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.

So my entire Dark Eldar army is painted black, they have night shields, and their army name is "black night riders."

Since I don't have multiple shades of non-black paint on them....does that mean my army isn't playable for you who require painted armies?

A few things I find funny here. Geeks (and yes we are all geeks for playing with plastic toy soldiers) are putting other people down as if they were jock in high school. lol.

Also it is agreed that if you don't like non painted fine, you don't have to play them, but you don't have to be a falcon prick about it. Alot of you in the I don't like non painted armies camp almost sound respectable but at the last sentence just makes you sound like an A-hole.

I also find it funny that the I don't like non painted armies camp keep referring to Tournies. Well don't Tournies or some Tournies have scoring based on Sportsman ship? Refusing to play non painted armies is not good sportsman ship.

Again, you don't have to be a prick. Just be polite about it, and so far, I havn't read any polite I don't like non painted armies. Why do you have to be an arse about it?

Just say "No thankyou, I don't want to play with a non painted army right now"

Comments like, I have time you should have time, or if anyone can buy mini's can buy paint. That just gives you the I am holier than you and better than you attitude. That might make you better in your own eyes, but you are still a Geek. I just find it funny a Geek has to make himslef better than another Geek.

That's right.


I don't understand what the big deal is.

You say you don't like to paint, and just want to play, so why should you have to do something you don't like. And that's fine with me.

I say I don't like to play against unpainted armies. Why should I have to do something I don't like? And then you call me elitist for not wanting to play with you. And then you start coming up with excuses about money and time, and everything else under the sun about why you shouldn't have to paint.

I didn't call you a name... I didn't tell you that you had to do something you didn't want to do. Why do you not extend me the same courtesy, and simply accept that playing against unpainted armies is something I don't enjoy doing, in the same way that painting those armies is something you don't enjoy doing? You don't have to start throwing labels around because of it.

I'm more than happy to play against other people with my mindset, and partake in tournaments and events that require painting with the other hobbyists, and let you play games against the other pure gamers.

At the end of the day, we just won't play each other without one (or both) of us bending a little. That's fine too. I'll be happy to meet you half-way. You show up with an army that's half painted, and I'll play you.

Davor, no offense bud, but you seriously need to get your emotions in check. You are taking this far too personally.

Davor wrote:
Also it is agreed that if you don't like non painted fine, you don't have to play them, but you don't have to be a falcon prick about it. Alot of you in the I don't like non painted armies camp almost sound respectable but at the last sentence just makes you sound like an A-hole.
...
Comments like, I have time you should have time, or if anyone can buy mini's can buy paint. That just gives you the I am holier than you and better than you attitude. That might make you better in your own eyes, but you are still a Geek. I just find it funny a Geek has to make himslef better than another Geek.

I think that "I don't have time" or "I can't afford it" are excuses. If you want me to be upfront with you, then you have to be upfront with me too. Tell me you don't like painting, I'll say fine. Tell me you can't afford it... and I'll point out how much the figures cost. Tell me you don't have time? That's BS, everyone can find the time to do something they want to do. It isn't that you don't have time, it's that you don't want to do it. Be a man, tell me the truth, and I'll treat you like a man. If you make excuses like a child, expect to be treated like a child.

I also find it funny that the I don't like non painted armies camp keep referring to Tournies. Well don't Tournies or some Tournies have scoring based on Sportsman ship? Refusing to play non painted armies is not good sportsman ship.

The tournaments that are being referred to have rules about fielding painted armies too. Sometimes, those of us who enjoy playing with painted armies host events for like-minded hobbyists. We don't mind if other people want to join in, but we do want the event to cater to the hobbyists. It is the pure gamers who are complaining about this painting requirement that cause the problem. No one is stopping them from hosting their own events that don't require painting. We do object to their demands that we change our events to accommodate them though.

