tabletop standards.

psipso wrote:
I see it more as a missed opportunity. A painted model brings some story that the hobbist created during the process of painting it. If the model is not painted then it is a little story less in the game.

Not my models. Their story is forged on the game table, not the paint desk.

psipso wrote:
I will definitely not participate in a tournament that allows painted models up to the tabletop standards.

???

I will NOT ever field an unpainted model on the table.
I don't care what game it is for. It does not get used until it is painted. Not just undercoated/primed. Base and detail coats minimum.

But I also put "playing the game" at the bottom priority also. I'm in the hobby for the making aspect. Building and painting.

ccs wrote:

 small_gods wrote:
I think if you're playing friends or new players then non painted models are fine. If you're playing at a tournement that's different, you're paying to play top quality 40k and playing against someone who has sprayed 3 random colours over all their models (which I've experienced on a handful of occasions) is just not fun when you've spent hours painting your army to look half decent.

And what if three random colours is what the person your playing against thinks that looks decent? Or they've painted the models like that for a reason?

I mean literally randomly sprayed 3 colours with an airgun, not matching the model so they can get round the '3 colours and a textured base' rule that most tournaments have. I don't mind if someone is not artistically gifted at all, I just mind when people are lazy or trying to game the system.

Painting is important to the hobby. It completes the building of the model. Grey plastic and white metal with green stuff just doesn't quite suit the situation.

I find it helps me to make them mine. When I paint, it gives me some zen. I don't paint very often, though. I get a little performance anxiety when I do, which is silly. I'm not bad, I'm just not great, but many of my meta are just flat out amazing in their work, which doesn't help. I'm happy when I reach tabletop quality.

As for others painting? I'd prefer it, if only because it helps complete the immersion, but I understand if they don't, because I am so slow at getting it done. I won't hold someone else up to a standard my own lazy side won't accomplish (unless they've committed to it).

 Strg Alt wrote:

A better hobby would be for them MtG but as lazy as these guys are they wouldn't even take an effort to put their cards into sleeves.

They'd probably not even take the cards out the boosters. That alone is allot of effort.

It's why I prefer historicals.
You won't find an unpainted Napoleonic army because the painting is a MASSIVE party of the hobby and something you want to be proud of.

The majority of 40k players have no pride in what they do because their army will be on eBay when the next powerful codex releases.
So why even bother?

I don't like playing with unpainted models and they will be at least primed before they hit the table. They might also be lacking weapon options - I tend to play a unit at least once with each configuration before I make a final decision on armament - if I haven't either magnetized or built a set with each option (the latter was done with my guardsmen).

As for the opponent, as long as I can identify what I'm battling, that's on them in what shape they bring their models. I wouldn't fight just bases (unless it was supposed to represent something invisible or cloaked), but I've faced against proxies, paper models/standees, half-assembled, unpainted and the like without complaint.

On Christmas, my Uncle was showing me his Battle of Saratoga miniatures(he's more of a modeler/diorama guy) while I was showing off my Salamanders Relic Contemptor.

I dont think either one of us would ever field an unpainted army.

For me the breakdown would be; Build 25%, Paint 40%, & play 35%. The more time I put into making it look good, the more I'll enjoy it on the tabletop.

I have on occasion played with primed and based models. But I avoid it as much as possible.

Im a slowpoke painter/procrastinator so this means that I currently don't play as much as I would like to as I don't want to detract from peoples experience. Some of the people at my club have extremely high standard finished armies and I feel like a chum bringing a half finished army.

That's ok though. The hobby is about the long haul aspect of improving skills and eventually having display worthy finished army because to me personally that is what really brings the hobby and the game to life.

I would prefer to play against panted models if possible but I understand people might be at different stages in their hobby/ collections so I wouldn't begrudge someone a game. Probably would not want to make that a repeat experience though as it is somewhat important for reasons given above.

 Elbows wrote:

 Nazrak wrote:

 bocatt wrote:
I feel like this question (from the way it was phrased in the OP) is not "How important is the act of painting to you" but instead "how important is it to you that your opponent has painted their entire army" and all the generally elitist baggage associated with that kind of question.

Mate, nobody's being "elitist" by stating a preference.

Now, now...remember, if you like anything nice, or hold yourself and others to a higher standard you're an elitist "gatekeeper", etc.

You do realize that at least one person said that anyone who doesn't have a fully painted army is lazy and doesn't deserve to play right?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I said 3/5. It's something to work towards, but not always possible.

I value progress, rather than completeness. I try to have more of my army painted for my next game, and I encourage my opponents to do the same.

I have no issues playing against a grey horde game one, half primed game two, full primed game three, one squad mostly done game four, ect.

I myself enjoy playing as much as I like painting, and sometimes I don't have time for both. Other times, weather gets in the way. It's been raining all week, so I can't prime anything.

None of this is helped by the fact that I'm a slower painter, so where one guy might get a squad done, I'll get maybe 3-5 painted.

I voted 3/5 since I enjoy both armies being painted, but I know we have jobs, families and lives so giving anyone grief over a unpainted model is just... Weird sense of detachment from reality to me.

I love having two fully painted armies clash off, and in my local area we celebrate when someone who was long struggling to finish painting his army to HIS standard, not anyone elses, finally does it! It's a strangely wholesome way and keeps the hobby community strong and friendly.

Hell, I have a large portion of my new chaos army primed, no one gives me grief over it since I'm painting at my own speed (and factors such as having one eye makes extended painting sessions very painful) and the fact I know no one is on my back makes enjoying the hobby all the more satisfying.

I used to be known as the grey army guy. So I didn't care much about it then. Now that I put a lot of effort into getting my stuff painted well, so I hold more importance to it. In fact I really don't like playing with unpainted stuff anymore. I would prefer to play against painted armies but I would never decline a game over it. I also enjoy talking about painting with my opponents so I went for 3/5.

Hard question.
My #1 part of the hobby is build the models.
I black prime so leaving models in that state and playing them is garbage (what is he holding??).
My #2 is to play, they are playing pieces after all or I would build other things.
Painting is pretty much the close 3rd because it is all about making the model look good right?
I agree on the aspect of immersion.

I paint to a high standard where I can, so I can see how good they can be when using the less... well done models.

When I "finish" building a model, I Zenithal 3-step (3 shades) base-paint the models and get colour on the graveled base.
I can then see detail and they are at least started.
They are suitable to play with if I get impatient (it is similar to the meta-play paint job mentioned).
I tend to assembly-line paint and usually start with all the troop models and work my way up the elite and Sgt type.

Final process is decals, hard clear-coat, matt-coat and then the model gets named... when you put that much effort in, he will proudly be called at least "Grunt E Bulletsworth the 3rd".

This is the standard FOR ME. I am far less judgmental of others.
If I play someone new, seeing ANY progress from week to week makes me happy.

For myself? I'll either play with fully painted models or unpainted or primed models. The latter two is mostly for two reasons.

First, I have high standards for myself when I paint. I'm comfortable with shortcuts if they don't diminish the quality, but I typically spend 4+ hours per model (in a Guard army no less!). Had I restricted myself to only playing when the army was fully painted, I'd either have to suck up and paint less than my best (can't do, I refuse), or wait over a year to play.

Second, and perhaps the bigger thing is because my gaming group always pressures me to play regardless of what's fully painted or not. Heck, they try to get me to bring metal models that haven't finished and been sealed yet (I never will because I don't want them to chip). I enjoy gaming, but not enough to overtake my desire to bring a painted army. Thus, bringing some unpainted or some primed models is a compromise.

As I've been painting more, I've been liking playing painted models more, and have been prioritizing painted models in my lists. As one of my goals for this year is to be able to field a fully painted (and well painted) Guard army, I'll say that for me, painting is a 4/5 Pretty Important thing. For me, the hobby is as much about painting as it is about gaming.

That said, for people I game against, I'd say it's a 3/5 or 2/5. People where I live have to work a lot in order to make it (40+ hours). I myself work a regular 8-5 job, so I understand not having a lot of time to paint, or people who want to try out stuff before committing to painting. Because of that, I would never require others to have a fully painted army, even if I bring one.

I mean who does not like the feeling of debuting a polished fresh new addition to their army

On my very first model I had spent dozen of hours assembling and painting it and I keep returning, buying stuff for it to make it look better with new dyes and decorations. For me, every model is an expression of my passion and love for this hobby. I spare no expense or time in making model look to the best of my abilities. This seems to lead to highly individualized models, because I treat every model as unique little snowflake and I experiment on them.

I don't mind playing unpainted models, but I simply enjoy creating models from grounds up so much that it is a hobby in itself to me. I do not understand why loving to create your own miniatures is exclusive to playing with them. I do not feel discomfort by playing with unpainted miniatures and I enjoy my hobbies in both ways. It is surprising to me that other people consider that assembled and painted army is something valuable when resselling their models. Assembled or not is not a big factor for me.

4/5 not literally the most important thing but pretty high up there for my own enjoyment of my own models.

Im not going to deny someone else a game because they arent painted. though its different in a tournament setting where it was a requirement.

 ValentineGames wrote:

 Strg Alt wrote:

A better hobby would be for them MtG but as lazy as these guys are they wouldn't even take an effort to put their cards into sleeves.

They'd probably not even take the cards out the boosters. That alone is allot of effort.

It's why I prefer historicals.
You won't find an unpainted Napoleonic army because the painting is a MASSIVE party of the hobby and something you want to be proud of.

The majority of 40k players have no pride in what they do because their army will be on eBay when the next powerful codex releases.
So why even bother?

with all due respect I think you're wrong and are letting your personal hobby preferances adjust your view, some people are absolutely like that but they're far from the norm. In fact most 40k players seem to have unpainted models more because we keep buying and assmbling them at a faster rate then we can paint, Historical players however have a much more "set" army then 40k does.

where 40k players are given a thousand points and can do anything like that, presumably historical players follow a stricter FO&E (such as a napleoniaic era company etc) thus once you've bought everything you need I doubt you're buying extra units. it's not chasing the power meta etc, in a lot of cases it's "OHHH and thats cool too!" leading to constant collection growth. I know my minis that are unpainted still (I rarely use unpainted minis however once for a kill team game I ended up doing so due to not having had time to paint an auxillery I rarely use outside of Kill team) is because of that.

3/5. I find it very zen and relaxing but I honestly don't have the time to spend doing it. It is too isolating from my family to just lock myself away for hours at a time and I barely find the time to go to a tournament once a month. I'd rather spend my time doing so many other things than locked in a room by myself agonizing about painting an eyeball or getting a wash on an area that shouldn't have it and having to touch up detail work.

I don't like being alone. I'm a social person but painting requires too much concentration for it to be a social part of the hobby and that social part is why I play.

If I don't chase the meta I get crushed at my local FLGS so I am constantly adding things to my army and finding time to paint it all is the bane of my 40k existence.

The guys that I play with have collections in the tens of thousands of points, it's nothing for them to pull 18 assassins off a shelf (or 3 storm ravens, 60 brimstones, you get the picture) somewhere and put them on the table.

I don't have the time to develop another circle of nerd friends to play beer and pretzels 40k with. I enjoy pick-up games and tournaments so I try to get all of my models up to that paint job but after spending a month on painting up hellblasters to just see them sit on my shelf I paint to a much more basic standard.

Once i have my 40k of 40k then I'll probably go back and pretty up my paint jobs but screw anyone my models offend. I don't find 40k an immersive narrative experience regardless of what the paint jobs on the models look like. The rules/game just don't recreate how the setting is in my head at all, the abstraction to get there is so onerous that if you can make that much of a leap in your head I don't see how painted models all of a sudden make it immersive.

The gate-keeping snobs telling me how to enjoy my hobby are exactly why I avoid the CAAC guys like the plague. Insulting people with words like lazy and having no pride because we value different things in life/hobby than you do is pathetic and should have no place in our hobby. We need to be more inclusive in our hobby. I'd rather play against the worst TFG with soda cans with labels for models than drive people away because they are scared they will never paint anything up to someone else's bizarre standard.

3/5

I think it is an aspect of the hobby that can't be ignored, but having said that, I got into this hobby for the game first, the spectacle of nicely painted army is a distant second. Not an unimportant second, but definitely not the primary reason I started.

This is proven by my slowly dwindling pile of unpainted models.

 Argive wrote:
I mean who does not like the feeling of debuting a polished fresh new addition to their army

And then watching it die/run without doing anything :-)

To be frank, there's a minimum serviceable painting level:

* The figure is assembled and primed. You can stop here if you apply a wash/contrast paint. Or, for that matter, prime and dry brush.
* Whatever facing, unit membership or other markings the model needs are marked on the model.

I've learned three things over the years:
1. Grey plastic and metal is hard to distinguish on the opposite side of the table.
2. If you prime a model (especially if it's primed black), it looks like an indeterminate blob from the other side of the table. It can actually be harder to see what a single color primed model is (especially if it's primed black).
3. A two color base coat (prime and shade) can be painted over slowly, if you want.

So that's the bar for me. Anything above base coat and shade, plus game markings, is bonus. Anything below the bar, I will volunteer to help you prep your models.

4/5, to me it's very important

I've played a couple of games with primed models (never bare plastic), and it doesn't feel right, so now I only play with fully painted models

Of course it's more fun and immersive to also play against a fully painted army on nice terrain, but I wouldn't turn down a game against a new player who hasn't got time to learn/paint yet

If it is a regular opponent I would expect some progress between games though - if you don't bother trying to paint I won't bother trying to play against you either...

I really dislike painting. I just don't have the patience to really get in there detail my models. However, I force myself to paint every model before I field it because I do find it to be an important step in the hobby. That doesn't mean I haven't put grey/primed plastic on the board when the excitement to try a new model overtook the length of time required to paint it. But I try really hard not to do that.

3/5 painting is important.

It's the most important part. I dont even need a game with it attached

Moriarty wrote:

 Argive wrote:
I mean who does not like the feeling of debuting a polished fresh new addition to their army

And then watching it die/run without doing anything :-)

My brother actually used that as an argument not to paint. His painted models (units) always seemed to die first. He was convinced the “ugly” unpainted models were subconsciously not being picked over the “attractive” painted ones.

 Stormonu wrote:

My brother actually used that as an argument not to paint. His painted models (units) always seemed to die first. He was convinced the “ugly” unpainted models were subconsciously not being picked over the “attractive” painted ones.

All the models in your army are supposed to be painted so that cannot happen!

 Strg Alt wrote:
It's the most important aspect. Period.

I don't understand why people even bother shoving minis around the board with unpainted stuff. Hmm, it seems to me these are the same people who are okay with putting soda cans on the table as terrain or even, God forbid, models.

A better hobby would be for them MtG but as lazy as these guys are they wouldn't even take an effort to put their cards into sleeves.

If it’s a new player putting an army on the field they have just assembled and haven’t had time to paint, I can completely understand an excitement for getting in a game with new models. Also this time of year in South Dakota I understand people not painting minis, if you don’t have a warm area to prime you can’t go outside and do it. At the flgs there is a guy who if the models don’t come painted when he buys them they will never be painted, that is a lot less acceptable and he sometimes is a tfg.

 Stormonu wrote:

Moriarty wrote:

 Argive wrote:
I mean who does not like the feeling of debuting a polished fresh new addition to their army

And then watching it die/run without doing anything :-)

My brother actually used that as an argument not to paint. His painted models (units) always seemed to die first. He was convinced the “ugly” unpainted models were subconsciously not being picked over the “attractive” painted ones.

We had a tournament with some grey plastic terrain and an unpainted squad of cultists sat in the terrain and both sides forgot they existed until the end of the game.

TheAvengingKnee wrote:

 Strg Alt wrote:
It's the most important aspect. Period.

I don't understand why people even bother shoving minis around the board with unpainted stuff. Hmm, it seems to me these are the same people who are okay with putting soda cans on the table as terrain or even, God forbid, models.

A better hobby would be for them MtG but as lazy as these guys are they wouldn't even take an effort to put their cards into sleeves.

If it’s a new player putting an army on the field they have just assembled and haven’t had time to paint, I can completely understand an excitement for getting in a game with new models. Also this time of year in South Dakota I understand people not painting minis, if you don’t have a warm area to prime you can’t go outside and do it. At the flgs there is a guy who if the models don’t come painted when he buys them they will never be painted, that is a lot less acceptable and he sometimes is a tfg.

I disagree with your statement that not painting isn't very acceptable.

Being TFG isn't cool, regardless of how well-done your minis are, but not painting... Some people just don't like to paint. If you don't want to play with unpainted minis, also totally fine (just so long as you're not rude about it, of course) but if that player doesn't find joy in painting, that's his feelings.

As for a general comment on the poll, it definitely seems most people value painting more than me. Which I get-I'm not a particularly artsy person, nor a good painter, so naturally I place less value on aesthetics than a lot of other hobbyists.

 JNAProductions wrote:
Some people just don't like to paint.

Then they have chosen a wrong hobby.

