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.

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 dont know why you keep saying this stuff. Obviously there are people who are willing to play you.

Its funny actually, because while you are posting off these over-exaggerated statements, you are actually just proving the other side's point. You are a power gamer. I dont think it's unreasonable to say that if someone wants to play painted miniatures, they're most likely looking for more of a fun/cinematic game than a pure game of W40k (otherwise they'd play you).

So funny enough, you, with the unpainted army, dont provide that either. You are going to play to win, argue small rules, watch your opponent's every move, etc., and while that's fine, that's not what everyone wants out of the game.

What I think hasn't been brought up in this topic is the correlation between unpainted armies & the types of players that play them. Seriously, what type of player doesnt have a painted army (for a long period of time)?

1) A new W40K player
2) Pure "Gamer" player

As much as I help out the new players, theyre not exactly exciting to play against, and as said above, the #2 doesnt have the same reasons for playing. So by restricting oneself to playing only painted armies, theyre more likely to find people with a similar mindset to themselves about the hobby, which, generally, leads to a much more enjoyable game I would think.

Dash, Im sure you prefer playing people in the tournament crowd to get a more competitive game, correct? Well, people who are playing for fun are also looking for a certain type of person to play against, and odds are, a person with an unpainted army isnt the one.

LordofHats wrote:
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.

This is cool, and great that you found a fast way to paint ALOT of minis and meet a basic painting requirement. What those of us that take great pride in our painting, and we want to make sure EVERY mini is of a certain high quality paint job? I would love to find a fast effective to paint a lot of minis and have them turn out to my standards.
maybe i need new standards to fit in with the rest of you all??
Its taken me 5 YEARS to get where i am with my 3rd Company Ultras, thats right years.. not months. Its a project i set to fit into that "i'm gonna paint and then MAYBE play" that i didn't have to worry about rule changes etc. It took me a year to get a tech. down so that I can effectively paint what i have left to finish and have them come out the way I want to look on the table.

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 think a lot of people have this problem, and it makes painting seem like a chore. Lots of people set goals for themselves that they aren't necessarily ready to follow through with. The people who can afford to accept that models for gaming don't have to be perfect (and probably won't be perfect) get painting done a lot faster.

If you're taking this much time just to get a figure onto the board, you need to start looking at some different techniques and evaluate exactly what you want out of these models.

IE, are they going in a display? Or will they just sit in your foam trays in between games? Does it really matter if the underside of a raider isn't done perfectly? Do you need a perfect, streak-free coat and straight-edge highlights on a model that you're fielding 9-12 of and will never really be looked at up close?

Raiders have lots of spiny bits, and as far as vehicles go, are about as good for drybrushing as you can get. Just take some time and practice with the amount of paint you need on the brush to catch the edges without too much streaking and you'll do fine. Consider using different shades of dark colors instead of just lighter shades of greys, dark blue or purple looks great as an edge highlight and once you're comfortable with a drybrush you can crank out a completed vehicle in about an hour and a half.

Or if your time is more valuable to you than your money (and as a married, employed man with 3 armies I'm assuming you have some cash to kick around) get yourself an airbrush. 3 hours for a basecoat turns into 3 minutes.

I used to be slow as hell with my painting until I took a step back and convinced myself that "good enough" really was good enough. Now I can do a squad of 10 infantry models in under 2 hours, from black primer to finish.

hcordes wrote: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.

Very well said. Now that I am actually thinking, (scarry I know, I thought I smelt something burning) is it's not painted vs unpainted but focing your opnion on what others should be. I think that is why some of us are so upset. Morales being put on someone else when they don't want to. Be it painted or not painted.

Dashofpepper wrote:...

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.

...

Am I really supposed to hold off playing my Dark Eldar because they aren't painted?