Davor, I don't know if you realise this, but everyone wants to be better than someone at something. That's not a "geek" v. "non-geek" thing. Even among "Jocks," there is stratification of importance and superiority. It's human nature. And yes, some people ARE better than other people, even in general, but I certainly haven't said "people who don't paint their models are inferior people." I just think it's not as professional as people who DO make sure they paint as much of their armies as possible, and set some sort of standard for themselves. There's nothing wrong with that! Everyone does it.

Heck, even yourself, you are trying to compare the quality of people to "sportsmanship." Not painting your army for reasons other than casual play or not having a reasonable amount of time to paint it, meaning just plain refusing to paint your army, or not caring if your army is painted or not, lacks sportsmanship. By that I mean, you don't care enough about the hobby to paint your miniatures. Which to some people is a bit of an insult, and they're allowed to have their opinions!

Sportsmanship is more than just playing anyone who comes along and how nicely you get along with others, part of it if how you treat yourself and the hobby. For me, that includes painting the models.

@ Dashofpepper : Consider, I have an army from a planet of gray shale, gray flora, and gray buildings. So my army wears plastic gray uniforms, paints their tanks plastic gray, and soldiers paint their exposed skin plastic gray. Yeah, that fits their fluff, but you still have an army out of the box assembled but unpainted. So yes, painting your entire army a single shade of black and palming off an explanation like "they're night fighters!" is kind of lame from a painting perspective.

Redbeard wrote:You say you don't like to paint, and just want to play, so why should you have to do something you don't like. And that's fine with me.

I say I don't like to play against unpainted armies. Why should I have to do something I don't like? And then you call me elitist for not wanting to play with you. And then you start coming up with excuses about money and time, and everything else under the sun about why you shouldn't have to paint.

I didn't call you a name... I didn't tell you that you had to do something you didn't want to do. Why do you not extend me the same courtesy, and simply accept that playing against unpainted armies is something I don't enjoy doing, in the same way that painting those armies is something you don't enjoy doing? You don't have to start throwing labels around because of it.

I'm more than happy to play against other people with my mindset, and partake in tournaments and events that require painting with the other hobbyists, and let you play games against the other pure gamers.

At the end of the day, we just won't play each other without one (or both) of us bending a little. That's fine too. I'll be happy to meet you half-way. You show up with an army that's half painted, and I'll play you.

/agree

It's perfectly okay to politely decline games for whatever reason. Both sides tend to throw around labels too much.

It's also perfectly acceptable to run whatever event you want with whatever requirements you want. Just don't complain if you go to a painting-required tournament and they tell you that you can't use your primered models. You also shouldn't be suprised if you end up against a primered or unpainted army at a no-requirement tournament.

As for "the demands to change events", that also cuts both ways (look at the 'Ard Boyz thread for example).

The thing that irks me is when people say things such as "If you don't like to paint you need to find a different hobby." or "Just get over it... it's not that hard." or "If you cared about the hobby and your opponent you would show them the respect of painting for them." or "I'm a better sportsman because I have a painted army." (Sorry... couldn't resist. Seriously, though, dinging someone on sportmanship for painting is kinda double-jeopardy. They already have to take dings on the painting score too.)

Just for clarification; I'm not saying I would NOT play someone with an unpainted army. In fact, I do! Nor am I saying I would not be friends with someone who has an unpainted army, because I DO have friends with unpainted armies. But if my opponent or my friends were to say "I am just as much a proffessional player as you(me) are," I would have to greatly disagree with them.

There's a difference between a "player" and a "hobbyist." A similarity would be a "driver" and a "hot-rodder." A player/driver plays/drives whatever they like the feel of driving, but have no real loyalty to what it is exactly they are playing/driving, as long as they get the same feeling. So it could be Warhammer 40k or some other game using similar rules, just as a driver would drive a 1932 coupe or a car coming off the production line with the same driving characteristics.

A hobbyist or hot-rodder has some sort of investment in what they are spending their time on; they have objectives. Someone who builds WWII tanks is going to be after making the most realistic period vehicle they can, and making interesting, but realistic, variants from that period (say, a 1941 production Sherman with 1945 treads, explaining that at some point, as did occur, they were replaced). A hot rodder will do as they do. One into 1930s cars will try to go with 1930s bodies and mechanic techniques, guys who are about other things will go after those things.