It is if you joined a historical reenactment group but were like, "I just don't care about making costumes and dressing up" and showed up in your jeans and t-shirt to a Napoleonic reenactment.

 Crimson wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
Some people just don't like to paint.

Then they have chosen a wrong hobby.

It is if you joined a historical reenactment group but were like, "I just don't care about making costumes and dressing up" and showed up in your jeans and t-shirt to a Napoleonic reenactment.

Yeah they could easily play x wing or MTG if they didn't want to paint. I find it weird when people say it as if they don't know what they're getting into.

Crimson wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
Some people just don't like to paint.

Then they have chosen a wrong hobby.

It is if you joined a historical reenactment group but were like, "I just don't care about making costumes and dressing up" and showed up in your jeans and t-shirt to a Napoleonic reenactment.

small_gods wrote:

 Crimson wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
Some people just don't like to paint.

Then they have chosen a wrong hobby.

It is if you joined a historical reenactment group but were like, "I just don't care about making costumes and dressing up" and showed up in your jeans and t-shirt to a Napoleonic reenactment.

Yeah they could easily play x wing or MTG if they didn't want to paint. I find it weird when people say it as if they don't know what they're getting into.

I do play MtG, and it's fun. But it's a very different kind of fun from 40k. Wargames scratch a different itch than card games. I've tried to get my friends into MEdge, and looked into Infinity (but have no one to play with) so I'm stuck with 40k, since I do have a GW. And, while the rules are most definitely NOT the best, I still have fun with it.

I also like building models. But not painting them.

@JNAProductions - I'd try and hire some commission painters to paint your army. Even to a table top standard would be cheaper than starting another large army.

I only paint for a handful of people - but my clients attend a few massive tournaments a year that involve hotel/flight/multiple days of gaming. Since they're strapped for time and skill - between each event they would send models to me to work on and paint to prep for the next event. This is more common in Warmachine/Infinity/40k from what I've seen.I've been painting their models for evens for 6+ years now at this point. They explain it to me all the time that gaming is a different "itch"

I'm an edh/casual player in mtg and have fun with uit - but I hate thier standard format and quit anything other than edh/fnm. It's whatever works gamewise for you..

If youre not into painting I'd reccomend Xwing or Heroclix - both are huge

 Crimson wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
Some people just don't like to paint.

Then they have chosen a wrong hobby.

It is if you joined a historical reenactment group but were like, "I just don't care about making costumes and dressing up" and showed up in your jeans and t-shirt to a Napoleonic reenactment.

Nah, just the wrong people to play with. Some just like the game, some likes the models, not everyone is a painter.

I will play against anyone's army painted or not, but there is something special about a game where both sides have painted forces.

Seeing fully painted armies at a GW store in Gastown convinced me to paint my own and that was a long time ago.

I personally will never field a unit or model without it being painted and sealed.

My two cents,

CB

 Amishprn86 wrote:

 Crimson wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
Some people just don't like to paint.

Then they have chosen a wrong hobby.

It is if you joined a historical reenactment group but were like, "I just don't care about making costumes and dressing up" and showed up in your jeans and t-shirt to a Napoleonic reenactment.

Nah, just the wrong people to play with. Some just like the game, some likes the models, not everyone is a painter.

If people bring a sea of grey plastic every game then they are the wrong people to play against. Part of the game is about the visuals of the battlefield and if you make no effort to paint your minis then you are making no effort to improve your opponents experience. I can understand not having time to paint a lot of new minis at once but if you never paint then you're in the wrong hobby.

It's really not even that difficult anymore, pick up an airgun or some contrast paint. Put down a base colour and spend 10 minutes on each mini adding details.

The contrast paints are bloody amazing. They look pretty damn good without any extra highlights or shadowing (which I obviously do add, but that is the optional step.)

 small_gods wrote:

 Amishprn86 wrote:

 Crimson wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
Some people just don't like to paint.

Then they have chosen a wrong hobby.

It is if you joined a historical reenactment group but were like, "I just don't care about making costumes and dressing up" and showed up in your jeans and t-shirt to a Napoleonic reenactment.

Nah, just the wrong people to play with. Some just like the game, some likes the models, not everyone is a painter.

If people bring a sea of grey plastic every game then they are the wrong people to play against. Part of the game is about the visuals of the battlefield and if you make no effort to paint your minis then you are making no effort to improve your opponents experience. I can understand not having time to paint a lot of new minis at once but if you never paint then you're in the wrong hobby.

It's really not even that difficult anymore, pick up an airgun or some contrast paint. Put down a base colour and spend 10 minutes on each mini adding details.

Thats for you, i don't care if my opponent wants to play full grey, i'd rather he be happy with his hobby than me getting upset about it, as i want to play a game, b.c i like playing as much as the other parts of the hobby. B.c it is a game also. I have play many miniature board games; Arcadia Quest, Massive Darkness, Kingdom of death, etc.. that most people dont paint and it doesn't bother me, or many others that i know.

Crimson and Small Gods are the type of toxicity that we don't need in our game.

Who made you god emperor of GW to tell me that I'm in the wrong hobby if I don't enjoy painting models?

I've played GW games since 1996. I enjoy a lot more of the hobby than the painting. I field all painted armies at the tournaments I go to because it is a requirement not because I find it particularly enjoyable.

If you don't want to play against non-painted armies sure, it's your world do what you want. But the gatekeeping and entitlement of people who have the gall to tell me I'm not doing my hobby right is eye opening. I've never run across people like that at any tournaments or games I've gone to and I'm glad that WAAC try hards keep people that think this way away from my enjoyment of the hobby.

Enjoy the hobby how you want. You don't like painting models, go for it. You want to proxy your space marines as tau, sure - more power to you. Constantly chase the meta with commission painted armies, if that's what floats your boat. Telling people they aren't playing with their toy soldiers right, feth you and the horse you rode in on.

Sure, but that's leaning toward the common misconception of "It's your hobby". This rings true when you're buying your miniatures, and painting your miniatures, and if you game alone or solo, etc.

The second you put your miniatures onto a table with an opponent or opponents, it becomes "our hobby", and you're now providing your portion of the entertainment value. For many people (including many of those who insist it's not...) painted miniatures and proper terrain is the predominant reason they play tabletop wargames. A good looking and enjoyable game is a cooperative affair, nothing less. Each player is bringing a portion of the game with them. This includes their attitude, their rules knowledge, their models and miniatures representing their force, and yes, their element of the aesthetic of the game.

If you don't care at all about the aesthetic of the game, you're in a very small minority. If you find other people who don't care about the aesthetics of the game, congrats. You've reached a great gaming milestone; finding likeminded individuals to play with.

No one looks at a game with grey miniatures running around unpainted MDF and says "hell yeah, that's awesome, I want to do that!". We see White Dwarf articles and pictures on forums of beautiful games, and that's what drives the wargaming hobby; enthusiasm for "the beautiful game" if you will.

If you think people who want to enjoy a more fulfilling hobby experience are elitists or gatekeepers or (insert other yawn-inducing internet terms...) you're welcome to believe that. No one needs to apologize for liking nice things. I had a fully painted (albeit small, perhaps 1,200 points by today's values) Eldar army in high school...on a high school budget, with high school skills. I played on a table made from a huge plank of grey drywall I spray-painted green...IN HIGH SCHOOL.



If you're an adult there's little to zero excuse to not put some effort into painting your gak. It's not the community's job to baby you and coddle you because you're not interested in putting in effort. That's a decision you make.

I went 3/5 and that may be me being a tad generous.
While I enjoy painting I prefer kitbashing/modelling more and enjoy playing even more than that.
I show up at tournaments with fully built and painted models but don’t particularly care in casuals and really don’t care what my opponent has as long as they tell me what things are at the start of the game.

bananathug wrote:
Crimson and Small Gods are the type of toxicity that we don't need in our game.

Who made you god emperor of GW to tell me that I'm in the wrong hobby if I don't enjoy painting models?

I've played GW games since 1996. I enjoy a lot more of the hobby than the painting. I field all painted armies at the tournaments I go to because it is a requirement not because I find it particularly enjoyable.

If you don't want to play against non-painted armies sure, it's your world do what you want. But the gatekeeping and entitlement of people who have the gall to tell me I'm not doing my hobby right is eye opening. I've never run across people like that at any tournaments or games I've gone to and I'm glad that WAAC try hards keep people that think this way away from my enjoyment of the hobby.

Enjoy the hobby how you want. You don't like painting models, go for it. You want to proxy your space marines as tau, sure - more power to you. Constantly chase the meta with commission painted armies, if that's what floats your boat. Telling people they aren't playing with their toy soldiers right, feth you and the horse you rode in on.

Haha toxic gatekeeper I like it!

I'm very much not alone in wanting to not look at the results of your laziness, if you think that playing against grey plastic is as enjoyable as playing against a painted army you are deluding yourself.

None of us have said "You HAVE to play against unpainted minis".

In fact, I directly said "If you don't want to play with unpainted minis, also totally fine."

But to say that EVERYONE has to enjoy the hobby in the same way seems... At a minimum, foolish, and at it's most extreme, really flipping rude.

Huh. The surprising upshot I'm getting from this thread is we should be asking GW for exclusively prepainted minis from now on, because unpainted is a crime and sin worse than murder, and they shouldn't enable it.

Voss wrote:
Huh. The surprising upshot I'm getting from this thread is we should be asking GW for exclusively prepainted minis from now on, because unpainted is a crime and sin worse than murder, and they shouldn't enable it.

considering how most of the time people just paint whatever Gw decides is the studio paintjob anyway, why not. then apparently people like me would be in the "right place" with our lack of eyes for painting and such. if the paint is this integral, why not play a game with actually painted mini's by default, or as some argue in other threads (and even in this one), a game thats models and rules actually deserve the effort of painting more.

come to think of it, if they did pre-paint the models, it would add value to the boxes.

Yeah, I don't much care if my opponent has their stuff painted, but it adds to the experience.

But personally, painting my own stuff is like 80% of the whole hobby for me, with assembly/conversion being 10% and actually playing the remaining 10%.
The playing part used to be much higher, but ya know, life happens

-

What's more interesting is that the majority of the hyperbole is coming from the unpainted promoters in the thread though.

If I say, for instance; you're appearing lazy and you're not putting in effort....this becomes "a sin worse than murder"?

JNA, who has said that you're enjoying the hobby wrong? What we've said is that by bringing unfinished stuff to the table, you're diminishing other people's enjoyment of the hobby. If you don't care about other people's enjoyment; that's fine - but don't misconstrue those statements. No one is saying what you can or can't do by yourself, at your hobby desk. But again, there is the continuing misconception that playing a 2+ person game is somehow solely "your hobby".

On the flip side, if someone shows up to your game with a fully painted army (even to a simple tabletop standard) and a nicely laid out table with terrain for you to game on - would this actively diminish your enjoyment of the game somehow? It's a door that swings in one direction. No one is ever going to think "ugh..fine" when their opponent has a properly built/painted/equipped army on the table. That means they respect you enough to put in the effort to do what they can to create an attractive game for you.

 Strg Alt wrote:
It's the most important aspect. Period.

I don't understand why people even bother shoving minis around the board with unpainted stuff. Hmm, it seems to me these are the same people who are okay with putting soda cans on the table as terrain or even, God forbid, models.

A better hobby would be for them MtG but as lazy as these guys are they wouldn't even take an effort to put their cards into sleeves.

There's this quote, among many others.

That quote didn't say anything about how you enjoy your hobby. He said he didn't understand why people do that. He also presents some valid points; if painting isn't an interest - why bother with tabletop wargames when other games exist that aren't based around building a 3D aesthetic simulation?

He believe it to be lazy, and that's a pretty valid argument with the ease with which you can paint armies today. I don't know the author of that post, but I'm inclined to agree with him. I don't understand why someone would get joy out of unpainted models and sub-par terrain; but that doesn't equate to it being wrong, if it's something you're doing by yourself. I do get a say in the matter when the game occurs between us though, thus I can decline the game if desired.

You can all have your own “rules” to enjoy the hobby. You only want to play against fully painted armies on nicely built tables, fine when that person at the FLGS with a grey plastic army asks you for a game, say “No thank you” and leave it at that. Don’t go into a diatribe about the sin of grey plastic

 Elbows wrote:
That quote didn't say anything about how you enjoy your hobby. He said he didn't understand why people do that. He also presents some valid points; if painting isn't an interest - why bother with tabletop wargames when other games exist that aren't based around building a 3D aesthetic simulation?

He believe it to be lazy, and that's a pretty valid argument with the ease with which you can paint armies today. I don't know the author of that post, but I'm inclined to agree with him. I don't understand why someone would get joy out of unpainted models and sub-par terrain; but that doesn't equate to it being wrong, if it's something you're doing by yourself. I do get a say in the matter when the game occurs between us though, thus I can decline the game if desired.

Do you not see the insulting nature of the post?

I don't have an issue with someone saying "I don't get people who want to play 40k without painting," but I do take umbrage to being called lazy because I don't enjoy painting as a hobby.

 Freeflow44 wrote:
You can all have your own “rules” to enjoy the hobby. You only want to play against fully painted armies on nicely built tables, fine when that person at the FLGS with a grey plastic army asks you for a game, say “No thank you” and leave it at that. Don’t go into a diatribe about the sin of grey plastic

Sure, no one disagrees with that. Did anyone here say that go on rants about it in front of people who ask them for a game? This is an internet forum, and the discussion was started...nothing wrong with people actually responding.

 JNAProductions wrote:
None of us have said "You HAVE to play against unpainted minis".

In fact, I directly said "If you don't want to play with unpainted minis, also totally fine."

But to say that EVERYONE has to enjoy the hobby in the same way seems... At a minimum, foolish, and at it's most extreme, really flipping rude.

Look, you can grind your models to fine dust and snort them if that makes you happy, but I don't want to participate in that and it is not how they were intended to be used. The game is marketed as a visual experience. Every GW picture of the game being played shows painted models. They publish instructions on painting models. The historical wargaming hobby of whic the Warhammer is offshoot exclusively uses painted models. So yes, painting the models is how it is 'intended' to be done and it is not an unreasonable expectation.

 JNAProductions wrote:

 Elbows wrote:
That quote didn't say anything about how you enjoy your hobby. He said he didn't understand why people do that. He also presents some valid points; if painting isn't an interest - why bother with tabletop wargames when other games exist that aren't based around building a 3D aesthetic simulation?

He believe it to be lazy, and that's a pretty valid argument with the ease with which you can paint armies today. I don't know the author of that post, but I'm inclined to agree with him. I don't understand why someone would get joy out of unpainted models and sub-par terrain; but that doesn't equate to it being wrong, if it's something you're doing by yourself. I do get a say in the matter when the game occurs between us though, thus I can decline the game if desired.

Do you not see the insulting nature of the post?

I don't have an issue with someone saying "I don't get people who want to play 40k without painting," but I do take umbrage to being called lazy because I don't enjoy painting as a hobby.

Sure, the nature of the post is a bit dickish, but it didn't contain what you said it did when you quoted it. You said it was an example of being told you're doing the hobby wrong, and that wasn't in the quote.

Regarding being called lazy, is that not generally accurate? Is it offensive to say "I'm too lazy to paint the figures", or "I don't want to put in the effort to paint the figures". I'd respect more people if they simply said that, instead of hide behind rather flimsy excuses for not partaking in the aesthetic function of the game. It's incredibly easy to paint armies to a minimal standard today. The easier something is, the more lazy it appears when you're not willing to do it - does that make sense to you?

Would you prefer to be simple labeled as selfish instead of lazy? Is there a term you'd prefer for not wanting to bring your best effort to a cooperative social function? Should I not take umbrage when you and your fellow supporters call people like me elitist or gatekeepers, etc? Just seems like a very bizarre and defensive stance you've taken when someone is stating what appears logical.

 Crimson wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
None of us have said "You HAVE to play against unpainted minis".

In fact, I directly said "If you don't want to play with unpainted minis, also totally fine."

But to say that EVERYONE has to enjoy the hobby in the same way seems... At a minimum, foolish, and at it's most extreme, really flipping rude.

Look, you can grind your models to fine dust and snort them if that makes you happy, but I don't want to participate in that and it is not how they were intended to be used. The game is marketed as a visual experience. Every GW picture of the game being played shows painted models. They publish instructions on painting models. The historical wargaming hobby of whic the Warhammer is offshoot exclusively uses painted models. So yes, painting the models is how it is 'intended' to be done and it is not an unreasonable expectation.

D&D 3.5 is meant to be played with a Healbot Cleric, a Blaster Wizard, a Sneaky Rogue, and a Big Fighter. Am I wrong to play it with an Archivist, a Gish Cleric, and a Psion?
Baseball is meant to be played on a regulation baseball diamond, of very specific sizes. Am I wrong to play with my friends in my backyard?
Poker is meant to be played without any wild cards. Am I wrong to play "Eights are wild" with my friends when we're killing time?
Megaman X is meant to be played with weapons, armors, and parts. Am I wrong to challenge myself by playing with buster only?

Do you see my point?