I removed the superfluous comments, like how much you spent on battlefoam. The only real answer to this question is, does the tournament that you're going to require armies to be painted. If it does, then yes, you really are supposed to hold off playing them because they're not painted. It is the height of arrogance to take an army that does not meet the entry requirements to an event and expect to be allowed to play, in spite of not meeting the requirements. It reduces the enjoyment of everyone who attends the event with the expectation of the entry requirement being in place. Unfortunately, some people insist on doing just this...

If, on the other hand, the tournament you're attending has no such requirement, then I think the answer to your question is pretty obvious. It's an event designed for people with unpainted armies, and you should have no qualms about showing up with an unpainted army.

Well I dont care if someones minis are painted or not as long as you can tell, and i can tell what the units are. Im find.
Ive heard stories of People going too GT's with just three colors on them..( which was black primer, and three dots of paints on the shoulder pads...)

If I was an official and saw literally just three colored dots on primer, I wouldn't count that as three color painted and not allow it. Spirit of a rule so obvious is far greater than someone else's lawyering of the rule. Though most Tournament rules are a bit more explicit about what is "three colors."

A poll would be interesting to see how many paint their figures and how many don't...

Mick

Skinnattittar wrote:If I was an official and saw literally just three colored dots on primer, I wouldn't count that as three color painted and not allow it. Spirit of a rule so obvious is far greater than someone else's lawyering of the rule. Though most Tournament rules are a bit more explicit about what is "three colors."

Apparently someone hasn't heard of the Ninja Marines!


Seriously though. Its a game. Some people hate or don't have time to paint models. This doesn't mean their WAAC gamers or have any indication of how they play.

If you don't want to play someone, don't play them, its as simple as that. Of course in a tournament, if you don't want to, well then suck it up or take the 0.

Nope, never actually seen Ninja Marines, but if they are just primed and pipped (given a few dots of color to be "three color legal"), then I wouldn't count them as three color legal. However, if they have been given some other details, like dry brushing to make the black stand out (an extremely simple and easy painting skill to learn) or have details highlighted, then I wouldn't count them.

Maybe tonight I'll pull a blank Marine out and make an example of how to do something with a black figure.

If you can't paint and are refusing to even give an honest try at painting, then I wouldn't consider you an honest hobbyist. If you keep playing and refusing to try and make honest attempts at getting your army painted, then you're a "gamer," which is different from being a hobbyist, which is what I, and many other people it seems, think that 40k is about.

StarGate wrote: Well I dont care if someones minis are painted or not as long as you can tell, and i can tell what the units are. Im find.
Ive heard stories of People going too GT's with just three colors on them..( which was black primer, and three dots of paints on the shoulder pads...)

That sort of thing would make me refuse to play someone. If you have a "three colour" rule to encourage a minimum standard of painting, and some smartass brings figures in primer with three coloured spots on the shoulder they are totally taking the piss. If they twist and abuse the letter of the tournament rules to enter the army so obviously defying the spirit of the event...well what do you think they are like to play against? I don't play rules lawyers, if someone really did produce a 'three-spot' three colour army it's beneath contempt.

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.

Seriously? You think no one saw your obvious attempt at some sort of internet trap? Oh, you got me... Where's that picture of Admiral Akbar when we need him.

All black or all white doesn't equal painted, it equals primed.

Would I play against an all bare metal army? Yes. Did it last week.

Would I play against an all primed army? Yes. Did it a few days ago.

Would I play against an a partially painted army? Yes. Also did that a few days ago.

If I were the type of person who didn't play against unpainted stuff, I wouldn't play against the "lame internet trap" dark eldar or the "I'm so clever I'll make a sneaky point" white space marines.

I am headed in the direction of painted models only. I've decided to start with myself. Nothing goes back on the table unless it's been worked on or is complete. Eventually I'm going to enjoy only games with completely painted models on both sides playing on completed terrain.

And even if I was the kind of person to only play against painted miniatures and miniatures that meet my standards, why not? They're my standards. If having such standards meant I have a smaller pool of players to play against, I assume that would be something I'd be willing to accept if I thought that way. Why do you even want to trick your way into them?

Oh, I found it:


That was so clever, what you did.