Different objectives for different people. A hot-rodder will still appreciate the 1930s coupe a "driver" drives, and a hobbyist will still appreciate the way a "player" plays. But if you want the hot-rodder to appreciate the 2010 stock Mustang or a hobbyist to appreciate primer gray and poorly converted models, you're going to be disappointed.

Skinnattittar wrote:A hot-rodder will still appreciate the 1930s coupe a "driver" drives, and a hobbyist will still appreciate the way a "player" plays. But if you want the hot-rodder to appreciate the 2010 stock Mustang or a hobbyist to appreciate primer gray and poorly converted models, you're going to be disappointed.

And "players" appreciate the work the "hobbyists" (using your terms even if I don't believe your connotations) put into their armies. But don't expect for them to agree that you're more "professional" than them. In their realm, professional is measured primarily on tabletop conduct and generalship. Painting simply doesn't factor into the equation in that context.

Oh wait a second guys. Did I say I don't like to paint? I do paint my mini's. They are bad, I love to paint. If I made you think I play with unpainted mini's then I am sorry, I didn't mean it that way. I guess I just used myself as an example so I wouldn't call anyone out.

Maybe I did, and I am sorry I didn't mean to make it into an arguement, and I am sorry for doing it that way. I guess it goes both ways, I made myself look like an A-Hole too. I was just arguing on behalf of the not painted models because of how some people made themselves better than others, intended or not.

So to all, and espeacially Redbeard and Nightlord, I didn't mean to make it personal. I am sorry and hope you take my applogies.

If my army was unpainted I would explain as to why, some were, some wern't, and then play some games.

Just got pissed a bit at some people makeing themselves better than others, because nobody here is better than anyone else.

But I just want to say, again, sorry if I misbehaved or made it personal, it wasn't my intent.

Back on track, I do like painted armies, but I would not refuse a game with anyone a painted army. Also if I had some armies that were unpainted I would hope nobody would refuse me a game either, but I would understand if they didn't. I would hope thou the person would be polite and respecatable about it.

Davor wrote:...nobody here is better than anyone else.

But I just want to say, again, sorry if I misbehaved or made it personal, it wasn't my intent.

Back on track, I do like painted armies, but I would not refuse a game with anyone a painted army. Also if I had some armies that were unpainted I would hope nobody would refuse me a game either, but I would understand if they didn't. I would hope thou the person would be polite and respecatable about it.

That's a much more reasonable post than your previous. /bravo

I have never felt the need to refuse to play someone who had an unpainted army. I have, however, felt as if the other person cared less about the hobby than me because they have been coming in with the same unpainted army for the two years I had known them, with no advancement.

hcordes wrote:@Skinnattittar "professional" seriously... its a HOBBY/GAME, there are no professional contracts out there for 40k players. Guys that spend all their time absorbed into their hobby/game want to call themselves professional(s) fine.... i think they are a little out of touch with reality, like pro poker players, or pro Halo players, its all an f-ing joke. Pro-sports is mostly a joke too (but i still enjoy them) just so we are all on the page.

weeeellll......

pro poker players like phil ivey, and danny negranau: multi- millionaires. not a joke, just mega rich. these guys play 40 hours a week solid poker. that is their job.

pro sports players, people pay to see em play, so whats the big deal here?

as for pro halo or pro 40k players, i agree with you there. these are the nerdy, spotty, social recluses that give this hobby/game a bad name.....there is a distinct difference between being enthusiastic and being obsessive. as i said in a previous post, if this is the be all and end all of your free time and discretionary income then you have a problem. well balanced individuals need several interests, not just one.

be proud of the effort you put in painting, be proud of the clever new tactics you come up with to defeat an enmey, but can we please close this thread with the adage "live and let live"?