 Elbows wrote:

 Freeflow44 wrote:
You can all have your own “rules” to enjoy the hobby. You only want to play against fully painted armies on nicely built tables, fine when that person at the FLGS with a grey plastic army asks you for a game, say “No thank you” and leave it at that. Don’t go into a diatribe about the sin of grey plastic

Sure, no one disagrees with that. Did anyone here say that go on rants about it in front of people who ask them for a game? This is an internet forum, and the discussion was started...nothing wrong with people actually responding.

Agreed Elbows, you are right, we’re currently in a discussion forum and the conversation is valid.

Here’s a story, I’ve been gaming at my local GW for a year and half, always with my fully painted armies, I have a great friend there named Scott. Scott and I love the same parts of the lore, we have the same sense of humor, Scott and I always have a great laugh

But we had never played a game against each other and we kept telling each other we would sometime

I finally asked Scott why we haven’t had that game yet and he said “None of my armies are fully painted and your armies are all painted”

I was pretty surprised by this and told Scott, I don’t care if your armies painted, let’s roll some dice and have some laughs

Last Saturday, Scott’s yellow primed Imperial Fists fought my fully painted Death Guard and we had a riot

I have run LARPs too and I'm an elitist gatekeeper in that too and expect people to get a somewhat setting appropriate costume! And when I GM tabletop RPGs i expect people to invent a name for their character, I even go so far in my elitist gatekeeping that I expect them to come up with rough backstory and even describe the appearance of their character!

Precisely.

I have a group of 8-10 guys that I routinely game with. Of that, four of them have fully painted armies. It doesn't mean I don't play with the other guys. However I do rib the feth out of them, and push them to paint their stuff (they're just more scatterbrained and collect more minis than they'll even build, let alone paint). They're also younger and may eventually snap out of it.

The guys who really hate painting, I suggest we shift to a different skirmish-type game. We frequently have the "You know...you don't have to like or play 40K if you don't want to, it's not a requirement!" conversation.

If I host a game, be it Old West, Fantasy Dungeon Crawl, Gladiators, etc....I will provide all the painted miniatures/terrain/dice,etc. needed. They just show up and bring a beer or two.

JNA may hate what I have to say in this thread, he may even be insulted; but the reality is that's fine; he can be insulted. We're not gaming together. We're simply discussing opinions on the matter. The beauty of being an adult is that you get to decide how/where/why you play games. I fervently dislike the common "game at all costs" attitude that some people have. I have limited free time as an adult, so I will play the games I want to play with the people I want to play with. I'm not required nor interested in going and playing random strangers at hobby stores, etc.

 small_gods wrote:

If people bring a sea of grey plastic every game then they are the wrong people to play against.

They are? So I'm doing this wrong by playing with my friends?
Let me consider this for a moment....

Hmm, nope. Friendship is thicker than paint. Removed - Rule #1 please

 small_gods wrote:
Part of the game is about the visuals of the battlefield and if you make no effort to paint your minis then you are making no effort to improve your opponents experience. I can understand not having time to paint a lot of new minis at once but if you never paint then you're in the wrong hobby.

And a more important part of this game is having a good time with the people around your table.
Seriously, wether or not Joel ever paints those Marines isn't going improve my play experience with him.

Can we just say that people should find and game with others of a similar mindset?

If you don't mind gaming with or against unpainted minis, then find people who also don't mind either?

Or if you prefer playing against those with fully painted armies, then find those who have fully painted armies?

And seriously, why are we arguing this on an internet forum? It'll be a rare day that any of us will meet each other IRL, and most of the people we will play against are those at our FLGS. How about we each try to find like minded folks at our own FLGS? I guarantee it will be a lot more enjoyable for everyone.

Arcanis161 wrote:
Can we just say that people should find and game with others of a similar mindset?

If you don't mind gaming with or against unpainted minis, then find people who also don't mind either?

Or if you prefer playing against those with fully painted armies, then find those who have fully painted armies?

And seriously, why are we arguing this on an internet forum? It'll be a rare day that any of us will meet each other IRL, and most of the people we will play against are those at our FLGS. How about we each try to find like minded folks at our own FLGS? I guarantee it will be a lot more enjoyable for everyone.

Ding! Ding! Ding! And that is all there is too it

My friends and I started the hobby (one restarted from scratch) about 3 years ago. We started with about 500pt armies and what little terrain we had/a lot of makeshift terrain. After visiting and playing at a game store we were spoiled and the makeshift terrain didn't cut it. Also we all.grew our armies and have around 3.5k for multiple armies. Fully painted armies and terrain always looks better and is preferred but we do play with unpainted/primed models.

If you wanna play with unpainted miniatures forever because you can't grasp what wargaming is you should play Manopoly or Risk.

In theory, I emphasize good looking table and terrain over model painting quality. Even basecoated models look pretty aight when there's many of them, but a half-arsed table and terrain will look comical no matter how well its painted. Badly made / goofy looking terrain and tables seems to be much more prevalent, I rarely see good looking tables whereas decent to awesome looking armies are much more common. This hobby would benefit from realistic diorama building tutorials becoming trendy (youtubers hint hint).

In practice however, I dont really GAF. We are there to play and have fun with the mates, not one-upping each other on mini painting skills or terrain building.

 Crimson wrote:
The contrast paints are bloody amazing. They look pretty damn good without any extra highlights or shadowing (which I obviously do add, but that is the optional step.)

how well they work depends on what your painting, they don't work all that great on primaris, although the new apoacathy white is definatly a god send for ayone wanting to do white

I at the very least get the base colors on before playing anything. Ideally, fully painted (to my own standard). What I consider fully painted for a Termagant may differ to what I consider fully painted for a Hierodule, but at the very least they are all finished in my eyes.

 Elbows wrote:
Sure, but that's leaning toward the common misconception of "It's your hobby". This rings true when you're buying your miniatures, and painting your miniatures, and if you game alone or solo, etc.

The second you put your miniatures onto a table with an opponent or opponents, it becomes "our hobby", and you're now providing your portion of the entertainment value. For many people (including many of those who insist it's not...) painted miniatures and proper terrain is the predominant reason they play tabletop wargames. A good looking and enjoyable game is a cooperative affair, nothing less. Each player is bringing a portion of the game with them. This includes their attitude, their rules knowledge, their models and miniatures representing their force, and yes, their element of the aesthetic of the game.

If you don't care at all about the aesthetic of the game, you're in a very small minority. If you find other people who don't care about the aesthetics of the game, congrats. You've reached a great gaming milestone; finding likeminded individuals to play with.

No one looks at a game with grey miniatures running around unpainted MDF and says "hell yeah, that's awesome, I want to do that!". We see White Dwarf articles and pictures on forums of beautiful games, and that's what drives the wargaming hobby; enthusiasm for "the beautiful game" if you will.

If you think people who want to enjoy a more fulfilling hobby experience are elitists or gatekeepers or (insert other yawn-inducing internet terms...) you're welcome to believe that. No one needs to apologize for liking nice things. I had a fully painted (albeit small, perhaps 1,200 points by today's values) Eldar army in high school...on a high school budget, with high school skills. I played on a table made from a huge plank of grey drywall I spray-painted green...IN HIGH SCHOOL.

Spoiler:

If you're an adult there's little to zero excuse to not put some effort into painting your gak. It's not the community's job to baby you and coddle you because you're not interested in putting in effort. That's a decision you make.

"Our" still includes them though. While there are many people who paint as part of the hobby, there are many who don't, who enjoy the playing aspect more. Or have time issues. So yeah...and adult has many issues that may be stopping them from painting, or painting regularly. Acknowledging that isn't babying or coddling.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 JNAProductions wrote:

 Elbows wrote:
That quote didn't say anything about how you enjoy your hobby. He said he didn't understand why people do that. He also presents some valid points; if painting isn't an interest - why bother with tabletop wargames when other games exist that aren't based around building a 3D aesthetic simulation?

He believe it to be lazy, and that's a pretty valid argument with the ease with which you can paint armies today. I don't know the author of that post, but I'm inclined to agree with him. I don't understand why someone would get joy out of unpainted models and sub-par terrain; but that doesn't equate to it being wrong, if it's something you're doing by yourself. I do get a say in the matter when the game occurs between us though, thus I can decline the game if desired.

Do you not see the insulting nature of the post?

At this point it's safe to assume he does not, considering he's said things on par.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Crimson wrote:
I have run LARPs too and I'm an elitist gatekeeper in that too and expect people to get a somewhat setting appropriate costume! And when I GM tabletop RPGs i expect people to invent a name for their character, I even go so far in my elitist gatekeeping that I expect them to come up with rough backstory and even describe the appearance of their character!

It's almost like different hobbies can have different standards.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

Arcanis161 wrote:
Can we just say that people should find and game with others of a similar mindset?

If you don't mind gaming with or against unpainted minis, then find people who also don't mind either?

Or if you prefer playing against those with fully painted armies, then find those who have fully painted armies?

And seriously, why are we arguing this on an internet forum? It'll be a rare day that any of us will meet each other IRL, and most of the people we will play against are those at our FLGS. How about we each try to find like minded folks at our own FLGS? I guarantee it will be a lot more enjoyable for everyone.

One side is saying that. The othe rside is saying the first is lazy because they don't hold others to made up standards.

Stormonu wrote:

Moriarty wrote:

 Argive wrote:
I mean who does not like the feeling of debuting a polished fresh new addition to their army

And then watching it die/run without doing anything :-)

My brother actually used that as an argument not to paint. His painted models (units) always seemed to die first. He was convinced the “ugly” unpainted models were subconsciously not being picked over the “attractive” painted ones.

New model syndrome is certainly a real phenomenon
First time I used a wraithlord he did not hit anything the entire game.
Then first time I used Eldrad he tanked almost a whole line of broadsides and proceeded to kill two units of fire warriors

TheAvengingKnee wrote:

 Strg Alt wrote:
It's the most important aspect. Period.

I don't understand why people even bother shoving minis around the board with unpainted stuff. Hmm, it seems to me these are the same people who are okay with putting soda cans on the table as terrain or even, God forbid, models.

A better hobby would be for them MtG but as lazy as these guys are they wouldn't even take an effort to put their cards into sleeves.

If it’s a new player putting an army on the field they have just assembled and haven’t had time to paint, I can completely understand an excitement for getting in a game with new models. Also this time of year in South Dakota I understand people not painting minis, if you don’t have a warm area to prime you can’t go outside and do it. At the flgs there is a guy who if the models don’t come painted when he buys them they will never be painted, that is a lot less acceptable and he sometimes is a tfg.

 Stormonu wrote:

Moriarty wrote:

 Argive wrote:
I mean who does not like the feeling of debuting a polished fresh new addition to their army

And then watching it die/run without doing anything :-)

My brother actually used that as an argument not to paint. His painted models (units) always seemed to die first. He was convinced the “ugly” unpainted models were subconsciously not being picked over the “attractive” painted ones.

We had a tournament with some grey plastic terrain and an unpainted squad of cultists sat in the terrain and both sides forgot they existed until the end of the game.

Last time I played vs a bunch of grey models I almost lost because I forgot about to shoot at enemy character. We played on a gray board with a lot of grey/ash coloured terrain and he was standing right in the open and I just didn't see him lol...

I will play a game using unpainted miniatures, especially if I am demoing a game to someone, but only if I REALLY want to get a game in but don't have all the figures present painted yet. But it still grates on my nerves.

I prefer my games to be with fully painted figures around fully painted terrain when at all possible, and sometimes I'd rather just pospone until that can be done because it makes the game that much cooler for me. For me personally that's what elevates miniatures wargames above boardgames. Boardgames are meant to be played with what comes out of the box. With wargames, the entire POINT is to make the army or force I am fielding completely unique to ME, not just anyone else with money and glue. It's ALL about the personalization.

If I've got some mates, a beer, a stick, and a tennis ball, I've got a game of backyard cricket.

Same principle applies to 40k. Fun is necessary, everything else is ancillary.

Important out of suffering is missing.

What i mean by that is, I love to paint but also loathe to paint at the same time.

 Mmmpi wrote:
It's almost like different hobbies can have different standards.

It almost like some people take upholding any sorts of standards as a personal insult.

 Crimson wrote:

 Mmmpi wrote:
It's almost like different hobbies can have different standards.

It almost like some people take upholding any sorts of standards as a personal insult.

It is an insult when you force your standards onto other people.

You holding yourself to a 'only painted' standard? Fine. Admirable.

Calling people lazy because they don't meet your particular standards? And for a wide variety or reasons that likely have nothing to do with painting one way or another? Yeah, No Buenos.

 Mmmpi wrote:

It is an insult when you force your standards onto other people.

You holding yourself to a 'only painted' standard? Fine. Admirable.

Calling people lazy because they don't meet your particular standards? And for a wide variety or reasons that likely have nothing to do with painting one way or another? Yeah, No Buenos.

I didn't call anyone lazy, but just like LARPS, tabletop RPGs and historical reenactment I mentioned earlier, wargaming is a group activity and you not meeting the standards affects others and it is understandable if they don't want to include you if you don't want to put in the expected effort.

Having done this hobby since the early 90s I have played with unpainted, partially painted and fully painted armies and or gangs/warbands.

What I have found is when I was younger I was always super keen to get gaming not really caring if most of the battlefield was a sea of grey or metal. Much more interested in making army lists or seeing if the latest unit was good or not.

Now i’m older I much prefer the painting and converting aspect of the hobby, as I have more downtime and less time to actually game. Also with the rise of internet video it is much easier to see how painting techniques are done rather than relying on a few Mike McVey photos and text.

Is Painting Important; it is purely dependant on a person to person basis. For me it is as I enjoy it even if my skill at it is never going to be that good.

 Crimson wrote:

 Mmmpi wrote:

It is an insult when you force your standards onto other people.

You holding yourself to a 'only painted' standard? Fine. Admirable.

Calling people lazy because they don't meet your particular standards? And for a wide variety or reasons that likely have nothing to do with painting one way or another? Yeah, No Buenos.

I didn't call anyone lazy, but just like LARPS, tabletop RPGs and historical reenactment I mentioned earlier, wargaming is a group activity and you not meeting the standards affects others and it is understandable if they don't want to include you if you don't want to put in the expected effort.

Just because you didn't say the specific words "they're lazy" doesn't mean your post wasn't saying it.

The minimum group standard for Larping and reenactments involves the pagentry. The minimum group standard for playing 40K is "wants to play 40K". As for the rest, sure if your group wants to exclude people who don't paint, that's your business. Just don't pretend your way is the only acceptable way to do it. Remember too, if you're part of a larger group, their desire or inability to not paint is just as much a part of what your group finds acceptable.

 Mmmpi wrote:

The minimum group standard for Larping and reenactments involves the pagentry.

And why you find this acceptable and not elitist gatekeeping? It is the fething same thing. Sure, you could do a fantasy LARP in your jeans, it still works, just like you can play with unpainted 40K models. It just looks like gak and the breaks immersion. And in both of these putting some effort into the visuals is what is expected. GW always shows painted armies and in historical wargaming people wouldn't dream of playing with unpainted models. I really don't understand why this phenomenon even exists, seem to be mostly just a Warhammer and fantasy wargaming problem.

I used to only barely care enough to get a squad done in a month. But I had to have my models at least primed.

Took a break for a few years, came back and somehow a switch had been flipped in the meantime, now I want my models painted ASAP, within aesthetic reason.

I also somehow got better at painting while being away from the hobby. It's honestly kind of creeping me out, it's as if I was possessed and did hobbying unbeknownst to me at some point.

That said, painting is not the most fun part of 40K. Playing is. And I'll often bring a basecoated unit or two for a test run to figure out where it'll go on my "painting priority ladder".

 Crimson wrote:

 Mmmpi wrote:

The minimum group standard for Larping and reenactments involves the pagentry.

And why you find this acceptable and not elitist gatekeeping? It is the fething same thing. Sure, you could do a fantasy LARP in your jeans, it still works, just like you can play with unpainted 40K models. It just looks like gak and the breaks immersion. And in both of these putting some effort into the visuals is what is expected. GW always shows painted armies and in historical wargaming people wouldn't dream of playing with unpainted models. I really don't understand why this phenomenon even exists, seem to be mostly just a Warhammer and fantasy wargaming problem.

Wait...Me telling you that you your pushing your standards onto other people is me gatekeeping, despite me saying that I have no issues with what standards you hold yourself to?

Oh wait...that's not the same thing at all.

You think it looks like gak. Maybe the person you're playing with agrees with you. Maybe they don't care. It's none of your business. You don't have to play them, but if you do, you have to live with it.
40K rules break immersion much more than a lack of paint does. You expect 'extra' effort. Other people might not. Again, that's you pushing your values onto them as some arbetrary limiter on 'what's acceptable'. It has as much berring on the game as if I refused to play you because you drove a Honda to the game.

GW shows painted armies because they want to sell miniatures. Cool pictures sell well. Historical wargaming isn't 40K. Lets compare apples to apples, not apples to dachshunds.

