Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

(Hopefully this is the correct forum)

After being away from WH for a while I'm starting to get back into it. Years ago GW had a policy that one's army had to have at least two colors and be based (or have over half of the army painted). They changed that--I assume to sell bulk figures of whatever the current trend was and actually have people be able to use them. I get it from a financial standpoint. In any case, I went to a local hobby store the other week to pick up some glue and a 24 person 40k tourny waw going on. Over half of the armies were mech IG with the rest mostly DE or Marines. What really struck me is that the majority of armies were almost completely unpainted (or maybe like 1 tank would be painted). I get that people sometimes just want to play, but I feel it sort of ruins the immersion and people should make at least some effort on that component of the hobby.

Right forum, nice job, newbie!

Also,

I'm a dedicated painting/modeller of 40k and love the game but would have to give an admant NO to your question. It's hard enough to get a game in, let alone require that your opponent has every model painted. However, encouraging players to play painted armies for tournaments is the current standard (at least in my area), granting extra points if you go the extra mile.

That said, I try my best not to bring gray-plastic or only-primed models to the table - they've got basecoats at the very least. In fact, my Crimson Fists have yet to see the table, awaiting their final details and mattecoats before deployment.

I like to see fully painted armies across the table from me. I spend a lot of time and a lot of money making my army have a unique appearance, and I would prefer it if my opponent did the same. Do I expect it? No.

But when die-hard tournament winners complain about expecting the most competitive armies when they go to tournaments, I feel like I have a completely legitimate reason to behave similarly. I usually get destroyed in most tournament games, but the army that destroys me looks like crap and I know mine looks better. For me, that's a win, it's a hobby, afterall.

Short answer: No, armies should not be required to be painted.

I know this subject has came up before however if supercow is new (as he may well be) isn't it better to join in as well as point out this subject is a fairly common one?

Calling him Newbie also sounds fairly patronising IMHO.

Just for the record, I would say it completely depends on you and also your opponent/s.

If your happy to play a game against a half painted or non painted army then go for it.

If not then you will be limiting your possible gaming circle.

I do feel, and I'm sure most people would agree, that it's a better visual spectacle when 2 fully painted armies face off against each other. However out of my gaming group of friends, under half of them can put together a fully painted army over 1500pts. This would mean that I would miss out on the experience of playing against a lot of armies and army builds if I was only played fully painted armies.

Tournaments yes. Friendly or pick up games no.

- MightyG

SuperCow wrote:(Hopefully this is the correct forum)

After being away from WH for a while I'm starting to get back into it. Years ago GW had a policy that one's army had to have at least two colors and be based (or have over half of the army painted). They changed that--I assume to sell bulk figures of whatever the current trend was and actually have people be able to use them. I get it from a financial standpoint. In any case, I went to a local hobby store the other week to pick up some glue and a 24 person 40k tourny waw going on. Over half of the armies were mech IG with the rest mostly DE or Marines. What really struck me is that the majority of armies were almost completely unpainted (or maybe like 1 tank would be painted). I get that people sometimes just want to play, but I feel it sort of ruins the immersion and people should make at least some effort on that component of the hobby.

Big tournaments have 90% of the armies painted well.

as far as your local FLGS.....

Like most people have said, GTs or big tournaments should have a painting requirement. It is their goal to provide an environment that fosters and promotes the hobby as a whole, not just the game play portion. Smaller local tournaments shouldn't really have painting requirements, but they should at least provide a point bonus or something similar to motivate. The gaming store I go to most of the time gives prizes for 1st, 2nd and favorite opponent. They choose to promote fair play and a good attitude rather than painting. They also have seperate painting competitions every other month or so to cover that side of the hobby. It's possible your local gaming club does the same.

When it comes down to it though, if a local gaming store properly markets all aspects of the hobby then usually everything falls into place (ie: people having painted armies at tournaments). If a gaming club fails to recognize certain aspects of the hobby then it could go the other way (ie: non painted armies and people with bad gaming etiquette.)

personally I don't think it matters, I enjoy painting and do it when I can, if someone else hates it they shouldn't be forced to do it.

Maybe we can set up separate events for those who want to play games and snobs who look down their nose at those who don't include painting as part of "the hobby."

For tournaments, yes. Grey plastic all looks the same and it's very hard to tell what I'm looking at. Since WYSIWYG is necessary in competitive environments, and painting helps with the "what you see" part, I'd say it's obligatory for tournaments.

FLGS? No way.

I personally won't put it on the table if it isn't painted.

No, painting takes up alot of time and in the current market, that time is needed elsewhere making money to support this hobby But I do admit to loving to paint my stuff before I actually field it

Should, however, you deeply and passionately feel that an army must be painted and are loathe to fight against an unpainted army, just convince everyone that painted models do better on the battlefield and with a painted army one is more likely to win. Sound odd? Then answer me how many times you refer to the dice gods during a single game, hmmmm???

augustus5 wrote:Maybe we can set up separate events for those who want to play games and snobs who look down their nose at those who don't include painting as part of "the hobby."