This hobby is a social hobby.
Since conversing and "shooting the sh**" are social activities, I refuse anyone who wants to *only* play the game and isn't willing to have a 4 or 5 hour 1500 point game with me as we have extensive conversations about myriad topics.
Those people just don't understand what the hobby is all about and aren't worth my time.

Dashofpepper wrote:So my entire Dark Eldar army is painted black, they have night shields, and their army name is "black night riders."

Since I don't have multiple shades of non-black paint on them....does that mean my army isn't playable for you who require painted armies?

First of all:

http://blog.brushthralls.com/?page_id=1942

If you were going to paint an all black army, it probably shouldn't just be a single shade of black (likely sprayed on).

Secondly, what you've come up with is an attempt to justify your way into someone else's standards. Why do you feel the need to do that? So you can say "you're not being fair! whine! whine! whine!" when they refuse to play you?

So if I was the type of person to not play against unpainted armies, I'd refuse to play your "Black Night Riders" just as I'd refuse to play "Ghost Marines" that are all a single shade of white (also conveniently applied with a spray can).



Automatically Appended Next Post:

Night Lords wrote:But guess what? The immersion of the entire battle/scenario is thrown right out the window for me when I see Im about to play a gray horde. Everything on the board begins to look worse. This severely hinders my enjoyment of the game.

Exactly. So often those who prefer painted models (or insist on them) are called "rude" or "elitist" or other names by those who refuse to paint their models. The truth of the matter is that if you bring unpainted models against a person who has painted models, you could well be lowering their enjoyment of the game. When you do something to lower the enjoyment of your opponent, that's the definition of bad sportsmanship and rude behavior. Some people here are intentionally doing this and then acting like they're the victim when they're actually the offender.

So my point is, while I wont necessarily refuse to play someone with a giant gray blob, if theres 2 identical players to play against - one with a painted army and one without - Im going to pick the painted one everytime.

I'm pretty much at the same place. I've stopped putting stuff on the table that isn't atleast partially painted and won't put it on the table again unless there's progress. I'm heading towards only fielding painted stuff and am at the point where I'd play against a painted army vs non-painted, ceteris paribus. When I put down my unpainted stuff against someone that's got painted stuff, I apologize by saying something like, "Sorry my stuff isn't done, I don't mean to lower your enjoyment of the game."


Automatically Appended Next Post:

MagickalMemories wrote:This hobby is a social hobby.
Since conversing and "shooting the sh**" are social activities, I refuse anyone who wants to *only* play the game and isn't willing to have a 4 or 5 hour 1500 point game with me as we have extensive conversations about myriad topics.
Those people just don't understand what the hobby is all about and aren't worth my time.

- Now you've added conversational skill as a requisite to be your opponent.

And yeesh, if you're going to spend 4 or 5 hours playing a game, why would you want to do it with substandard looking models? I'd rather enjoy a conversation around a beautiful game than an ugly one.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Manchu wrote:The trouble with Luna's position is that a lot of people in the "I don't have to paint!" crowd say that the game/hobby distinction is just another elitist insult against them. And, what do you know, the paint or else crowd does seem to claim that the non-painters are not hobbyists or at least are defective hobbyists.

"defective hobbyists" LOL!

I guess if I define my hobby as both painting and playing and someone does one but not the other, they aren't in the same hobby as me.

I currently play against unpainted miniatures. But the people who are fielding them are working on them. I currently field unpainted miniatures-- but I won't field them again until some progress has been made.

@ Frozenwastes : I find we are on similar pages, or at least in the same paragraph.

All other things being equal (ceteris paribus), painting players are superior to non-painting players in just about all respects, meaning they receive a minimal +1 to all their other stats. It's like a modifier.