The reason you don't understand is that you're trying your hardest not to understand. You've decided that your way is the best, and that anyone who thinks otherwise is lazy.

text removed.

Reds8n

 Mmmpi wrote:

Wait...Me telling you that you your pushing your standards onto other people is me gatekeeping, despite me saying that I have no issues with what standards you hold yourself to?

No, that's not what I meant. I meant why you think demanding some basic asethetic standards in LARPs or reenactments is fine but doing the same in wargames is not?

You think it looks like gak. Maybe the person you're playing with agrees with you. Maybe they don't care. It's none of your business. You don't have to play them, but if you do, you have to live with it.
40K rules break immersion much more than a lack of paint does. You expect 'extra' effort. Other people might not. Again, that's you pushing your values onto them as some arbetrary limiter on 'what's acceptable'. It has as much berring on the game as if I refused to play you because you drove a Honda to the game.

GW shows painted armies because they want to sell miniatures. Cool pictures sell well. Historical wargaming isn't 40K. Lets compare apples to apples, not apples to dachshunds.

The reason you don't understand is that you're trying your hardest not to understand. You've decided that your way is the best, and that anyone who thinks otherwise is lazy.

The reason that you don't understand that in miniature wargaming painting the bloody models is a normal and expected part of the process just like dressing up for LARPS and wearing trousers at work is that you're trying your hardest not to understand.

 JNAProductions wrote:
None of us have said "You HAVE to play against unpainted minis".

In fact, I directly said "If you don't want to play with unpainted minis, also totally fine."

But to say that EVERYONE has to enjoy the hobby in the same way seems... At a minimum, foolish, and at it's most extreme, really flipping rude.

I agree with Freeflow44 here. I've gotten hate for this before on Dakka - but I don't play against players with unpainted minis. We would never play a pick up game if you frequented my local store / you wouldnt be able to enter any tournaments or events.

As Freeflow44 stated - you can have your own rules to enjoy the hobby.

 ValentineGames wrote:

Let's be honest.
It'd be like using an American as an average standard of human.

Speaking as an American, that's never a good idea. Psychologically Americans hit way too many statistical outliers.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Crimson wrote:

 Mmmpi wrote:

Wait...Me telling you that you your pushing your standards onto other people is me gatekeeping, despite me saying that I have no issues with what standards you hold yourself to?

No, that's not what I meant. I meant why you think demanding some basic asethetic standards in LARPs or reenactments is fine but doing the same in wargames is not?

Because for Larping the costumes are the point. For historical reenactment it's the historical accuracy (don't show up with the wrong uniform, even if it's period appropriate). For 40K, the point is the game. I'm pretty sure I've already said that about 40K.

You think it looks like gak. Maybe the person you're playing with agrees with you. Maybe they don't care. It's none of your business. You don't have to play them, but if you do, you have to live with it.
40K rules break immersion much more than a lack of paint does. You expect 'extra' effort. Other people might not. Again, that's you pushing your values onto them as some arbetrary limiter on 'what's acceptable'. It has as much berring on the game as if I refused to play you because you drove a Honda to the game.

GW shows painted armies because they want to sell miniatures. Cool pictures sell well. Historical wargaming isn't 40K. Lets compare apples to apples, not apples to dachshunds.

The reason you don't understand is that you're trying your hardest not to understand. You've decided that your way is the best, and that anyone who thinks otherwise is lazy.

The reason that you don't understand that in miniature wargaming painting the bloody models is a normal and expected part of the process just like dressing up for LARPS and wearing trousers at work is that you're trying your hardest not to understand.

Nope. You're trying to force your personal views on other people, and now can't understand the fact that you're getting push back.

 Mmmpi wrote:

Because for Larping the costumes are the point.

Most certainly not. It is a form of roleplaying game, the game and narrative are the point. The costumes are just and extra layer of visuality which makes the experience more enjoyable and immersive. Exactly like the painted models in a wargame.

Nope. You're trying to force your personal views on other people, and now can't understand the fact that you're getting push back.

I understand perfectly well why. There is always the sort of people who get angry if someone tells them what to do (a very American trait BTW,) even if that thing was most basic and normal part of whatever social interaction they're participating in.

 Stevefamine wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
None of us have said "You HAVE to play against unpainted minis".

In fact, I directly said "If you don't want to play with unpainted minis, also totally fine."

But to say that EVERYONE has to enjoy the hobby in the same way seems... At a minimum, foolish, and at it's most extreme, really flipping rude.

I agree with Freeflow44 here. I've gotten hate for this before on Dakka - but I don't play against players with unpainted minis. We would never play a pick up game if you frequented my local store / you wouldnt be able to enter any tournaments or events.

As Freeflow44 stated - you can have your own rules to enjoy the hobby.

As I already said ITT- IME the Venn diagram of unpainted models and unbearable meta chasing bellend is an almost perfect circle.

With the exception close friends I simply won’t play opponents with unpainted stuff until they have proven to me they are not a chore to play. Too many bad experiences from WMH with the above.

 Crimson wrote:

 Mmmpi wrote:

Because for Larping the costumes are the point.

Most certainly not. It is a form of roleplaying game, the game and narrative are the point. The costumes are just and extra layer of visuality which makes the experience more enjoyable and immersive. Exactly like the painted models in a wargame.

Completely different. If it were what you say, they'd just play D&D*.

*or some other TT game.

 Mmmpi wrote:

 Crimson wrote:

 Mmmpi wrote:

Because for Larping the costumes are the point.

Most certainly not. It is a form of roleplaying game, the game and narrative are the point. The costumes are just and extra layer of visuality which makes the experience more enjoyable and immersive. Exactly like the painted models in a wargame.

Completely different. If it were what you say, they'd just play D&D*.

*or some other TT game.

Depends on the LARP, there are Syfy nerf versions that are LOADS of fun for non-LARP people, we run these and no one dresses up, b.c its the fun of getting friends together and playing 4-5 games, leveling up guns, getting new guns, etc.. but i also have another 2 group of friends that the entire point is weapons and army, so you need to dress up, now one is no dress code b.c its all tournament style combat and the weapons are bright reds/yellows/greens, etc.. so the judges can see, but it is still LARP as its 30 vs 30 in woods, etc., the other is full gear b.c its more about the looks.

So it really depends what group you are in.

I love to play fully painted,
At home with friends we have sometimes unpainted things for try or still not rdy but everyone try to paint as much as he can.
It's just a totaly other play feeling for me with painted Modells and nice terrain.

I have no problem to play vs unpainted but I don't like it

 Crimson wrote:

 Mmmpi wrote:

The minimum group standard for Larping and reenactments involves the pagentry.

And why you find this acceptable and not elitist gatekeeping? It is the fething same thing. Sure, you could do a fantasy LARP in your jeans, it still works, just like you can play with unpainted 40K models. It just looks like gak and the breaks immersion. And in both of these putting some effort into the visuals is what is expected. GW always shows painted armies and in historical wargaming people wouldn't dream of playing with unpainted models. I really don't understand why this phenomenon even exists, seem to be mostly just a Warhammer and fantasy wargaming problem.

And it is totally acceptable to exclude the dude in jeans from playing in your LARP campaign.

What I have a problem with is you going over to another group of LARPers who aren't dressed up and insulting how they are playing their game. Calling them lazy or WAAC or whatever other insults you want to throw their way because they don't fit into the box that you have drawn around how you think the hobby should be played.

It also seems weird to call someone lazy because they don't want to spend more time on their hobbies. Calling the guy who hasn't finished painting his army lazy while giving a pass to the guy who gets it commissioned shows just how flawed and biased this reasoning is.

If you can't see this difference it's because (like others have said) you intentionally don't. No one in this thread is saying you shouldn't play the game the way you want to other than the side that insists that not painting your models is a sin against GW and if you are not doing it their way then you are attacking the institution of 40k and should be banned from all play until you get your gak together.

The same way a beautiful table with two golden demon award winning armies will encourage people to pick-up the game, seeing games at less than studio quality will also encourage people to pick-up the game as the barrier to entry doesn't seem as high. I want to encourage non-traditional nerds to pick up 40k and give it a try. People that are into sci-fi or are coming by the shop to pick-up a board game and happen to see a diverse playing group with varying levels of competitive to beer and pretzels games going on, IMHO, is the best way to encourage more people to play the game.

Guys, if we could kindly tone things down a bit and stay on target, that would be great.

Modeling is first, painting is second. I do not play.

If I had it my way, I would never play a single miniature wargame with unpainted miniatures.

I like playing Warhammer and the likes, but not so much that I can't just wait until I finish painting my army before I use it. If I can't have the complete experience - with fully painted miniatures and terrain - then I'll just go play something else instead, like a video game or a board game. I'm more interested in the immersive interactive diorama side of things than the 'game' itself, personally.

Some of this is coloured by the fact that, as a kid, I used to play Warhammer and very often I'd get an army, work on it and slowly paint it while playing with it unpainted - then by the time I actually finished painting it, I'd get bored of it and move onto the next thing. As a result, all I'd ever do is play with half painted armies. Had I just waited a month or two in the first instance, or focussed on smaller point games for a while, I could have held off until the army was painted - then by the time I get bored of it, my next project would be finished and ready for the table top.

This is not to say that I'm not going to have patience with someone new to the hobby who wants to play the game while they get their models finished, but given the choice to stay at home and play a video game or play a game of Warhammer with an adult who has been playing miniature wargaming for 3-4 years and wants to field an unpainted army? I'll take staying at home. We're probably not going to be compatible in what we're getting from the game anyway.

Also, I have absolutely no problem with people who want to play with unpainted miniatures playing against each other. You do you. The hobby is for everyone, and everyone gets different things out of it - if you're super into just the gaming portion, then that's great and more power to you - as long as I don't get socially pressured myself into playing you, as I don't find playing unpainted wargames appealing or exciting at all.

Painting is fairly important to me. The whole hobby side of the game is what motivates me to buy more models and start new armies. I won't be winning any painting competitions soon, but I still take pride in my work, especially when I deploy my army in front of a first-time opponent. To me, painting your models is about taking ownership of them and making them uniquely yours. Once an army is painted, there is no other like it.

I almost never use unpainted models. If I really must, I make sure to at least prime the model.

I'm fairly tolerant of players who bring unpainted models, but if they seem to be making no progress over time, I will grow quietly annoyed, I must admit. "Do you even like your army?"

To me? Very important.

To others? Don't care one bit.

I enjoy the painting aspect (pretty much all I enjoy these days), but I wouldn't dream of projecting my priorities unto others.

Might as well complain about the opponents army not having a fully fleshed back story and named characters.....or their army composition being sub-optimal.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Three things will happen in this thread;

1. People who doesn't enjoy painting will be categorised as lazy TFGs and meta-chasing power games ruining the fun for others.

2. People who do enjoy painting will have a hard time understanding how other people don't.

3. Some people will try to argue, that what THEY find enjoyable, is objectively the most important aspect of the game.

Steelmage99 wrote:



Automatically Appended Next Post:
Three things will happen in this thread;

1. People who doesn't enjoy painting will be categorised as lazy TFGs and meta-chasing power games ruining the fun for others.

2. People who do enjoy painting will have a hard time understanding how other people don't.

3. Some people will try to argue, that what THEY find enjoyable, is objectively the most important aspect of the game.

All of this has already happened, so you would be correct!

You don't have to paint, but nobody has to play you. I wouldn't want to take photos with bare or poorly done models on the table. You should also be kept out of tournaments by the painting requirement. See wm events, a nightmare of tokens, cards, and bare metal. No matter how you spin the "I don't have time or interest" excuse you're stuff still looks horrible. It's fine to prioritize rules but I don't know why you play 40k then, play other games like wm, mtg, star wars prepaints, etc.

I can't afford to paint all my models again, and some of my models look like they were straight up dipped in paint. Because I was once slightly worse than I am now. I choose to at least basecoat my models before I play with them, maybe a few offset layers like red hair on custodes, or black/silver on guns.

But it helps me know what is what on the board without having to waste time, and I expect the same basic courtesy from an opponent. I will still play and Adepticus Plasticus force, but it takes longer because I have to constantly ask "What is that" and "what's it's loadout/chapter/etc" because it doesn't have a convienent sign (paint scheme) for me to quickly and accurately ID.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 BrookM wrote:
Guys, if we could kindly tone things down a bit and stay on target, that would be great.

Can you tell me where this gif came from? It looks like some form of weird WW2 anime. I want to watch it!

 FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:


Can you tell me where this gif came from? It looks like some form of weird WW2 anime. I want to watch it!

Pretty sure it is from the Pearl Jam music video Do the Evolution. She is death/war.

0/5 for me. I don't like painting...I have painted a couple of models and it was miserable. I got into Warhammer (AoS and 40K) for the warGAME aspect of it. Luckily the most of the people in my group have two brain cells to rub together and believe in to each their own. Some of them have great paint schemes while I have my box grey army and we have had some amazing games that we still talk about. There is a guy in our group who will play with anyone, but has made it very clear that thinks everyone should be forced to paint and be WYSIWYG so I don't play that guy and we get along great otherwise.

Anyone saying that unpainted armies break the immersion for them is full of crap, do the giant cubes falling from the sky on your soldiers not break Immersion? What about the massive tape measure hovering in the sky or the grass growing were ever your space marine's boot steps?

4/5 for me, though arguably I could have put 3/5. I like bringing something nice to the table and I'll always take painting as a chance to improve on my skills, but truth be told I will always prefer the building part of the hobby, and I happen to find that part infinitely less frustrating when the going is tough than when I'm having a bad time with a paintbrush.

I do like it more when other people bring a painted army than now, even if it's basic, but it's not a deal/immersion breaker for me.

I hate painting. I love playing 40k, my primary interest in 40k used to be playing a game like Warcraft, C&C or StarCraft as a collectible board game (boy, was I wrong ).
I also love playing with painted models, so recently my models have been picking up paint jobs, and I've gotten faster and better, too.
Still over a hundred unpainted orks left, but less than a dozen Death Guard. If you face my orks, there will be unpainted models among them.

Obviously, I won't judge anyone for not painting - but please do bring proper models.

Also gotta love all the logical fallacies in this thread.
"Anyone who is ok with not painting, thinks pop cans are fine for terrain" - no, I don't think so. Immersion doesn't go from 100% to 0% because there are two thin layers of paint missing.
"Anyone who doesn't paint is just chasing the meta" - most of my unpainted models have been in my possession for almost a decade, and my competitive models are more likely to be painted than bad ones, as I'm more motivated to paint models which actually see play a lot/did well in a game.
"If you aren't painting, you should not be playing 40k" - Except, I'm in the hobby to play, not to paint. It is possible to play the game without painting, so why shouldn't I? Might as well say that anyone who doesn't play the game should stop painting and building models

 UncleJetMints wrote:


Anyone saying that unpainted armies break the immersion for them is full of crap, do the giant cubes falling from the sky on your soldiers not break Immersion? What about the massive tape measure hovering in the sky or the grass growing were ever your space marine's boot steps?

You do realise that immersion is not an all-or-nothing thing? There's a whole spectrum from unpainted, unassembled models playing on the living room floor over a battlefield of books and soda cans through to fully painted models and beautifully modelled terrain boards. You're also claiming that you know people's own opinions better than they do, which is a pretty weird position. I find it equally weird that people are incapable of understanding this distinction.

For me, painting improves the game aesthetically and practically. Painted armies look better than unpainted, and nicely painted and themed terrain looks better than random objects stuck on the board. From a practical perspective it's easier to distinguish between equipment and different units when models are painted, which improves the gaming experience too. I don't expect my opponent to paint their models and won't refuse games against people who don't, though I di at least expect models to be assembled.

 Crimson wrote:

 Mmmpi wrote:

The minimum group standard for Larping and reenactments involves the pagentry.

And why you find this acceptable and not elitist gatekeeping? It is the fething same thing. Sure, you could do a fantasy LARP in your jeans, it still works, just like you can play with unpainted 40K models. It just looks like gak and the breaks immersion. And in both of these putting some effort into the visuals is what is expected. GW always shows painted armies and in historical wargaming people wouldn't dream of playing with unpainted models. I really don't understand why this phenomenon even exists, seem to be mostly just a Warhammer and fantasy wargaming problem.

No it's not.

40k is a boardgame. Playing a game of 40k is no different then playing a game of risk. It's baseline standards is following the rules.

There are other aspects of the hobby that people CAN participate in but are not required to.


Historical reenactment isn't about playing a game. It's about historical reenactment.

 Irkjoe wrote:
You don't have to paint, but nobody has to play you.

That goes both ways. No one has to play someone being a jerk over something subjective.

I wouldn't want to take photos with bare or poorly done models on the table.

...no one expects you to. Do you often photograph games without permission?

You should also be kept out of tournaments by the painting requirement.

Considering most 40K tourmaments have painting requirements, I'm not sure what you're getting at.

See wm events, a nightmare of tokens, cards, and bare metal.