Most people believe those latter events should be called, 'tournaments'.

Azure wrote:Should, however, you deeply and passionately feel that an army must be painted and are loathe to fight against an unpainted army, just convince everyone that painted models do better on the battlefield and with a painted army one is more likely to win. Sound odd? Then answer me how many times you refer to the dice gods during a single game, hmmmm???

Having your freshly painted model get blown away on turn 1 is very disheartening, it's like losing a child.

Oaka wrote:
Having your freshly painted model get blown away on turn 1 is very disheartening, it's like losing a child.

I know the pain... I've had this happen to my Monolith, 3 times T..T And my friends wonder why I can never finish the stupid thing

Both yes,

In a word, its often quite annoying to have to play fully grey armies. Sure the player might not want to put in the effort to paint, but to do so shows a lack of respect if the opposing player has a lick of paint on his models.

Painting your models also effectively marks them out as what they are. I've had a guy claim that unpainted SW's were GK's in an apoc game. Called him out on the WYSIWYG.

Sure the player might not want to put in the effort to paint, but to do so shows a lack of respect if the opposing player has a lick of paint on his models.

You could make a very similar argument about people who go to tournaments just for "fun", bringing their fun lists with them (and consequently bitching about how "cheese" everything is when they get stomped on). Sure, those players might not want to put in the effort to learn how their army works and what's the most efficient use of points, but people who don't aim to play their best and field competent lists are being disrespectful and wasting the other players money and time by giving him an easy massacre instead of a challenging game.

So I'd say I'm all for painting requirements, if you can somehow also enforce a "competence requirement" to go with it. Fair?

RTT/casual play no, GT level yes.

I think painting being required forces people to paint.......and part of me wants to see it. Some hate it and it could mean that numbers go down at events. I will say though, if a tourney doesnt require painting, why require assembling? I dont enjoy painting is not an excuse IMO. I may not like assembling, so can I just put out my bases and plastic sprues. Maybe just a pile of parts, the wysiwyg elements, and glue them in a heap. Im not saying this to be a total a$$ but if you dont see the point of painting, you shouldnt be surprised if someone doesnt see the point of assembling. Its an extreme, but the funny look you give someone for trying to pull that is how some folks look at your bare plastic. Now that being said, I dont mind an army that looks like its being WORKED on, as in it seems to be progressing.


With the current state of colored primer and washes, I dont see a reason why 3 color standard is a problem. Now playtesting, playing for fun, army in progress, thats fine; having the same grey/white minis for month after month with no progress, its hard to find excuses. Just my opinion, and keep in mind Im fairly spoiled as most players in my area (a good 50-80 players) have at least 1 army to 3 color standard.

Sidstyler wrote:

Sure the player might not want to put in the effort to paint, but to do so shows a lack of respect if the opposing player has a lick of paint on his models.

You could make a very similar argument about people who go to tournaments just for "fun", bringing their fun lists with them (and consequently bitching about how "cheese" everything is when they get stomped on). Sure, those players might not want to put in the effort to learn how their army works and what's the most efficient use of points, but people who don't aim to play their best and field competent lists are being disrespectful and wasting the other players money and time by giving him an easy massacre instead of a challenging game.

So I'd say I'm all for painting requirements, if you can somehow also enforce a "competence requirement" to go with it. Fair?

A tournament is a tournament, it's about competition, not *fun lists* and if someone did bring a fun list to a tournament, it's their call. Basic painting, which in my LGS is 3 colours and base is easy to achieve. Skill in painting is not equative to skill in gaming.

augustus5 wrote:Maybe we can set up separate events for those who want to play games and snobs who look down their nose at those who don't include painting as part of "the hobby."

We already have those, Its called tournments for the former, and Golden Demons for the latter....


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Norbu the Destroyer wrote:
With the current state of colored primer and washes, I dont see a reason why 3 color standard is a problem.

Work, kids, job, house hold matience. Called in last minute for work....there are a host of reasons why I'd rather PLAY the damn game with unpainted models then take that time and paint them, if free time is limited.

I will say though, if a tourney doesnt require painting, why require assembling? I dont enjoy painting is not an excuse IMO. I may not like assembling, so can I just put out my bases and plastic sprues.

Thats a stupid example. Just pulling out bases and laying sprues out would violated WYSIWYG and you'd have problems measuring. You may not like grey plastic assembled, but you can tell what is what, and have no measuing issues.

@carmachu

Yes those are some good excuses as to why you couldnt find the extra 4-5 minutes to put a layer of colored primer down, maybe another 20-30 minutes to wash the minis, and the final 1-2 hours to paint the guns gunmetal, not pretty, but painted.