I prefer this one...

Howard A Treesong wrote:I prefer this one...

as do I

LOL, that one is great.

It's nice to have arrived at dakkadakka just in time for the season's painted vs not-painted thread. They're always a good time.

Mick A wrote:A poll would be interesting to see how many paint their figures and how many don't...

Mick

There was , only 23% ish of people that play warhammer paints their army as a hobby.
The rest are gamers , collectors , socializing aspects and a few other aspects

And then 24% of that previous 23% actually have a fully painted army complete.

So you are looking at like 10% or less of warhammer people actually with a full painted army.

Which i have to add , different gaming groups have different types ( after all flocks of a feather )
can often give the illusion that everyone "around me" does A or B

I also want to add , the first gaming group / store i have ever been to , DOES NOT PAINT their armies.
Thus it also fully depend your personal attitude on how you address that issue. If you dont want to play with unwanted armies , you should find another
place to play at . If you have a positive attitude on how you present yourself + your army , its possible to even sway others to start painting their army.
I know this because the gaming group pretty much have their armies painted by me.

I don't hate on people who don't have their army painted. Some of us are just too busy to do a full paint job on our armies. I used to have the time but now I work on an average of 10-15 hour days as an EMT and I have a second job. I'll be happy if I can paint one model a month let alone a whole sqad. When I used to live in new york I asked one of the GW people why do they have that paint to play rule? They told me that other people put in alot of time painting their armies and it's unfair to them when other people come in with their armies unpainted. Part of me says "Yeah, that makes sense" But then another part of me goes "It just to get people to buy GW paints" . Anyway in the end isn't this all about playing the game? If a player has a couple of models painted and is showing progress it shouldn't be a big deal. If they can only get their army based that's better than nothing. People making a big deal out of a minor issue. Sheesh!

You know, it's a slippery slope, letting people play with unpainted models...

my army is in varius stages of painting mainly because i have no skill at painting i would love to have a painted army but until i get better i don't see that happening

Night Lords wrote:
Its funny actually, because while you are posting off these over-exaggerated statements, you are actually just proving the other side's point. You are a power gamer. I dont think it's unreasonable to say that if someone wants to play painted miniatures, they're most likely looking for more of a fun/cinematic game than a pure game of W40k (otherwise they'd play you).

So funny enough, you, with the unpainted army, dont provide that either. You are going to play to win, argue small rules, watch your opponent's every move, etc., and while that's fine, that's not what everyone wants out of the game.

And the stereotypes continue. So you've got us sorted into two groups now: Painters who enjoy thematic games, and non-painters who are power-gamers and aren't fun to play with. Very nice.

*EDIT* My apologies for not fitting into your neat little bucket there, but I usually get 7/10 or 8/10 for my army's paint - they aren't based, but even pink orks are painted (see my gallery). I usually get 8/10 to 10/10 for sportsmanship and comp as well.

I have a new army now. To one of the previous posters talking about me spending 3 hours painting a model so that it looked really nice...no, you missed what I said. I spent three hours dry-brushing the BASE coat onto a raider, and it still looks pretty much like crap. *laughing* I just can't paint. I spend hours and hours and HOURS painting, don't get me wrong, but I'm simply no good at it.

For all the slinging from the painters who refuse to play against a non-painted army, I have but this to say: Who cares?

This hobby has 3 aspects to it, painting, modelling and gaming.

Some of us like this hobby because it lets us put paint to model and make them look pretty.

Some of us like the more viceral aspect of actually modelling and converting, working with our hands to actually BUILD something, instead of just slapping so paint on a boring-looking model.

Some of us are gamers, which means we enjoy the game for the mental aspects of the game. Mathhammer and list building. tweaking, refining and playing game after mental game in our own heads until we dream of taking our distilled tactics and techniques to the table.