Different game *yawn*

No matter how you spin the "I don't have time or interest" excuse you're stuff still looks horrible.

Your opinion. Some people feel otherwise. I know at least two people who don't do anything more than prime/ink because they think their models look worse with their skill of painting.

It's fine to prioritize rules but I don't know why you play 40k then, play other games like wm, mtg, star wars prepaints, etc.

You only don't understand because you choose not to. Several people have said why they don't in this thread. Not that difficult a concept.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Lance845 wrote:

 Crimson wrote:

 Mmmpi wrote:

The minimum group standard for Larping and reenactments involves the pagentry.

And why you find this acceptable and not elitist gatekeeping? It is the fething same thing. Sure, you could do a fantasy LARP in your jeans, it still works, just like you can play with unpainted 40K models. It just looks like gak and the breaks immersion. And in both of these putting some effort into the visuals is what is expected. GW always shows painted armies and in historical wargaming people wouldn't dream of playing with unpainted models. I really don't understand why this phenomenon even exists, seem to be mostly just a Warhammer and fantasy wargaming problem.

No it's not.

40k is a boardgame. Playing a game of 40k is no different then playing a game of risk. It's baseline standards is following the rules.

There are other aspects of the hobby that people CAN participate in but are not required to.


Historical reenactment isn't about playing a game. It's about historical reenactment.

Amen.

 Lance845 wrote:

 Crimson wrote:

 Mmmpi wrote:

The minimum group standard for Larping and reenactments involves the pagentry.

And why you find this acceptable and not elitist gatekeeping? It is the fething same thing. Sure, you could do a fantasy LARP in your jeans, it still works, just like you can play with unpainted 40K models. It just looks like gak and the breaks immersion. And in both of these putting some effort into the visuals is what is expected. GW always shows painted armies and in historical wargaming people wouldn't dream of playing with unpainted models. I really don't understand why this phenomenon even exists, seem to be mostly just a Warhammer and fantasy wargaming problem.

No it's not.

40k is a boardgame. Playing a game of 40k is no different then playing a game of risk. It's baseline standards is following the rules.

There are other aspects of the hobby that people CAN participate in but are not required to.


Historical reenactment isn't about playing a game. It's about historical reenactment.

There is zero images in any GW publications of people playing with unpainted models. Where is the evidence that GW think that playing with unpainted models is the baseline? They would sell painted models if painting wasn't part of 40k, like X Wing.

 small_gods wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:

 Crimson wrote:

 Mmmpi wrote:

The minimum group standard for Larping and reenactments involves the pagentry.

And why you find this acceptable and not elitist gatekeeping? It is the fething same thing. Sure, you could do a fantasy LARP in your jeans, it still works, just like you can play with unpainted 40K models. It just looks like gak and the breaks immersion. And in both of these putting some effort into the visuals is what is expected. GW always shows painted armies and in historical wargaming people wouldn't dream of playing with unpainted models. I really don't understand why this phenomenon even exists, seem to be mostly just a Warhammer and fantasy wargaming problem.

No it's not.

40k is a boardgame. Playing a game of 40k is no different then playing a game of risk. It's baseline standards is following the rules.

There are other aspects of the hobby that people CAN participate in but are not required to.


Historical reenactment isn't about playing a game. It's about historical reenactment.

There is zero images in any GW publications of people playing with unpainted models. Where is the evidence that GW think that playing with unpainted models is the baseline? They would sell painted models if painting wasn't part of 40k, like X Wing.

I imagine the evidence is in the fact that the rulebook doesn't say that you have to paint.

 UncleJetMints wrote:

 small_gods wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:

 Crimson wrote:

 Mmmpi wrote:

The minimum group standard for Larping and reenactments involves the pagentry.

And why you find this acceptable and not elitist gatekeeping? It is the fething same thing. Sure, you could do a fantasy LARP in your jeans, it still works, just like you can play with unpainted 40K models. It just looks like gak and the breaks immersion. And in both of these putting some effort into the visuals is what is expected. GW always shows painted armies and in historical wargaming people wouldn't dream of playing with unpainted models. I really don't understand why this phenomenon even exists, seem to be mostly just a Warhammer and fantasy wargaming problem.

No it's not.

40k is a boardgame. Playing a game of 40k is no different then playing a game of risk. It's baseline standards is following the rules.

There are other aspects of the hobby that people CAN participate in but are not required to.


Historical reenactment isn't about playing a game. It's about historical reenactment.

There is zero images in any GW publications of people playing with unpainted models. Where is the evidence that GW think that playing with unpainted models is the baseline? They would sell painted models if painting wasn't part of 40k, like X Wing.

I imagine the evidence is in the fact that the rulebook doesn't say that you have to paint.

It also doesn't say that midels have to be assembled and stiod on their bases but that's implied by looking at every picture they release being of assembled models, stood up and painted.

 small_gods wrote:

 UncleJetMints wrote:

 small_gods wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:

 Crimson wrote:

 Mmmpi wrote:

The minimum group standard for Larping and reenactments involves the pagentry.

And why you find this acceptable and not elitist gatekeeping? It is the fething same thing. Sure, you could do a fantasy LARP in your jeans, it still works, just like you can play with unpainted 40K models. It just looks like gak and the breaks immersion. And in both of these putting some effort into the visuals is what is expected. GW always shows painted armies and in historical wargaming people wouldn't dream of playing with unpainted models. I really don't understand why this phenomenon even exists, seem to be mostly just a Warhammer and fantasy wargaming problem.

No it's not.

40k is a boardgame. Playing a game of 40k is no different then playing a game of risk. It's baseline standards is following the rules.

There are other aspects of the hobby that people CAN participate in but are not required to.


Historical reenactment isn't about playing a game. It's about historical reenactment.

There is zero images in any GW publications of people playing with unpainted models. Where is the evidence that GW think that playing with unpainted models is the baseline? They would sell painted models if painting wasn't part of 40k, like X Wing.

I imagine the evidence is in the fact that the rulebook doesn't say that you have to paint.

It also doesn't say that midels have to be assembled and stiod on their bases but that's implied by looking at every picture they release being of assembled models, stood up and painted.

Incorrect, the baseline rules of the game require measurements and los drawn to and from models and bases. Therefore the models and bases play a rules role and are required. Paint isn't.
You can enjoy painting. You can enjoy seeing others do the things you enjoy. To look down on others because they don't makes you a problem. Nobody gets to dictate how anyone else spends their time.

UncleJetMints wrote:0/5 for me. I don't like painting...I have painted a couple of models and it was miserable. I got into Warhammer (AoS and 40K) for the warGAME aspect of it. Luckily the most of the people in my group have two brain cells to rub together and believe in to each their own. Some of them have great paint schemes while I have my box grey army and we have had some amazing games that we still talk about. There is a guy in our group who will play with anyone, but has made it very clear that thinks everyone should be forced to paint and be WYSIWYG so I don't play that guy and we get along great otherwise.

Anyone saying that unpainted armies break the immersion for them is full of crap, do the giant cubes falling from the sky on your soldiers not break Immersion? What about the massive tape measure hovering in the sky or the grass growing were ever your space marine's boot steps?

Someone a few posts back mentioned the basic categories most post fall into. You can firmly put me the, 'If you aren't going to have painted models why bother group.' I just don't get it personally. Doubly so playing GW games. You are spending a lot of money to play a very mediocre game. Sure, you can have fun but you probably could have has that same level of fun with a good board game too. Plus, there are both cheaper and better miniatures war games out there. I suppose they aren't as popular, but it still seems like a lot of money for half the experience. And the lesser half at that to me.

On the first page you can see a photo list of a bunch of my more recent games. Almost all of them were against barely painted (like one unit) to barely built opposing armies. I managed to get what fun I could have out of them, but none came anywhere close to as enjoyable as they could have been. As for hating painting, I can kind of get it. I don't particularly like building models. It is just something that has been done (unlike painting). Have you ever considered finding out if someone if the group will do commissions? Chances are you can get someone to do a very basic 3-4 colors blocking job for much less than a dollar a model. Your army would look pretty good at that point and you could always go back and fill in the detail if your attitude toward painting changed.

Like I said, I can't really understand getting to this hobby and only doing about half of it. Especially when that half, in my opinion, isn't all that impressive.

Jidmah wrote:I hate painting. I love playing 40k, my primary interest in 40k used to be playing a game like Warcraft, C&C or StarCraft as a collectible board game (boy, was I wrong ).
I also love playing with painted models, so recently my models have been picking up paint jobs, and I've gotten faster and better, too.
Still over a hundred unpainted orks left, but less than a dozen Death Guard. If you face my orks, there will be unpainted models among them.

Obviously, I won't judge anyone for not painting - but please do bring proper models.

Also gotta love all the logical fallacies in this thread.
"Anyone who is ok with not painting, thinks pop cans are fine for terrain" - no, I don't think so. Immersion doesn't go from 100% to 0% because there are two thin layers of paint missing.
"Anyone who doesn't paint is just chasing the meta" - most of my unpainted models have been in my possession for almost a decade, and my competitive models are more likely to be painted than bad ones, as I'm more motivated to paint models which actually see play a lot/did well in a game.
"If you aren't painting, you should not be playing 40k" - Except, I'm in the hobby to play, not to paint. It is possible to play the game without painting, so why shouldn't I? Might as well say that anyone who doesn't play the game should stop painting and building models

You are completely correct on the immersion element. It is a finer gradient than Dakka Dakka's usually high contrast almost binary way they like to discuss things. Playing a game with two well painted armies and a nice looking table is the gold standard. Playing with any of those things missing is more like silver. And playing game where only your army is painted on a sparse, heavy-drybrushed terrain/bare mdf table versus an opponent with bare or primed models is more like a bronze standard. It works, but it is a pale reflection of what the game can be.

I think the meta chasing element is heading toward the usually high contrast, almost binary way Dakka Dakka like to discuss things. I wouldn't say a bare or only primed army is usually going to be owned by either a new or meta-chasing player. However, it can be a very good clue that they are. Funny enough, this is becoming less the case as many tournaments are bringing back painting requirements. Which I think is good in part as I believe basic modeling/painting standards isn't that high of a bar. I do think it is unfortunate that this aspect hasn't been adopted (at least in my area) by the PUG community or even the tournament players using PUGs as practice.

To be fair, you don't really need to have models on those bases either to play either. Throw a few Warmachine/hordes style 2d 'terrain' and you could easily play 40k that way too. Good luck getting in a game. In my area I have seen more than a couple games with barely built models too. One of them too a full minute of looking at a model from the corner of my eye to identify it as a Helldrake it was so incomplete. I really didn't want to be judgemental, but I could help to think that looked like garbage and I would be super embarrassed being seen in a store playing that way or playing a opponent that did that. New or not, there are people wandering the store that might walk by the table and see that kind of game. And I can't help to think that reflects badly on that store's gaming community making the game look so unattractive (not helped by the price of the models themselves) even if the players themselves are having a lot of fun. I seriously don't want to feel like I condemning it as badwrongfun, but it is nearly as off putting to me as someone that can't be bothered to shower before showing up. It is just basic consideration for all involved. Painting is much less that, but still in the same vein.

I am not going to say anything about my opponent's army. Well, I do draw the line at heavily unbuilt models. At the same time, I have yet to encounter someone that absolutely won't play an opponent for having painted models just because they are painted. I do like this quote though, "Orks are the greenest and the meanest. Bare plastic armies are the grayest and the okayest"

I, likewise, don't understand on any level why the Transformers movies all make a billion dollars in the theaters since they are total garbage but they do.

Not understanding why someone decides to spend their money and time on something you think is bad does not mean they are not welcome to go do that thing.

So the 40k game sucks and you are only in it for the painting. Cool. You don't get why anyone else would enjoy the game without the painting? So what? What relevance does your understanding have to do with anything?

 Lance845 wrote:
I, likewise, don't understand on any level why the Transformers movies all make a billion dollars in the theaters since they are total garbage but they do.

Not understanding why someone decides to spend their money and time on something you think is bad does not mean they are not welcome to go do that thing.

So the 40k game sucks and you are only in it for the painting. Cool. You don't get why anyone else would enjoy the game without the painting? So what? What relevance does your understanding have to do with anything?

I don't think not painting nor never painting your models is bad. I am not only in it for the painting. I don't think game mechanics of 40k suck only that they are kinda mediocre. Remeber what I wrote about Dakka Dakka turning up the contrast to almost binary in their statements/arguments. I think you are doing that here. The biggest draws is nice looking models/lore and popularity. Unpainted models don't really look all that nice (or at least nowhere close to their potential) and there is a potentially a fraction of players that will decline games, stores that don't allow unpainted miniatures and more and more tournaments that have painting requirements. Which cut into the advantage of popularity.

It just seems self limiting to not bother painting your models. Something I don't even see as any more difficult than actually building the models. Why is your tone so hostile toward my understanding or trying to understand the draw from players that do it? The unpainted armies well outnumber the painted ones in my area. I'm sure if ITC didn't have painting standards the percentage of painted would be even less (yes, playing vs. a painted army in my area usually means playing an ITC tournament list). So congrats, your 'don't tell me what to do with my stuff' side won. I simply lament that fact that tons of money are thrown toward what seem like half completed projects for reasons beyond my comprehension.

I think my position is relevant in that I am very much in the minority locally to even bother with painting. Because of that, I rarely bother making a trip to my FLGS to game because I don't think the potential fun to effort is going to be there because so few have painted models. I never say anything about it to the other players because I don't want them to feel bad about their choice. Lack of painting has allowed some slippage to not completely built models to also seen, and rather ramshackle looking tables with little concern of aesthetics. Which I will admit, I think is a determent to recruitment into the hobby having models/tables looking rather shabby in what should be a visual spectacle that invite would be players in. I don't feel bad or ill toward the players. If that is how they want and do enjoy the hobby great. I again lament in this bronze level that my area has declined into is the commonplace. I also think it is relevant to state my position in a forum concerning the importance of painting to me. Maybe I misread the OP, but that seems like the point of this thread. But thank you for making me feel unwelcome to participate in this thread because you think I do something you think is bad.

 Lance845 wrote:

 small_gods wrote:

 UncleJetMints wrote:

 small_gods wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:

 Crimson wrote:

 Mmmpi wrote:

The minimum group standard for Larping and reenactments involves the pagentry.

And why you find this acceptable and not elitist gatekeeping? It is the fething same thing. Sure, you could do a fantasy LARP in your jeans, it still works, just like you can play with unpainted 40K models. It just looks like gak and the breaks immersion. And in both of these putting some effort into the visuals is what is expected. GW always shows painted armies and in historical wargaming people wouldn't dream of playing with unpainted models. I really don't understand why this phenomenon even exists, seem to be mostly just a Warhammer and fantasy wargaming problem.

No it's not.

40k is a boardgame. Playing a game of 40k is no different then playing a game of risk. It's baseline standards is following the rules.

There are other aspects of the hobby that people CAN participate in but are not required to.


Historical reenactment isn't about playing a game. It's about historical reenactment.

There is zero images in any GW publications of people playing with unpainted models. Where is the evidence that GW think that playing with unpainted models is the baseline? They would sell painted models if painting wasn't part of 40k, like X Wing.

I imagine the evidence is in the fact that the rulebook doesn't say that you have to paint.

It also doesn't say that midels have to be assembled and stiod on their bases but that's implied by looking at every picture they release being of assembled models, stood up and painted.

Incorrect, the baseline rules of the game require measurements and los drawn to and from models and bases. Therefore the models and bases play a rules role and are required. Paint isn't.
You can enjoy painting. You can enjoy seeing others do the things you enjoy. To look down on others because they don't makes you a problem. Nobody gets to dictate how anyone else spends their time.

I'm not dictating anything, you can use coins and tins of beans if you want. I was saying the game is meant to be played with painted models and I don't like to play against people who don't paint theirs.

Also I was being flippant about assembling models I wasn't actually saying that people would want to play with bare sprues, but tgere is nothing in the rules that say assemble infantry in this way, base must go on ground etc. You just look at the assembly instructions which also comtain paint schemes.

 Saturmorn Carvilli wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:
I, likewise, don't understand on any level why the Transformers movies all make a billion dollars in the theaters since they are total garbage but they do.

Not understanding why someone decides to spend their money and time on something you think is bad does not mean they are not welcome to go do that thing.

So the 40k game sucks and you are only in it for the painting. Cool. You don't get why anyone else would enjoy the game without the painting? So what? What relevance does your understanding have to do with anything?

I don't think not painting nor never painting your models is bad. I am not only in it for the painting. I don't think game mechanics of 40k suck only that they are kinda mediocre. Remeber what I wrote about Dakka Dakka turning up the contrast to almost binary in their statements/arguments. I think you are doing that here.

I am making a point that you seem to have missed.

The biggest draws is nice looking models/lore and popularity.

The biggest draw, for YOU. What draws someone else can be completely different.

Unpainted models don't really look all that nice (or at least nowhere close to their potential) and there is a potentially a fraction of players that will decline games, stores that don't allow unpainted miniatures and more and more tournaments that have painting requirements. Which cut into the advantage of popularity.