And yes the sprues is an extreme....a "stupid example" as you put it, but thats why I said why not just pile up the bits to make a model WYSIWYG on the base.


I understand painting is a pain in the ass, but for a few years I have preached to people just get 3 colors so people can at least see what the model is (Death company primed black in a sea of red type of thing) . Most people say, " I dont want to hurry my paint scheme because my models will look like crap and I have this paint scheme I want to paint them so I wont rush it" only they never get to it. They just have the same grey/white minis game after game, month after month. "Paint that army at least a base color" Ill say and more delusional " no way I have this awesome paint scheme in my mind, so I cant rush it" is all you here. I understand the time constraints of the real world, but the OP asked about tournies and I gave my opinion as to why I lean to painting should be a requirement for tournies. If people want to play plastic vs plastic 1v1 go for it.

Painting is part of the hobby, just as competition and generalship is. You don't have to be very good at either, but you aren't participating in the hobby if you aren't at least giving both an effort.

If you want to eschew one or the other at the local and casual level (to include local, casual tournaments or gaming events), cool. Don't call it a full blow "Grand" Tournament if you aren't requiring fully painted, though.

Tourneys = 3 colors and based

Everything else = Whatever the two players agree to

Tourneys without painting are an exception, never the rule and have a time and place... but right now are not the norm or the majority nor should they be. 'Ard boyz seems to be 'good enuff' to provide people who do not enjoy painting a tourney experience. I don't see much call or expectation that more events go unpainted, but I would defer to Tourney organizers to see what their feedback is.

I never field a proxy or unpainted models out of respect for my opponents. I won't expect concessions or force burdens on others.

Norbu the Destroyer wrote:@carmachu

Yes those are some good excuses as to why you couldnt find the extra 4-5 minutes to put a layer of colored primer down, maybe another 20-30 minutes to wash the minis, and the final 1-2 hours to paint the guns gunmetal, not pretty, but painted.

And yes the sprues is an extreme....a "stupid example" as you put it, but thats why I said why not just pile up the bits to make a model WYSIWYG on the base.

Because a pile isnt a model that can be seen. YOu dont need paint to be WYSIWYG. Your pile isnt.

And its not just 4-5 minutes, 20-30...takes a touch longer depending.

But all told thats what, 2.5 to 3 hours....thats an actual game you could get in. When time is short, I know what I'm choosing.

I understand painting is a pain in the ass, but for a few years I have preached to people just get 3 colors so people can at least see what the model is (Death company primed black in a sea of red type of thing) . Most people say, " I dont want to hurry my paint scheme because my models will look like crap and I have this paint scheme I want to paint them so I wont rush it" only they never get to it. They just have the same grey/white minis game after game, month after month. "Paint that army at least a base color" Ill say and more delusional " no way I have this awesome paint scheme in my mind, so I cant rush it" is all you here. I understand the time constraints of the real world, but the OP asked about tournies and I gave my opinion as to why I lean to painting should be a requirement for tournies. If people want to play plastic vs plastic 1v1 go for it.

You can see the model just fine eitehr bare, or primed. If I'm going to spend my limted time of 2.5-3 horus you had above, I'd rather get a game in then paint. And folks are right, why should they satisfy YOUR 3 color mantra when they want it better, done at thier time.

Tournments are bot different and the same. Every tournment is different. Some have painting requirements. Others such as hard boyz, do not. Much like sportsmenship, its up to the TO to decide what they want in a tournment.

Just some food for thought...

Having a Miniature paibted helps alot with bringing out special weapons etc - true plastic plastic armies look like a big grey blob, painted armies are far easier to judge by looking at, it's far easier to keep track of special characters and weapons, yadda yadda.

WYSIWYG and at least 3 Colours is what is required at every tourney here in germany I've been to. Applying 3 Colours, and god behold putting a wash on or even dipping minis is NOT time consuming, it takes 5min / model or even less.

There's only excsuses for unpainted models,



Also, look at it this way:

For some people, to enjoy the hobby they need only play, but feel no need for painting (for whatever reason)
For some people, to enjoy the hobby means to have two painted armies face off.

See the problem? The first group not painting can be considered disrespectful by the second, the second group not wanting to game disrespectful by the first.


I'm not a nazi when it comes to that, sone unpainted models, bo basing - I don't care, you did put effort into it and both can enjoy the game.



TLDR: paint your fething minis, it's for the benefit and enjoyment of all!


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Addendum: Claiming that painting time = list game time is a logical fallacy, painting can be spread over weeks.