A painter saying "I don't play armies that aren't painted to my own standard" is like a gamer saying "I don't play against what I think are garbage lists" or a modeller saying "You've got too many static poses, GTFO". I like to build. I like to convert. I love to play. I paint when I feel like painting, as it just isn't really my thing and it takes me a long time to do it. Frankly, I'd rather be perfecting my art, working on army lists and evolving my game. I'm not a power gamer, but I AM a gamer, through and through. Don't stick your nose up at me because you somehow think that because you're interested in 1/3rd of the hobby that everyone should be.

If somehow ME not having MY army painted is a detriment to YOUR enjoyment of the GAME we're about to play, then I could readily argue that YOU'VE got your priorities way out of whack. I've played on tables ranging from beautifully sculpted and embelleshed pieces to playing on a door spanned across a couple of computer cases with whatever we had handy for terrain. I can appreciate well-made pieces, but it's not a priority for me. If it's a priority for you, then by all means... put brush to plastic and make a masterpiece of your own army. Paint for yourself, model for the world, game for the people at the table.

The major bone of contention is that the "I only play painted armies" types (or at least the OP) are trying to somehow advertise themselves as superior. But allow me to kinda run it this way: a prick is a prick, even if he does have a well-painted army. I'd rather play against someone who enjoys the game, everything else is trivial and meaningless, IMO.

Dronze wrote:If somehow ME not having MY army painted is a detriment to YOUR enjoyment of the GAME we're about to play, then I could readily argue that YOU'VE got your priorities way out of whack.

And they'd say the same to you about your priorities. Why did you spend your first part of your post talking about gamers and painters and modellers just to then denigrate the priorities of some members of one of those groups?

You can't see where someone's enjoyment might be lessened when they pull out their painted army, plunk it down on finished terrain and then someone pulls out a bare metal horde? You can't see how your actions could lessen someone's enjoyment?

The major bone of contention is that the "I only play painted armies" types (or at least the OP) are trying to somehow advertise themselves as superior. But allow me to kinda run it this way: a prick is a prick, even if he does have a well-painted army. I'd rather play against someone who enjoys the game, everything else is trivial and meaningless, IMO.

I agree that one shouldn't play jerks. That said, I don't think wanting to raise the bar when it comes to the aesthetic spectacle of a game is advertising oneself as superior. I'd say it's as much how you express it as what you express.

Don't stick your nose up at me because you somehow think that because you're interested in 1/3rd of the hobby that everyone should be.

If a person prioritizes the aesthetic spectacle of a game and your army doesn't work for that goal, how is refusing to play you sticking up their nose at you? Maybe, just maybe, the feeling of someone sticking their nose up to you is something you do to yourself. You judge and reject yourself. Why? Because you fail to realize that they have just as much right to prioritize in the way they desire as you do. And if that means a game with you doesn't get them what they want, why in the world should they waste their precious free time doing something they don't want to do?

Are we all such delicate flowers that people have to play us so we don't feel bad? I should hope not.

There are a lot of assumptions being made here and a lot of stereo-typing. I've played against unpainted armies and had a really good, fun (the reason I do 40k), game. I've also played against painted armies that I haven't enjoyed because they were power gamers. It takes all sorts...

I only use painted armies, I start with 400 points worth then add to it (starting a Space Wolf one tonight). I prefer to play against painted armies but wouldn't go without a game just because the other person who wanted to play had an unpainted army (you never know, during the game I might be able to convince the person to start painting or offer to help...).

Lunahound- cheers for the info. I expected there to be less painters than non-painters but didn't expect it to be that much lower.

Mick

@Redbeard , i see what you did there!!

@Mick A , i cant be 100% about the number atm , the thread was made like 3 months ago.

I also would like to see painters attempt to answer this question , which i dont recall anyone trying to come up with
something reasonable.

Ok , so far we say the "gamer" can quickly apply paints to minimum color so its atleast "painted"
so first question: You have seen pictures and heard horrible tales of armies that are better off left unpaintd right?

2nd question , since a gamer only plays it for game , there are chances that they might switch from army to army , since there are no feeling of attachment to unpainted army.
Thus when they want to sell their army , how do you think their quickly painted army's value will deplete when they try to sell it? compared to bare plastic metal army?