Irrelevant. And those stores and players are bad for the community as a whole.

It just seems self limiting to not bother painting your models. Something I don't even see as any more difficult than actually building the models.

Again, for you.

I honestly cannot on any level understand why someone would PAY to watch Transformers 5 but thousands do apparently. My opinions don't reflect those of others and neither do yours. The difference is I am not trying to stop people from watching transformers but you ARE encouraging the practice of forcing others to paint. Even if it's just by lamenting what people choose to do and calling it something less than.

Why is your tone so hostile toward my understanding or trying to understand the draw from players that do it? The unpainted armies well outnumber the painted ones in my area. I'm sure if ITC didn't have painting standards the percentage of painted would be even less (yes, playing vs. a painted army in my area usually means playing an ITC tournament list). So congrats, your 'don't tell me what to do with my stuff' side won. I simply lament that fact that tons of money are thrown toward what seem like half completed projects for reasons beyond my comprehension.

Stop thinking about it. Your comprehension is not necessary. People do what people do and trying to force them to do as you want is bad behavior. I like to paint sometimes. I would even go so far as to say I am good at it. But I don't spare a single thought on anyone who doesn't.

I think my position is relevant in that I am very much in the minority locally to even bother with painting. Because of that, I rarely bother making a trip to my FLGS to game because I don't think the potential fun to effort is going to be there because so few have painted models. I never say anything about it to the other players because I don't want them to feel bad about their choice. Lack of painting has allowed some slippage to not completely built models to also seen, and rather ramshackle looking tables with little concern of aesthetics. Which I will admit, I think is a determent to recruitment into the hobby having models/tables looking rather shabby in what should be a visual spectacle that invite would be players in.

The opposite is true. The fact that you don't show up to just have a good time with whatever everyone has playing the game is damaging to the community. If someone sees 2 armies that are entirely grey and they are laughing and enjoying themselves it will encourage new people in. If you see 2 miserable people playing with beautifully painted armies it won't invite anyone and turn others away. The encouraging bit is seeing people enjoying a hobby together in any capacity. People are attracted to fun. And if you don't even show up then what is there for anyone to look at? Having a good time playing the game does more good for community building then any other action and is the perfect gateway for encouraging those that will eventually paint to start painting. Your attitude of no paint means less fun has already degraded recruitment opportunities because you care WAY to much about crap that just doesn't matter.

Imagine going to a renascence fair where the people in costume refused to acknowledge the people not in costume until they starting buying and wearing some kind of costume. Do you think the fair would be bigger or smaller under those circumstances? A bigger community is a better community. And some of the people not in costume their first year will be encouraged to get into costume in subsequent years. But a fair that refuses to let anyone not in costume participate is a fair that has drastically cut off it's recruitment.

I don't feel bad or ill toward the players. If that is how they want and do enjoy the hobby great. I again lament in this bronze level that my area has declined into is the commonplace. I also think it is relevant to state my position in a forum concerning the importance of painting to me. Maybe I misread the OP, but that seems like the point of this thread. But thank you for making me feel unwelcome to participate in this thread because you think I do something you think is bad.

You are 100% welcome to state your opinion and I am 100% welcome to state mine. Our opinions conflict. Sorry that you don't have any arguments to support your opinions and that makes you feel bad.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 small_gods wrote:

I'm not dictating anything, you can use coins and tins of beans if you want. I was saying the game is meant to be played with painted models

That is you dictating your opinions to others. The game is meant to be played following the rules. Paint is irrelevant.

and I don't like to play against people who don't paint theirs.

Also I was being flippant about assembling models I wasn't actually saying that people would want to play with bare sprues, but tgere is nothing in the rules that say assemble infantry in this way, base must go on ground etc. You just look at the assembly instructions which also comtain paint schemes.

Really? Not a single assembly instruction book I have has a single paint reference anywhere in them.

 Lance845 wrote:
That is you dictating your opinions to others. The game is meant to be played following the rules. Paint is irrelevant.

There are things besides rules. The manufacturer of the game presents it being played with pained and assembled WYSIWYG models. This is also a tradition in the wargaming hobby as a whole. That is how it is intended to be played. You can do otherwise if you want, but let's not pretend that the intent is not perfectly clear.

Really? Not a single assembly instruction book I have has a single paint reference anywhere in them.

The boxes have paint instructions at the back.

 Crimson wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:
That is you dictating your opinions to others. The game is meant to be played following the rules. Paint is irrelevant.

There are things besides rules. The manufacturer of the game presents it being played with pained and assembled WYSIWYG models. This is also a tradition in the wargaming hobby as a whole. That is how it is intended to be played. You can do otherwise if you want, but let's not pretend that the intent is not perfectly clear.

Nobody new to the game has any historical point of reference. They buy the book and the book tells them what to do. The rules are ALL there is that matters in actuality. The rest is just bonus.

Really? Not a single assembly instruction book I have has a single paint reference anywhere in them.

The boxes have paint instructions at the back.

Where?

 Lance845 wrote:

Nobody new to the game has any historical point of reference. They buy the book and the book tells them what to do. The rules are ALL there is that matters in actuality. The rest is just bonus.

You cannot just state that rules is all that matters. That is a completely baseless and arbitrary claim. The 40K books describe the process of playing 40K holistically, and that involves assembled and painted models and terrain. And this is exactly what a noob looking at a 40K rulebook would see,

Where?

Don't be intentionally obtuse, you know where.

I would also like to point out that one can easily and clearly follow the instructions on how to build a model. The painting tips on the back of the box, for the regular boxes... They're not nearly so clear. You'd need to either be an already good painter or have a lot of advice from an experienced painter.

Side note-I painted some models yesterday, or at least started painting them. You know why? Because the manager of my GW is an encouraging, awesome fellow. He's never once forced me to paint models, or said "You can't play if they're not painted," or made mean comments about grey or primed plastic. He is, however, an enthusiastic painter, and encourages others to paint too, with advice, tips, and compliments. It's much, MUCH better to encourage others to paint than to punish them for not painting.

 Crimson wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:

Nobody new to the game has any historical point of reference. They buy the book and the book tells them what to do. The rules are ALL there is that matters in actuality. The rest is just bonus.

You cannot just state that rules is all that matters.

I can and I am.

That is a completely baseless and arbitrary claim.

No it's not. ALL I need to play the game is the game pieces and the rules. The paint is not needed.

Where?

Don't be intentionally obtuse, you know where.

No really. In order for your statement to carry any weight then the instructions should be on EVERY box. They are not. Where are they? Ever get a package from forgeworld with paint instructions? I haven't.

 Lance845 wrote:

I can and I am.

And I can say I'm the King of France but it doesn't make it so.

No it's not. ALL I need to play the game is the game pieces and the rules. The paint is not needed.

Presentation is part of the holistic experience of the game. The rulebook present the game to be played with assembled and painted models. That is what is intended.

No really. In order for your statement to carry any weight then the instructions should be on EVERY box. They are not. Where are they? Ever get a package from forgeworld with paint instructions? I haven't.

The instructions are on most boxes. Some boxes don't come with assembly instructions either. Do you think that you're not supposed to assemble the models then? Seriously, stop being intentionally obtuse, it is not cute.

 Crimson wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:

I can and I am.

And I can say I'm the King of France but it doesn't make it so.

No it's not. ALL I need to play the game is the game pieces and the rules. The paint is not needed.

Presentation is part of the holistic experience of the game. The rulebook present the game to be played with assembled and painted models. That is what is intended.

No really. In order for your statement to carry any weight then the instructions should be on EVERY box. They are not. Where are they? Ever get a package from forgeworld with paint instructions? I haven't.

The instructions are on most boxes. Some boxes don't come with assembly instructions either. Do you think that you're not supposed to assemble the models then? Seriously, stop being intentionally obtuse, it is not cute.

 JNAProductions wrote:
D&D 3.5 is meant to be played with a Healbot Cleric, a Blaster Wizard, a Sneaky Rogue, and a Big Fighter. Am I wrong to play it with an Archivist, a Gish Cleric, and a Psion?
Baseball is meant to be played on a regulation baseball diamond, of very specific sizes. Am I wrong to play with my friends in my backyard?
Poker is meant to be played without any wild cards. Am I wrong to play "Eights are wild" with my friends when we're killing time?
Megaman X is meant to be played with weapons, armors, and parts. Am I wrong to challenge myself by playing with buster only?

Do you see my point?

See my earlier post. What the designers intend can be important, but playing in a different way isn't wrong.

 Crimson wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:

I can and I am.

And I can say I'm the King of France but it doesn't make it so.

No it's not. ALL I need to play the game is the game pieces and the rules. The paint is not needed.

Presentation is part of the holistic experience of the game. The rulebook present the game to be played with assembled and painted models. That is what is intended.

No really. In order for your statement to carry any weight then the instructions should be on EVERY box. They are not. Where are they? Ever get a package from forgeworld with paint instructions? I haven't.

The instructions are on most boxes. Some boxes don't come with assembly instructions either. Do you think that you're not supposed to assemble the models then? Seriously, stop being intentionally obtuse, it is not cute.

You are making statements based on your own assumptions about the product and based on your personal past experiences. You have no statements that say the models are required to be painted because there are none. You are as obtuse as anyone else in this thread. Saying what is intended is like claiming you are the King of France. It doesn't make it so.

 JNAProductions wrote:

Side note-I painted some models yesterday, or at least started painting them. You know why? Because the manager of my GW is an encouraging, awesome fellow. He's never once forced me to paint models, or said "You can't play if they're not painted," or made mean comments about grey or primed plastic. He is, however, an enthusiastic painter, and encourages others to paint too, with advice, tips, and compliments. It's much, MUCH better to encourage others to paint than to punish them for not painting.

I am not disagreeing with you on that, and this is actually how it mostly goes outside these internet discussions. I mean obviously you sometimes need to call people heretics for doing the toy soldiers wrong, but that too is in good humour!

 Saturmorn Carvilli wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:
I, likewise, don't understand on any level why the Transformers movies all make a billion dollars in the theaters since they are total garbage but they do.

Not understanding why someone decides to spend their money and time on something you think is bad does not mean they are not welcome to go do that thing.

So the 40k game sucks and you are only in it for the painting. Cool. You don't get why anyone else would enjoy the game without the painting? So what? What relevance does your understanding have to do with anything?

I don't think not painting nor never painting your models is bad. I am not only in it for the painting. I don't think game mechanics of 40k suck only that they are kinda mediocre. Remeber what I wrote about Dakka Dakka turning up the contrast to almost binary in their statements/arguments. I think you are doing that here. The biggest draws is nice looking models/lore and popularity. Unpainted models don't really look all that nice (or at least nowhere close to their potential) and there is a potentially a fraction of players that will decline games, stores that don't allow unpainted miniatures and more and more tournaments that have painting requirements. Which cut into the advantage of popularity.

It just seems self limiting to not bother painting your models. Something I don't even see as any more difficult than actually building the models. Why is your tone so hostile toward my understanding or trying to understand the draw from players that do it? The unpainted armies well outnumber the painted ones in my area. I'm sure if ITC didn't have painting standards the percentage of painted would be even less (yes, playing vs. a painted army in my area usually means playing an ITC tournament list). So congrats, your 'don't tell me what to do with my stuff' side won. I simply lament that fact that tons of money are thrown toward what seem like half completed projects for reasons beyond my comprehension.

I think my position is relevant in that I am very much in the minority locally to even bother with painting. Because of that, I rarely bother making a trip to my FLGS to game because I don't think the potential fun to effort is going to be there because so few have painted models. I never say anything about it to the other players because I don't want them to feel bad about their choice. Lack of painting has allowed some slippage to not completely built models to also seen, and rather ramshackle looking tables with little concern of aesthetics. Which I will admit, I think is a determent to recruitment into the hobby having models/tables looking rather shabby in what should be a visual spectacle that invite would be players in. I don't feel bad or ill toward the players. If that is how they want and do enjoy the hobby great. I again lament in this bronze level that my area has declined into is the commonplace. I also think it is relevant to state my position in a forum concerning the importance of painting to me. Maybe I misread the OP, but that seems like the point of this thread. But thank you for making me feel unwelcome to participate in this thread because you think I do something you think is bad.

I just want to say that I did understand your post and thank you for responden

On the topic of why not using 2d models, empty bases or "IOU a model" slips? I have been playing MtG for far longer than WH40k, I even have siblings that are younger than my oldest magic cards, and coming from that hobby I'm a firm believer that WH40k is a hobby where you buy your game pieces to play with them, just like you buy cards to buy the card game. If you don't even have the gaming pieces to play, what are you doing here? In my opinion not having models or using models that aren't counts-as, but entirely different models (for example, an AoS army) is just as unacceptable as bringing photocopies or paper slips with names on them to represent cards you don't have.

In regard to painting vs building - it's not about complexity. Many people who hate painting just buy painted second-hand models. I love building and converting stuff, almost all of my collection is models I built myself. I still hate painting, no matter how much less complex painting a helbrute is compared to fully magnetizing it. Painting also eats a lot more time than building, which is also not to be underestimated for people with family, second jobs or long drives to work.

So don't get me wrong, painted models are without any doubt leagues more awesome than unpainted models. I just wish I could buy pre-painted sprues.

 Lance845 wrote:

You are making statements based on your own assumptions about the product and based on your personal past experiences.

This assumption is what can be obviously divined by looking at any GW rulebook, codex or a magazine.

You have no statements that say the models are required to be painted because there are none. You are as obtuse as anyone else in this thread. Saying what is intended is like claiming you are the King of France. It doesn't make it so.

This is because you don't understand expectations and conventions, perhaps even manners. Like in real like there are many things that are legal, but still not generally accepted. A normal person can understand these sort of things. And just like in life there are norms other than laws, in a game there are norms other than rules.

 Lance845 wrote:


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 small_gods wrote:

I'm not dictating anything, you can use coins and tins of beans if you want. I was saying the game is meant to be played with painted models

That is you dictating your opinions to others. The game is meant to be played following the rules. Paint is irrelevant.

and I don't like to play against people who don't paint theirs.

Also I was being flippant about assembling models I wasn't actually saying that people would want to play with bare sprues, but tgere is nothing in the rules that say assemble infantry in this way, base must go on ground etc. You just look at the assembly instructions which also comtain paint schemes.

Really? Not a single assembly instruction book I have has a single paint reference anywhere in them.

Here I thought I was on a discussion forum. I didn't realise I was stood next to people telling them not to play the game they're about to start.

Also you know that there's paint scheme guidance on the back of 90% of GW packaging and in their codex. Looking for ways to 'technically' be correct doesn't make it look like you have a strong argument.

 small_gods wrote:
Also you know that there's paint scheme guidance on the back of 90% of GW packaging and in their codex. Looking for ways to 'technically' be correct doesn't make it look like you have a strong argument.

Not that I've seen. I've seen more in the Warmachine Forces books. All I've seen is the paints they used to make those images, not how to use those paints.

Admittedly, I haven't seen any of the recent codices or Battletomes, but previously they've only given either the paints or how they could look.

So, I just checked 37 boxes flying around my home from various ork, chaos, terrain, tyranid and death guard models, and 34 of them say that the model requires assembly.
While almost as many have a list of paints on them, zero say the models require painting. There is also an amusing amount of cases where the paints listed neither match the image on the box nor the ones used in the GW how to paint videos.

I consider my painted minis to be my artistic expression.

Painted models don't change how the game plays, but they certainly show off my dedication, hard work, and my unique creative view. So while I don't begrudge anyone else playing with unpainted models, I personally see the hobby side of things as where I get my primary enjoyment for the last 25 years.

It's always cool to show off things I take pride and satisfaction in, and no one's going to compliment me on a good mold line removal and gluing job. It's going to be about the paintjobs and conversions. And compliments are always nice to give and receive.

 Jidmah wrote:
So, I just checked 37 boxes flying around my home from various ork, chaos, terrain, tyranid and death guard models, and 34 of them say that the model requires assembly.
While almost as many have a list of paints on them, zero say the models require painting. There is also an amusing amount of cases where the paints listed neither match the image on the box nor the ones used in the GW how to paint videos.

And depending upon when you bought the box/codex/etc the colors listed might not even be for sale anymore.

ccs wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:
So, I just checked 37 boxes flying around my home from various ork, chaos, terrain, tyranid and death guard models, and 34 of them say that the model requires assembly.
While almost as many have a list of paints on them, zero say the models require painting. There is also an amusing amount of cases where the paints listed neither match the image on the box nor the ones used in the GW how to paint videos.

And depending upon when you bought the box/codex/etc the colors listed might not even be for sale anymore.

It's not even depending on when you bought it. It depends on when your local store ordered it. There is a white box with a metal pyrovore in my flgs.

 Lance845 wrote:

ccs wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:
So, I just checked 37 boxes flying around my home from various ork, chaos, terrain, tyranid and death guard models, and 34 of them say that the model requires assembly.
While almost as many have a list of paints on them, zero say the models require painting. There is also an amusing amount of cases where the paints listed neither match the image on the box nor the ones used in the GW how to paint videos.