Example:
Day 1: apply primer to 30 guardsmen, time: 20min
Day 2: apply some green tone to clothes, time: 40min
Day 3: apply elf-flesh to fleshparts, time: 30min
Day 4: apply devlan mud, time: 15min
Day 5: slight drybrush, bleached bone: 15min
Day 6: chainmail on weapons: 15min
Day 7: devlan mud on weapons: 15min
DONE, congratulations, you painted 30 veterans, this took 2hrs30min. This goes to the guy above me:
"lol i could play instead of painting" is a logical fallacy, NOT wanting to paint your minis and searching for excuses is just lazy.

Everyone can spare the time to paint 30 guardsmen in a week.

Hell, and if it took you 3 weeks, then you soend 6 weeks on infantry, another 3 on tanks, 9 weeks and you get a full army, that's an average of 7 minutes every day...

And: you could naturally STILL play while everything is WIP


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Oh, Finak:



TLDR: You don't loose a single game while painting an army. Painttime UNEQUAL Gametime.

@archont:

You have committed a logical fallacy. It usually takes me around 4 hours per model to paint. Not everything, but when I want everything to look good but am a slow painter, then this time frame you list is totally unreasonable. 30 guardsmen? probably at least 30 hours. I don't have that time in a month. That's in addition to about 3 hours for assembly.

I have more time than some, and I am probably toward the slow end of the painting spectrum. My main point is that it's not just excuses. Bring your nose down out of the air and deal with it. If you don't want to play someone, then don't. I know I won't be the one with a problem if you refuse to play me just because not everything is painted.

That said, I have no intention of going to a tourney if I don't have a fully painted army. So it will be a while.

Useless thread is useless.

"Should" is subjective. People have different opinions on the matter. None of them matter except those of yourself, your opponent and the venue your game is taking place in. This thread can result in nothing but the conclusion that people will see this issue differently. Lets skip the whole thread part of it, and just except that each person will have a different level of painting, or not painting, that they personally feel is acceptable.

Don't like what you are seeing in your flgs? Talk to your opponents about it or the proprietary/TO. Only they can address local concerns.

MVBrandt wrote:Painting is part of the hobby, just as competition and generalship is. You don't have to be very good at either, but you aren't participating in the hobby if you aren't at least giving both an effort.

If you want to eschew one or the other at the local and casual level (to include local, casual tournaments or gaming events), cool. Don't call it a full blow "Grand" Tournament if you aren't requiring fully painted, though.

Painting might be part of your hobby, but it's not part of everyone's hobby. Believe it or not, some people just really like playing the game and don't care for the painting aspect. Yet, there are always those who try and tell us that we somehow don't honor "the hobby" because we don't paint our armies. Or we're lazy because we don't put the same effort in that they do.

Also, unless you can paint to a professional standard, painting your miniatures lowers the resale value of them. I like start new army projects a few times each year. I don't always want to hold onto my old armies, or sometimes I need to sell some models to help fund a new army. Why should I feel it necessary to paint models I may be parting with in six months to a year? The only stuff I bother paining any more is stuff I know I want to stick with because I really am into the fluff, or love the sculpt of the model itself.

How is it disrespectful to sit down and play a game with somebody with an unpainted army (heaven forbid!)? That's a load of crap, and these threads pop up every few weeks with people acting like snobs toward others who don't share their view that painting must be a part of the "hobby". Get over yourself already. Go form a club that only allows people with painted armies in and be happy. We'll be happy that you aren't around looking down your nose at us while we're playing games, whether at tourneys or pickup, with others who paint if they want to or don't paint if they don't want to.

I dont think that armies should have to be painted to compete in a tournament BUT painting should be scored since its part of the hobby. In freindly play i dont mind so much if my foes army is unpainted but its just like playing on a game board with just books for hills and some kitchen sponges and tupperwear for terrain. It just looks like Gak.

Tournament players who rush out and buy a new army every time a new win button codex comes out will hate painting be scored because they dont care about the hobby, they only care about winning and since these same players usually whine about sportsmanship or army composition scores, they will be the ones to grumble the most at tournis over painting. I for one feel like grumbling when i see their all grey plastic space wolves with mold lines and excess glue dripping everywhere. It makes the game less fun to face one of these armies. A great example of this was a recent battle rep in which two top WAAC gamers both fielded armies that I would be embarrassed to field. One players ork army was so pathetic I would never have fielded it. Conversions were done with bits of sprue glued on haphazardly. Haveing armies like these in events lowers the standards of the event. Events with painting standards represent the hobby to a much higher degree.

Score painting and make the points worth enough that someone who fields a WAAC list that is unpainted will have a slim chance of winning top prize. Just my two cents.

Again, who decided painting is part of "the hobby"? Nicely painted figures look fantastic, and enhance the visual aspect of the game, but how is it determined that painting must be part of the hobby?

I'm all for tournament organizers creating tournaments and making painting a requirement or making it not a requirement. I don't understand how anyone can say that all[u] tourneys should include paint/no paint as a requisite.