I would say that being a table top hobbyist is actually composed of two other pass times; modelers and gamers. Meaning that you have to be at least a bit of both to start ascending the "hobbyist" class ladder. The mechanic being:

{ [ (Gamer Level) + (Modeller Level) ] / 2 } - | (Gamer Level) - (Modeller Level) | = (Hobbyist Level)

Intent being that if there is a major discrepancy between you Gamer and Modeller Level it detracts from your Hobbyist Level (remembering that it has to be YOUR level as a Modeller and a Gamer. A professional Modeler doesn't get credit for a professional Gamer's victories at a tournament), so you should try to balance your skills in both classes before deciding to switch to Hobbyist combined class. It's not a perfect system, and one that must be carefully assessed. I would suggest that the Gamer and Modeller Levels would be based on a maximum and minimum comparative system, where Epic characters would have to break the formula and use a base Hobbyist Level.

Skinnattittar wrote:@All other things being equal (ceteris paribus), painting players are superior to non-painting players in just about all respects, ...

And I'm done.

Gornall wrote:

Skinnattittar wrote:@All other things being equal (ceteris paribus), painting players are superior to non-painting players in just about all respects, ...

And I'm done.

Well, taking what I said out of context.... bye!

I took what your're saying as to mean that those who paint and play just do more than those who just play. Like, one thing more-- paint. And you added into some sort of cooky RPG level system.

If I had two gamers to play against that are identical in any meaningful way other than one of them has their army painted and the other does not, I'll go with the opponent with the painted miniatures.

Would I use the word "superior"? Not sure, but I'd pick the painted over the not painted, so I guess that implies some sort of opinion on my part as to which is superior.

Is anyone honestly going to say that if everything about the game and player was the same, that unpainted miniatures are superior to painted miniatures?

frozenwastes wrote:I took what your're saying as to mean that those who paint and play just do more than those who just play. Like, one thing more-- paint. And you added into some sort of cooky RPG level system.

If I had two gamers to play against that are identical in any meaningful way other than one of them has their army painted and the other does not, I'll go with the opponent with the painted miniatures.

Would I use the word "superior"? Not sure, but I'd pick the painted over the not painted, so I guess that implies some sort of opinion on my part as to which is superior.

Is anyone honestly going to say that if everything about the game and player was the same, that unpainted miniatures are superior to painted miniatures?

Pretty much what I'm saying.

If something is even minuscule "better" than another thing, then that thing is technically superior in all respects. This is assuming effects cascade, which they usually do.

ok so as a endgame


IF all 'propaint' gamers refused to play all 'nopaint' gamers as a general rule of thumb
we would have either alot more gamers painting in their FLGS rather than playing
or only grey/metal armies playing across MDF brown wastelands
either way that alot less games being played
-which is a bad thing

i would only think my army was complete when fully painted
i have just started a new 5th ed army and have yet to buy a new set of paints for them

i promised myself i wouldn't post in this thread again, but I had too.
I think there is one side of this that we all missed. What about the guys who DONT PLAY at all, they just paint?? Why would they bring their masterfully painted minis to a game store? Just to have them oggled and touched by a bunch of 12 year olds? Playing with minis, thats how they get broken, lost, or even stolen.
you argue back an forth that its elitest to say you wont play against an unpainted army, but seriously it is a hobby be it painting, playing or both. everyone is in it to have fun for whatever reason(s) they find enjoyable. if you can't have fun with them.. find a new gaming group, or be miserable the rest of your gaming days, or maybe YOU need to find a new hobby/game.

I think that it is perfectly acceptable to politely decline to play someone based on how their army is painted or assembled. It isn't much fun to play against a twelve year old with a half assembled army who is proxying a large chunk of their force. While I personally do not have an issue with playing against people with unpainted armies, it seems fair that someone would try to avoid them. Many of the best gamers I've played against use unpainted armies and take the game very seriously. Although these games tend to focus on the winning/losing aspect more than the creating a cool narrative aspect.

One of the joys of this hobby is putting together a well painted army and playing against another painted army. The critical moments of these games really feel more critical and the painting adds a lot to the experience. This is my preference, and I am always dismayed by the amount of players who do not paint their armies. The people who take the time to paint are usually the ones that I befriend and actively seek to play.

Unpainted armies are less fun to play against and it really is a personal choice about who you are interested in playing games against.