And depending upon when you bought the box/codex/etc the colors listed might not even be for sale anymore.

It's not even depending on when you bought it. It depends on when your local store ordered it. There is a white box with a metal pyrovore in my flgs.

I'm not counting special order items like your pyrovore. Special order items like that from GW have been coming in plain white boxes with ID tags for decades. I'm talking current off the local shelf stuff & how GW is prone to re-vamping the paint line. Colors get altered, re-named, etc. Remember about a year ago when all new paint racks arrived?

No, I know what he means. My LGS back home had maybe a quarter of their GW stock in mostly plain white boxes. That's off the shelves, not specialty orders.

 Lance845 wrote:
I, likewise, don't understand on any level why the Transformers movies all make a billion dollars in the theaters since they are total garbage but they do.

Spectacle.

Just as 40K has a lot to do with spectacle. Unpainted models detract from the spectacle.

 AegisGrimm wrote:

...
It's always cool to show off things I take pride and satisfaction in, and no one's going to compliment me on a good mold line removal and gluing job. It's going to be about the paintjobs and conversions. And compliments are always nice to give and receive.

You never know! I am one of those old jaded beardy types who has seen so many middle-of-the-road minis in their lifetime, that I might actually compliment a player for achieving a smooth thin coat of paint with good coverage using a difficult colour (red/yellows etc), or impeccable mold line removal on minis." Just ok" type of model assemblies with mold lines sticking out, jankily posed, painted-by-numbers colourschemes straight from the GW sales catalog do nothing for me, and to my eyes sloppily painted minis with thick coat of paint and fugly colourscheme look even worse than totally unpainted minis.

To my eye, even unicolor minis and board, if perfectly modeled (think ancient greek sculptures as an example) trump a halfassed assembly and uninspiring paintjob any day. Its not so clear cut that one can just say "I prefer seeing painted models".

Sorry, didnt mean this reply specifically to you. Just wanted to comment on the specifcs of painting and modelling with regards to tabletop aesthetics from my point of view.
And like I already stated earlier, this is just the academic-theoretical side of my brain. In practice I prefer playing and having fun over trying to pretend playing 40K is like being in art school LOL

tauist wrote:


To my eye, even unicolor minis and board, if perfectly modeled (think ancient greek sculptures as an example) trump a halfassed assembly and uninspiring paintjob any day. Its not so clear cut that one can just say "I prefer seeing painted models".

Ancient Greek sculptures were originally painted though.

ccs wrote:
I'm not counting special order items like your pyrovore. Special order items like that from GW have been coming in plain white boxes with ID tags for decades. I'm talking current off the local shelf stuff & how GW is prone to re-vamping the paint line. Colors get altered, re-named, etc. Remember about a year ago when all new paint racks arrived?

That isn't what I'm talking about though - there are charts to get the successor paint of both previous generations of paints.
I'm talking about cases where you are supposed to buy red paint, but the model doesn't even have red paint on it. Or for Mortarion, where I bought the paint listed on the box just to find out that I needed completely different paints for the wings and gas clouds.

 Insectum7 wrote:
Unpainted models detract from the spectacle.

For you. Not everyone agrees with you.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Grimtuff wrote:

tauist wrote:


To my eye, even unicolor minis and board, if perfectly modeled (think ancient greek sculptures as an example) trump a halfassed assembly and uninspiring paintjob any day. Its not so clear cut that one can just say "I prefer seeing painted models".

Ancient Greek sculptures were originally painted though.

Some were. Not all of them.

 Mmmpi wrote:

For you. Not everyone agrees with you.

Let's not be disingenuous here. Practically everyone thinks the game looks better with painted models, regardless of whether they actually play with such.

 Crimson wrote:

 Mmmpi wrote:

For you. Not everyone agrees with you.

Let's not be disingenuous here. Practically everyone thinks the game looks better with painted models, regardless of whether they actually play with such.

There's a vast difference between liking painted models and considering it to be a spectacle. Furthermore, I think you're wrong when you say practically everyone. Care to offer proof of your claim?

 Mmmpi wrote:
Care to offer proof of your claim?

No, just like I don't care to offer proof to the claim that most people think that movies are more enjoyable with sounds on. This is getting ridiculous.

 Mmmpi wrote:

 Crimson wrote:

 Mmmpi wrote:

For you. Not everyone agrees with you.

Let's not be disingenuous here. Practically everyone thinks the game looks better with painted models, regardless of whether they actually play with such.

Care to offer proof of your claim?

Internet contrarian at work.

Boy I sure do like disagreeing with people too. What about you?

 Mmmpi wrote:

 Crimson wrote:

 Mmmpi wrote:

For you. Not everyone agrees with you.

Let's not be disingenuous here. Practically everyone thinks the game looks better with painted models, regardless of whether they actually play with such.

Care to offer proof of your claim?

It's pretty easy to make the case that it's the intended way to play, considering GW hasn't to my knowledge published a single pic of a game using unpainted models in the history of 40k.

 Crimson wrote:

 Mmmpi wrote:
Care to offer proof of your claim?

No, just like I don't care to offer proof to the claim that most people think that movies are more enjoyable with sounds on. This is getting ridiculous.

You should stop making ridiculous arguments then.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Grimtuff wrote:

 Mmmpi wrote:

 Crimson wrote:

 Mmmpi wrote:

For you. Not everyone agrees with you.

Let's not be disingenuous here. Practically everyone thinks the game looks better with painted models, regardless of whether they actually play with such.

Care to offer proof of your claim?

Internet contrarian at work.

Boy I sure do like disagreeing with people too. What about you?

Hey, I guess when you make absolute claims that not everyone agrees with, we should just suck it up and agree? Right? Oh...wait.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Mmmpi wrote:

 Crimson wrote:

 Mmmpi wrote:

For you. Not everyone agrees with you.

Let's not be disingenuous here. Practically everyone thinks the game looks better with painted models, regardless of whether they actually play with such.

Care to offer proof of your claim?

It's pretty easy to make the case that it's the intended way to play, considering GW hasn't to my knowledge published a single pic of a game using unpainted models in the history of 40k.

...not what I was talking about, though several other people have already given you excellent answers that disagree with your point.

 Mmmpi wrote:

You should stop making ridiculous arguments then.

I haven't. But you're in a reality denial mode and it is pointless to argue with such a person.

To be fair to Crimson, I don't think anyone can reasonably say the game that the game doesn't look better with WELL-painted models. (Poorly painted models, though...) Sorry Mmmpi, you're wrong here.

But the idea that the look is the whole thing... That's true for a small number of people. For most people, at least in my experience, there's a hell of a lot more to the game than just looking cool.

 Crimson wrote:

 Mmmpi wrote:

You should stop making ridiculous arguments then.

I haven't. But you're in a reality denial mode and it is pointless to argue with such a person.

Sure buddy.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 JNAProductions wrote:
To be fair to Crimson, I don't think anyone can reasonably say the game that the game doesn't look better with WELL-painted models. (Poorly painted models, though...) Sorry Mmmpi, you're wrong here.

But the idea that the look is the whole thing... That's true for a small number of people. For most people, at least in my experience, there's a hell of a lot more to the game than just looking cool.

I would refer you to the post I made that started this conversation.

I vote pretty important; when I started the hobby way back with WHFB Bret vs lizard boxset, I made all kinds of painting mishaps even though I was studying art, like primed too close for too long, but I got good at paint over the years. I had played competitively, now I mostly just paint and collect.

I think most people would love to play with top notch painted minis and terrain, but they lack the whatever to make it happen or don’t want to spend $ to make it happen.

The kitbashing, painting is our effort to make our imagination a reality, the process is important and should be documented if possible, after all nothing lasts forever in our hobby.

 JNAProductions wrote:
To be fair to Crimson, I don't think anyone can reasonably say the game that the game doesn't look better with WELL-painted models. (Poorly painted models, though...) Sorry Mmmpi, you're wrong here.

But the idea that the look is the whole thing... That's true for a small number of people. For most people, at least in my experience, there's a hell of a lot more to the game than just looking cool.

But is is the primary reason for a lot of people. 40k is, on its own merits NOT a good game by any stretch but these deficiencies are nullified somewhat by good mates and/or fully painted armies and terrain. It's the spectacle.

People who say they are playing this game for the rules are just kidding themselves.

 Grimtuff wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
To be fair to Crimson, I don't think anyone can reasonably say the game that the game doesn't look better with WELL-painted models. (Poorly painted models, though...) Sorry Mmmpi, you're wrong here.

But the idea that the look is the whole thing... That's true for a small number of people. For most people, at least in my experience, there's a hell of a lot more to the game than just looking cool.

But is is the primary reason for a lot of people. 40k is, on its own merits NOT a good game by any stretch but these deficiencies are nullified somewhat by good mates and/or fully painted armies and terrain. It's the spectacle.

People who say they are playing this game for the rules are just kidding themselves.

It is the primary reason for some people. It is also not the primary reason for other people. Your reason for playing the game is not necessarily everyone's reason. How is this difficult to understand?

For me, I prefer seeing fully-painted armies, but it really doesn't make that much difference to how much I enjoy the game - maybe I enjoy it a few percentage points more, all else being equal, but the quality of company is significantly more important. In my experience, a sizable portion of the player base has roughly the same perspective - they don't deny that playing with well-painted models is "better", but also don't feel the minor amount it improves the experience justifies having it as a requirement.

I have been part of groups that required fully painted models, groups that had no requirements but encouraged working towards painting the army at your own pace, and groups that couldn't care less. For me - and I recognise others have different experiences - the paint-where-you-can groups tended to be the most fun to game with, followed closely by the didn't-give-a-feth groups, and the must-be-painted groups were by far the least fun.

One of my favorite parts in all this are the folk claiming the game is bad, but the models being painted makes it more tolerable.

...if this is indeed the case, why not invest the painting, money, and time elsewhere where the game is better? wouldn't that make for a better experience overall?

Bdrone wrote:
One of my favorite parts in all this are the folk claiming the game is bad, but the models being painted makes it more tolerable.

...if this is indeed the case, why not invest the painting, money, and time elsewhere where the game is better? wouldn't that make for a better experience overall?

What makes you think I don't?

40k has the biggest playerbase and is easiest to get a game of. If I have to vet my opponents to actually have an enjoyable game and not just be an exercise in rolling dice and/or an ego stroke for some wannabe pro 40k player then sue me. Been burnt too many times to waste my time and energy just setting up my lovingly painted and converted models for them to be took off the board by some Johnny-come-lately FOTM netlist of grey plastic.

I don't have any expectation of you. If one of the only things holding this game up is paints, then the amount invested in it is staggering for potentially small gains. for certain, the game does have major issues. it's just an odd defense of painting in it to me, when other shores would see the painting as more valuable, like games with the better rulesets.

at this point im not thinking of arguing against painting anymore, if thats what you thought- I already recognize im an outlier there in that if i could get a game, i wouldn't care much about the paintjob if there even is any. it's just weird to me to be defending painting with such a line.

I am not a great painter by any means, though I have improved quite a bit over the last several years from watching videos and reading painting tips. I had 2 games(and saw a few other games played)of 40k this weekend and the painted vs painted matches drew much more attention than painted vs unpainted and significantly more than bare plastic vs bare plastic. I had a lot more non-40k players ask about our game and what was going on and if they could watch than the other tables.

Thankfully none of the stores have a painting requirement but it definitely draws a lot more attention to a table with 2 painted armies and 40k as a whole. I can see where a store would want to incentivize getting players to paint models, both local stores do painting nights where you can come in and socialize while you paint and learn painting tips and tricks from other people.

I can't really believe anyone can honestly argue against painted models and terrain making any game cooler and more enjoyable, other than just to provoke arguing, even in a small way.

It's like saying that unpainted terrain and/or models is like having a large model train setup that has unpainted trains and buildings, bare carved styrofoam and plaster hills, and a bunch of trees where the flock never got glued on. Everything still will work mechanically fine, but an onlooker would say "When are you going to finish it?", and the owner responds with "Why would I finish it? Nothing says you need to do any of that, it's fine the way it is."

And that's definitely the owners perogative, but they shouldn't get in a huff if the onlooker's response to that is, "Okayyyyyy...". and a wierd look.

 AegisGrimm wrote:
I can't really believe anyone can honestly argue against painted models and terrain making any game cooler and more enjoyable, other than just to provoke arguing, even in a small way.

It's like saying that unpainted terrain and/or models is like having a large model train setup that has unpainted trains and buildings, bare carved styrofoam and plaster hills, and a bunch of trees where the flock never got glued on. Everything still will work mechanically fine, but an onlooker would say "When are you going to finish it?", and the owner responds with "Why would I finish it? Nothing says you need to do any of that, it's fine the way it is."

And that's definitely the owners perogative, but they shouldn't get in a huff if the onlooker's response to that is, "Okayyyyyy...". and a wierd look.

But equally, I don't see why anyone would say "You're having fun wrong," if they're fine playing with unpainted minis and improvised or function-only terrain.

 Grimtuff wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
To be fair to Crimson, I don't think anyone can reasonably say the game that the game doesn't look better with WELL-painted models. (Poorly painted models, though...) Sorry Mmmpi, you're wrong here.

But the idea that the look is the whole thing... That's true for a small number of people. For most people, at least in my experience, there's a hell of a lot more to the game than just looking cool.

But is is the primary reason for a lot of people. 40k is, on its own merits NOT a good game by any stretch but these deficiencies are nullified somewhat by good mates and/or fully painted armies and terrain. It's the spectacle.

People who say they are playing this game for the rules are just kidding themselves.

You keep saying this like you want everyone to believe it. It doesn't match my experience, nor the experience of many people who have been conversing with you, which is why I asked for Crimson to prove it true.

You're literally asking us to ignore what we've seen and heard.

As for rules? Yeah they're mediocre. But I know several people who play for the sake of the game, and only play 40K because it's the one game they know they can find an opponent for on any given night.

 Big Mac wrote:
I vote pretty important; when I started the hobby way back with WHFB Bret vs lizard boxset, I made all kinds of painting mishaps even though I was studying art, like primed too close for too long, but I got good at paint over the years. I had played competitively, now I mostly just paint and collect.

I think most people would love to play with top notch painted minis and terrain, but they lack the whatever to make it happen or don’t want to spend $ to make it happen.

The kitbashing, painting is our effort to make our imagination a reality, the process is important and should be documented if possible, after all nothing lasts forever in our hobby.

This guy gets it.

 Grimtuff wrote:
But is is the primary reason for a lot of people. 40k is, on its own merits NOT a good game by any stretch but these deficiencies are nullified somewhat by good mates and/or fully painted armies and terrain. It's the spectacle.

People who say they are playing this game for the rules are just kidding themselves.

I play the game because it's an enjoyable game to play. I stopped playing when it stopped being fun, and will do so again. It really doesn't matter whether the game is grey or in color.

I'd even take this one more step - I'd rather play a nice guy with unprimed models than a guy with golden demon worthy miniatures that is sort of a .

Paint adds a small percentage of "feels good" to a game that's generally working or not. If you think that painting models makes or breaks the game, you are the one kidding yourself.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Grimtuff wrote:
Been burnt too many times to waste my time and energy just setting up my lovingly painted and converted models for them to be took off the board by some Johnny-come-lately FOTM netlist of grey plastic.

So being blown off the board by commission painted FOTM netlists is fine?

People round these parts likely cannot afford or know about commission painting. Gotta save monies for those cans of Monster, Dominos and vapey juice. Even paint falls by the wayside for that.

That's not an answer to the question

 Jidmah wrote:
That's not an answer to the question

Sadly it is. Or at least the best we're going to see.

 Grimtuff wrote:
People round these parts likely cannot afford or know about commission painting. Gotta save monies for those cans of Monster, Dominos and vapey juice. Even paint falls by the wayside for that.

if you can afford to buy a new 40k army every few months you can afford to comission a painted army

I know the sort of players Grimtuff means. Some of them can afford commission painting, but choose to spend money elsewhere. Others will buy that third riptide instead of eating for the week. Plastic crack is a real addiction

phillv85 wrote:
I know the sort of players Grimtuff means. Some of them can afford commission painting, but choose to spend money elsewhere. Others will buy that third riptide instead of eating for the week. Plastic crack is a real addiction

Except the problem is the person, not the lack of paint.
Owning painted models is no indicator of whether a person is enjoyable to play against, despite what some people on this thread claim.

 Jidmah wrote:

phillv85 wrote:
I know the sort of players Grimtuff means. Some of them can afford commission painting, but choose to spend money elsewhere. Others will buy that third riptide instead of eating for the week. Plastic crack is a real addiction

Except the problem is the person, not the lack of paint.
Owning painted models is no indicator of whether a person is enjoyable to play against, despite what some people on this thread claim.

Except IME it is.