3rd question: So far there is a standstill between the a) i play warhammer for game , vs b) im in warhammer for painting purpose.
thats fine and all , but what happens when you factor in people trying to sell their unwanted army ( situation already explained earlier )

Forth point - where's the middle ground of people who want to paint, want to play and want to balance that with other parts of their life?

the_ferrett wrote:Forth point - where's the middle ground of people who want to paint, want to play and want to balance that with other parts of their life?

You just do what you have time to do and play with whom you can play with. If you happen upon a "painted only" opponent, or want to adopt that standard for yourself, you accept that it's going to take time to get to larger sized games and learn to enjoy the smaller ones. If you don't, then you just don't worry about it-- and when you do come accross someone who doesn't want to play against your unpainted army, you accept that without judgement on either side.

I have never refused someone a game because their models aren't painted. I've never been refused a game because of my models not being done. I don't think it's quite that common of a practice, even if I am moving towards it myself.

I enjoy painting, not entirely subtle about my paint schemes (purple and orange joy) but I was halfway through my lootas when I managed to hook a deal on some stormboyz and flashgitz. So I had to stop painting the lootas to get to the other, gradually builds up though. (For the record I have no clue how someone could paint uniquely 45 lootas. And if you paint mimic orks its a shame)

Dronze wrote:A painter saying "I don't play armies that aren't painted to my own standard" is like a gamer saying "I don't play against what I think are garbage lists" or a modeller saying "You've got too many static poses, GTFO". I like to build. I like to convert. I love to play. I paint when I feel like painting, as it just isn't really my thing and it takes me a long time to do it. Frankly, I'd rather be perfecting my art, working on army lists and evolving my game. I'm not a power gamer, but I AM a gamer, through and through. Don't stick your nose up at me because you somehow think that because you're interested in 1/3rd of the hobby that everyone should be.

However the standard they're talking about is simply starting painting. Doing a bit of it. So it would be like a gamer saying "I don't play against people who calculate armies by the number and units and don't use point values" or a modeller saying " I don't play against people who only stick the legs of their models on the bases!".

If someone ignored the rules of the game or didn't assemble the models, you'd feel justified in not playing them. It's the same for the no-paint-no-play crowd.

Well, I've been in this thread for a couple pages, and I think I've found the trends:

Painters : "I prefer to play other painted armies over non-painted armies, though I will generally still play against non-painted armies, and if I don't feel like playing a non-painted army (for whatever reason) I will politely decline playing that person (though their army not being painted isn't the only factor to me declining playing against/with them). I can understand and appreciate how some people don't have a lot of time to paint their armies, but as long as they are making improvements, that's okay with me."

Non-Painters : "I don't have the time to be bothered with painting my army and I don't want to wait a single second to play something I bought. Even if I own something for 50 years and never even glue its arms on, I have no second feelings about it while other gamers spend their time painting their armies to a minimum three color standard. I don't particularly care about the hobby aspect of 40k, I just want to play the rules. Also, anyone who believes that painting armies is a requirement to be considered a '40k Hobbyist' is obviously an elitist and a prick."

I'm not saying that's what people are directly saying. But that's how it sounds to me. I hung out at my hobby shop last night, and even our Mega-Power-Gamer had made advancements on painting since last week. We even had a couple of new 12 year olds to the shop and they both had 85% painted armies! I didn't see a single non-painted army (meaning no paint on their models or no advancement in painting). And that's pretty common for our shop. Occasionally you'll see someone come in for a month without any painting being done, but before the next month is out they have 75% of their army painted up.

This bothers me a bit. Someone said that GW said that they don't allow non painted armies because other people have taken the time to paint them and it's not fair to them. How is this so? What's not fair? I don't get it. Do unpainted armies get better dice rolls? Do unpainted armies get better stats? Please explain to me how is it unfair for a painted army? I can't see how it is unfair. It's all about selling GW paint and brushes.