Someone who just paints would be a Modeller, and yes, they do often show up at my hobby shop just to hang out and paint, while enjoying the company of the other regular attendees. Heck, we used to have a group of guys and gals that would just show up and talk hobbies, not even painting or gaming (though they all did). Sadly, many of them moved on to different things in life.... so sad.

frozenwastes wrote:
First of all:

http://blog.brushthralls.com/?page_id=1942

If you were going to paint an all black army, it probably shouldn't just be a single shade of black (likely sprayed on).

Secondly, what you've come up with is an attempt to justify your way into someone else's standards. Why do you feel the need to do that? So you can say "you're not being fair! whine! whine! whine!" when they refuse to play you?

So if I was the type of person to not play against unpainted armies, I'd refuse to play your "Black Night Riders" just as I'd refuse to play "Ghost Marines" that are all a single shade of white (also conveniently applied with a spray can).

So not only won't you play against an unpainted army, you won't play against a painted army that doesn't meet your specifications. Nice.

Dashofpepper wrote:So not only won't you play against an unpainted army, you won't play against a painted army that doesn't meet your specifications. Nice.

Well, no, just not with you.

Skinnattittar wrote:

Dashofpepper wrote:So not only won't you play against an unpainted army, you won't play against a painted army that doesn't meet your specifications. Nice.

Well, no, just not with you.

as long as we aren't making this personal.

Dashofpepper wrote:

So not only won't you play against an unpainted army, you won't play against a painted army that doesn't meet your specifications. Nice.

Is your army just sprayed black? If so its what the majority of people call undercoated not painted and therefore, unfortunately, your army comes under the 'unpainted' class for those who only want to play against painted armies (three colours is normally the accepted minimum).

Mick

I'm just playing devil's advocate.

Out of my entire Dark Eldar army (mostly primed black), I have 3 painted raiders, a painted archon, and two half-painted raiders. I'm playing them in a tournament this weekend, and they're mostly black - I have enough painted raiders that I can distinguish which are warriors and which are wyches for my opponents. I just spent $300 on battlefoam so that I can transport my fragile stuff around too.

I basecoat/drybrush stuff, but I leae the painting up to my wife - she's better at it than I am.

Am I really supposed to hold off playing my Dark Eldar because they aren't painted? I'll be damned if I am. I fit into the school of thought of "play 40k, and paint as time and will permit" instead of "assemble and paint, and play 40k as time and will permit."

We're shifting back into painting mode (IE, giving up video games and going to start watching T.V. shows and painting), but even painting every night, its going to take months and months for 1850 to get painted. Last night, I got a black primed raider base-coated purple in about...3 hours. I simply haven't the painting skills that others have.

You know what a great middle-ground would be? Since you'd rather paint, and I'd rather play...you paint my models while I play with yours.

Dashofpepper wrote:Am I really supposed to hold off playing my Dark Eldar because they aren't painted? I'll be damned if I am. I fit into the school of thought of "play 40k, and paint as time and will permit" instead of "assemble and paint, and play 40k as time and will permit."

Not everyone follows your school of thought. Call ahead and ask if an undercoated army can be played. If you don't want to do that, just bring a second army with you that is painted just in case. Its their tournament and they can set the requirements for play as they wish.

We're shifting back into painting mode (IE, giving up video games and going to start watching T.V. shows and painting), but even painting every night, its going to take months and months for 1850 to get painted. Last night, I got a black primed raider base-coated purple in about...3 hours. I simply haven't the painting skills that others have.

I've painted the base colors of a large Crimson Fists army in about 70-80 hours. 50 Tacticals, 10 Assault Marines, 2 Dreadnoughts, 2 Predators, 1 Vindicator, 3 Rhinos, 2 Devastator Squads, 2 Landspeeders, 5 HQ's, and a command squad. I suck at painting. If I can do it in about a month of free time for about $40, anyone can. And that time includes the conversion of 3 5 man Sterngaurd Squads, and a Librarian. EDIT: I'm I'm still working on my routine. I just came up with a new way to paint details that will probably cut the time it takes to paint my models by several minutes.