I have said twice ITT- the Venn diagram of "Is a chore to play against" and "has unpainted models" is an almost perfect circle. They intersect that much. If I see someone with a fully unpainted army I'll let some other schmuck play them first to actually see if they fall outside the circle. I'm not wasting my time traipsing into town to have an unenjoyable game.

 Grimtuff wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:

phillv85 wrote:
I know the sort of players Grimtuff means. Some of them can afford commission painting, but choose to spend money elsewhere. Others will buy that third riptide instead of eating for the week. Plastic crack is a real addiction

Except the problem is the person, not the lack of paint.
Owning painted models is no indicator of whether a person is enjoyable to play against, despite what some people on this thread claim.

Except IME it is.

I have said twice ITT- the Venn diagram of "Is a chore to play against" and "has unpainted models" is an almost perfect circle. They intersect that much. If I see someone with a fully unpainted army I'll let some other schmuck play them first to actually see if they fall outside the circle. I'm not wasting my time traipsing into town to have an unenjoyable game.

Which is completely anecdotal.

 Mmmpi wrote:

 Grimtuff wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:

phillv85 wrote:
I know the sort of players Grimtuff means. Some of them can afford commission painting, but choose to spend money elsewhere. Others will buy that third riptide instead of eating for the week. Plastic crack is a real addiction

Except the problem is the person, not the lack of paint.
Owning painted models is no indicator of whether a person is enjoyable to play against, despite what some people on this thread claim.

Except IME it is.

I have said twice ITT- the Venn diagram of "Is a chore to play against" and "has unpainted models" is an almost perfect circle. They intersect that much. If I see someone with a fully unpainted army I'll let some other schmuck play them first to actually see if they fall outside the circle. I'm not wasting my time traipsing into town to have an unenjoyable game.

Which is completely anecdotal.

And? Your anecdotal evidence is better than my anecdotal evidence then, I take it? We're done here. You're just being contrarian for the sake of it.

 Grimtuff wrote:

 Mmmpi wrote:

 Grimtuff wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:

phillv85 wrote:
I know the sort of players Grimtuff means. Some of them can afford commission painting, but choose to spend money elsewhere. Others will buy that third riptide instead of eating for the week. Plastic crack is a real addiction

Except the problem is the person, not the lack of paint.
Owning painted models is no indicator of whether a person is enjoyable to play against, despite what some people on this thread claim.

Except IME it is.

I have said twice ITT- the Venn diagram of "Is a chore to play against" and "has unpainted models" is an almost perfect circle. They intersect that much. If I see someone with a fully unpainted army I'll let some other schmuck play them first to actually see if they fall outside the circle. I'm not wasting my time traipsing into town to have an unenjoyable game.

Which is completely anecdotal.

And? Your anecdotal evidence is better than my anecdotal evidence then, I take it? We're done here. You're just being contrarian for the sake of it.

I'm not claiming anecdotal evidence as proof. You are.

This is what? The 2nd time this thread where you said you were going to stop talking to me? Because I thoroughly disagree with you? I mean, really, that contrarian charge just as easily points back at you Cupcake.

Yesterday I had Warmachine tournament with some silly kid. He had some cowardly remarks saying something about my unpainted Warmachine models. Then he proceeded to whine about losing a match against me under the rules on which we both agreed on.

 Jidmah wrote:

phillv85 wrote:
I know the sort of players Grimtuff means. Some of them can afford commission painting, but choose to spend money elsewhere. Others will buy that third riptide instead of eating for the week. Plastic crack is a real addiction

Except the problem is the person, not the lack of paint.
Owning painted models is no indicator of whether a person is enjoyable to play against, despite what some people on this thread claim.

Like doubtless many others here I have thousands of painted models and more unpainted. How enjoyable I am to play against varies and is no related to whether I have my best commissoned models, my own crap painted efforts or some unpainted. I do think Painted models are cool - at least you can enjoy them if the game is bad but is only part of the experience.

Its like terrain - I have commission pieces, pre-painted or my half assed attempts and loads of plain mdf pieces- but I would rather play on a battlefield with loads of unpainted terrain than little to none.

 Jidmah wrote:

phillv85 wrote:
I know the sort of players Grimtuff means. Some of them can afford commission painting, but choose to spend money elsewhere. Others will buy that third riptide instead of eating for the week. Plastic crack is a real addiction

Except the problem is the person, not the lack of paint.
Owning painted models is no indicator of whether a person is enjoyable to play against, despite what some people on this thread claim.

I’d just like to point out I was making a response to Brian’s post about commission painting, not saying anyone is more or less fun to play against for whatever reason.

Just saying this as it’a my post being quoted at the start for this next round of bickering.

 Jidmah wrote:

 Grimtuff wrote:
Been burnt too many times to waste my time and energy just setting up my lovingly painted and converted models for them to be took off the board by some Johnny-come-lately FOTM netlist of grey plastic.

So being blown off the board by commission painted FOTM netlists is fine?

Being blown off the board by a commission painted netlist is certainly better. A: It looks nicer, and B: The owner has committed to his/her army more.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

TheAvengingKnee wrote:
I am not a great painter by any means, though I have improved quite a bit over the last several years from watching videos and reading painting tips. I had 2 games(and saw a few other games played)of 40k this weekend and the painted vs painted matches drew much more attention than painted vs unpainted and significantly more than bare plastic vs bare plastic. I had a lot more non-40k players ask about our game and what was going on and if they could watch than the other tables.

Thankfully none of the stores have a painting requirement but it definitely draws a lot more attention to a table with 2 painted armies and 40k as a whole. I can see where a store would want to incentivize getting players to paint models, both local stores do painting nights where you can come in and socialize while you paint and learn painting tips and tricks from other people.

Very much this. The game presents better when everything is painted, and thus advertises better for stores carrying the product.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Mmmpi wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Mmmpi wrote:

 Crimson wrote:

 Mmmpi wrote:

For you. Not everyone agrees with you.

Let's not be disingenuous here. Practically everyone thinks the game looks better with painted models, regardless of whether they actually play with such.

Care to offer proof of your claim?

It's pretty easy to make the case that it's the intended way to play, considering GW hasn't to my knowledge published a single pic of a game using unpainted models in the history of 40k.

...not what I was talking about, though several other people have already given you excellent answers that disagree with your point.

Disagree with the idea that finished models are the intended way to play? I doubt that, given the amount of attention put to painted miniatures and hobby products.

 Insectum7 wrote:
Being blown off the board by a commission painted netlist is certainly better. A: It looks nicer, and B: The owner has committed to his/her army more.

How has he committed more? Because he spent more money on it?

 Jidmah wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
Being blown off the board by a commission painted netlist is certainly better. A: It looks nicer, and B: The owner has committed to his/her army more.

How has he committed more? Because he spent more money on it?

That's one measure, sure.

A painted army to me signals that someone is either committed to a list, or committed to the hobby. Grey plastic often signals to me flavor of the month or someone who will show up with a completely different list build next week. Not always, but often.

If that's a metric, someone spamming unpainted smasha guns is more committed to the hobby than someone with a lovingly painted set of dark Imperium primaris.

I've seen way more WAAC players with painted armies than with unpainted ones, so I might as well claim that painting your army makes you more likely to be a cheater, liar or bad sportsman.

Or maybe we could drop all those prejudices and stop demonizing players with unpainted models with BS arguments.
"I like painted models" does not need a justification.Especially not if that justification is a baseless insult to others.

 Jidmah wrote:
If that's a metric, someone spamming unpainted smasha guns is more committed to the hobby than someone with a lovingly painted set of dark Imperium primaris.

I've seen way more WAAC players with painted armies than with unpainted ones, so I might as well claim that painting your army makes you more likely to be a cheater, liar or bad sportsman.

Or maybe we could drop all those prejudices and stop demonizing players with unpainted models with BS arguments.
"I like painted models" does not need a justification.Especially not if that justification is a baseless insult to others.

That is an exceedingly illogical post, requiring the narrowest of interpretations to find a counterpoint, and not really reading my post. I think you ought to try that again.

 Jidmah wrote:
If that's a metric, someone spamming unpainted smasha guns is more committed to the hobby than someone with a lovingly painted set of dark Imperium primaris.

I've seen way more WAAC players with painted armies than with unpainted ones, so I might as well claim that painting your army makes you more likely to be a cheater, liar or bad sportsman.

Or maybe we could drop all those prejudices and stop demonizing players with unpainted models with BS arguments.
"I like painted models" does not need a justification.Especially not if that justification is a baseless insult to others.

Spot-on, Jid.

Have fun how you have fun, and let others do the same without insulting them. I barely care about paint, and as a result, have mostly unpainted minis. If you care about that, don't play me-I won't be hurt. But don't crap on me because I have fun differently.

For what it's worth to the discussion on GW's intent when it comes to playing their games with painted or unpainted miniatures, a principle of the AoS Player's Code is that your opponent's permission should be requested if you wish to use unpainted minis. Therefore painted miniatures are not strictly necessary if the players agree they can be used (and I think most people would be fine with that) but painted minis are clearly encouraged as the "default".

A really intriguing nugget in this discussion is the notion of 40k as a shared experience between players. A few people here have expressed that they prefer their opponent to have painted miniatures, whether for atmosphere or enhancing the "cinematic" element of playing 40k, or even just because they find it easier to tell what is what on the tabletop. I'm curious as to how the folks who don't enjoy painting feel about the idea painting their stuff to potentially improve the experience of those other players? A lot of people have expressed their preference to not paint their miniatures, but I'd be interested to see to what extent (if any) those folks are willing to concede their personal preference for the shared experience. I ask this question because, and I hope I haven't overlooked any posts, I haven't seen anyone saying that they prefer their opponent to play with unpainted minis.

Just for the record, I really don't enjoy assembling most miniatures, so I fully appreciate the pain some people might have engaging with an aspect of the hobby they don't enjoy much. Unfortunately for me the bit I don't like is necessary to use the miniatures so I don't have the option of skipping it!

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:
If that's a metric, someone spamming unpainted smasha guns is more committed to the hobby than someone with a lovingly painted set of dark Imperium primaris.

I've seen way more WAAC players with painted armies than with unpainted ones, so I might as well claim that painting your army makes you more likely to be a cheater, liar or bad sportsman.

Or maybe we could drop all those prejudices and stop demonizing players with unpainted models with BS arguments.
"I like painted models" does not need a justification.Especially not if that justification is a baseless insult to others.

That is an exceedingly illogical post, requiring the narrowest of interpretations to find a counterpoint, and not really reading my post. I think you ought to try that again.

Not in the slightest. I normally enjoy reading your posts because you present yourself as an intelligent and understanding person. Conversing with you in this has been a disappointment.

You're letting your prejudices and personal preferences dictate to others something that is very subjective. While you may have had issues with WAAC players with unpainted armies, that's not automatically the norm.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 nurgle5 wrote:
For what it's worth to the discussion on GW's intent when it comes to playing their games with painted or unpainted miniatures, a principle of the AoS Player's Code is that your opponent's permission should be requested if you wish to use unpainted minis. Therefore painted miniatures are not strictly necessary if the players agree they can be used (and I think most people would be fine with that) but painted minis are clearly encouraged as the "default".

A really intriguing nugget in this discussion is the notion of 40k as a shared experience between players. A few people here have expressed that they prefer their opponent to have painted miniatures, whether for atmosphere or enhancing the "cinematic" element of playing 40k, or even just because they find it easier to tell what is what on the tabletop. I'm curious as to how the folks who don't enjoy painting feel about the idea painting their stuff to potentially improve the experience of those other players? A lot of people have expressed their preference to not paint their miniatures, but I'd be interested to see to what extent (if any) those folks are willing to concede their personal preference for the shared experience. I ask this question because, and I hope I haven't overlooked any posts, I haven't seen anyone saying that they prefer their opponent to play with unpainted minis.

Just for the record, I really don't enjoy assembling most miniatures, so I fully appreciate the pain some people might have engaging with an aspect of the hobby they don't enjoy much. Unfortunately for me the bit I don't like is necessary to use the miniatures so I don't have the option of skipping it!

While I do like painting, and personally prefer painted armies over unpainted for my own use, I find that if someone is trying to force me to do something in an activity I do purely for fun, my response is typically to stubbornly refuse. If on the other hand they offer encouragement, and promote the benefits of their way in a way that's not patronizing, then I'm likely to at least give it a try.

I personally play with partially painted armies. I make progress when I can, and even my completed armies are frequently works in progress. If someone called me lazy for not having a completely painted army, I'd laugh in their face.
If someone said I was 'less dedicated', I'd tell them that yes, I was less dedicated, and that how I spend my hobby time is none of their business.
If they refused to play me solely on the grounds of paint, I wouldn't force the issue, but I'd also encourage others, including new players to avoid them.
If any one tried to force their standards on me directly, my usual reply would be to say "Make me".

The same goes if I see this happening to other people in my area. Granted, in my experience, people who insist on pushing their standards typically aren't people I want to play games against for several other reasons (or the same reason, but in other context).

So to answer your question; if your desire is to play against fully painted armies, and you're encouraging, rather than a jerk, then I'll be inclined to put in the extra effort. If you try to force the issue, you wouldn't be worth my time.

 nurgle5 wrote:
I'm curious as to how the folks who don't enjoy painting feel about the idea painting their stuff to potentially improve the experience of those other players?

Id probably still paint the miniatures, at least eventually. I don't like assembling much either, but as you say, that part you HAVE to do.

personally, a lot of visual stuff doesn't do anything for me, and im not even sure why. I like this setting because of the stories, and id play it as well. paints don't mean as much to me because they register far less to my eyes than say, a conversion or a kitbash. sure, really high painting quality can be neat, but its not nearly as effective on me as it is on others. that's why it's not a high priority at all to me. hard to want to sit and paint when you can barely glean anything except the time counted for the effort to do it. doesn't mean it wouldn't eventually get done.

I can get wanting the paint on the models, especially for promotion. what i don't get is measuring assumed effort in painted models just because they are as some have stated here. I can just ebay lot something painted I consider well done at that point. there's also such a thing as a bad paintjob.
I also don't get the concept of Paint being a make or break for a game with a ruleset people outright point out the flaws in constantly. again, something others said here. All that had me thinking is "okay, since im being called lazy at the least for not wanting to paint models, struggling to find a project to do, and having issues with this companies costs, why bother?" but then when i asked about why one puts good paint after bad rules with rising costs, i got crickets.

I guess i just play this game wrong, and honestly, i probably do.

 Mmmpi wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:
If that's a metric, someone spamming unpainted smasha guns is more committed to the hobby than someone with a lovingly painted set of dark Imperium primaris.

I've seen way more WAAC players with painted armies than with unpainted ones, so I might as well claim that painting your army makes you more likely to be a cheater, liar or bad sportsman.

Or maybe we could drop all those prejudices and stop demonizing players with unpainted models with BS arguments.
"I like painted models" does not need a justification.Especially not if that justification is a baseless insult to others.

That is an exceedingly illogical post, requiring the narrowest of interpretations to find a counterpoint, and not really reading my post. I think you ought to try that again.

Not in the slightest. I normally enjoy reading your posts because you present yourself as an intelligent and understanding person. Conversing with you in this has been a disappointment.

You're letting your prejudices and personal preferences dictate to others something that is very subjective. While you may have had issues with WAAC players with unpainted armies, that's not automatically the norm.

I'm not dictating anything to others. I'm saying that a painted army presents itself better. I could probably claim that as objective and measureable, too. I could also say that it's how the product is presented by the company, and that the company encourages it.

I'm not saying you have to paint your army to have fun.

 Insectum7 wrote:


I'm not saying you have to paint your army to have fun.

My apologies, many of your posts in this thread gave me that impression.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Bdrone wrote:


I guess i just play this game wrong, and honestly, i probably do.

If you're having fun, who cares?

For me personally, painting is the most important thing. I have an art/design background, so I'm very visually inclined to begin with, and on top of that, I don't have the time to actually play that I used to. In fact, I only made it out to my GW store three times in 2018. Twice to pick up supplies for Armies on Parade, and once to bring in my entry for Armies on Parade. I didn't get to the LGS at all. So yeah, if I'm going to enjoy my hobby, it's going to be (primarily) through reading and painting. The closest I will ever get to fielding "unpainted" stuff is that sometimes I will play a unit or two that are completely painted but haven't had their bases done yet.

That said, I've never been the guy to tell others they're having fun wrong. So while I prefer to play against a painted army, I will also happily play against an unpainted one. In terms of painted armies, I don't really care how well you can paint. I'm a decent painter (won best painted at my local Armies on Parade this year), so I'm happy to help someone, or give pointers if asked, but again - if you're trying to paint, but aren't very good - I'll still happily line my toy soldiers up against yours. My only requirement is to have your models actually assembled. I have had, on occasion, someone try to play me but with the caveat that "Those ten bases that only have legs glued to them are Tactical Marines", and, "the armless/headless lot are assault marines" etc etc. That I will not do, but otherwise, yeah, the only "standard" I hold others to is to have fun and enjoyable games. If you don't like painting, I'll still play you.