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.

I like painted minatures I enjoy painting them (find it relaxing) and seeing them painted but what I like shouldnt matter to someone else.

So I wouldnt mind playing against an unpainted army where it be the whole army or just a few models as long as its a fun game same as I dont care if I play against vetrain players or newbies as long as the models are there.

Simple solution to if you dont like play against unpainted armys is pant the minatures for them if they want that way it solves your problem.

As for fighting over boxes used to do that way back in the beginning or use bed sheets as the terrain and put boxes underneath for hills aah the good old days lol

i would play people with unpainted armies.why not its a game right?
personally i do not want my army to be unpainted but at the same time i dislike painting im not good at it, its a chore, not fun and enervating(works on my nerves?).
doesnt help either that i still have 40+ boyz to paint 10 nobz, 3 deffkoptas and 2 looted wagons
and the worst part is i paint so that my opponent would have nothing to complain about and then they start critisising my painting and not in the constructive manner!
500pt games ftw!

not not really, But only thing that "grinds my gears" (thankyou peter griffin) is when a gamer can paint his models to a high standard but uses blu-tack instead of glue (cheaper/quicker than magnetizing) to hold his/her models together

I have quite a few things that grind my gears and unpainted armies aren't one of them. To me it's a game, so why should I get upset about an unpainted army?

Although I have been seriously entertaining the idea of getting the local body shop here to paint my car Dark Angels green .

Jack_Death wrote:
Like Skriker, I've been gaming for decades. In all of that time, across many different rulesets and periods, I have never put an unpainted miniature on the table. I have put some godawful ugly paintjobs on the table, especially when I was young, broke, and just learning how to paint.

For me, half the fun is looking at the models. That said, I would never comment on someone else's army, skill level, time commitment, or anything else that is frankly none of my business.

Now, if you want to play at my house you'll bring a painted army. Outside of my own space I am happy to get a game in with anyone regardless of the state of their army.

Certainly a balanced approach. I've got no problems with someone else's house rules on painted armies, just find it eminently amusing when someone shows up at a local shop at random and then complains that not everyone has an army that is fully painted, with all hand painted chapter and unit markings with every model customized and on a miniature diorama base.

Best moment for me that always pops into my head with these threads was watching a friend's game and my friend's opponent complaining from the moment he set the first one on the table that my friend's otherwise decent painted minis had no flocking on the bases and how horrible that made the minis look, and how it ruined the game, blah, blah, blah....he finally "chose" to play the game anyway and began pulling his minis out. Firstly yes all of his minis had flocked bases, but beyond that it looked like a 4 year old had painted his army, no lie. They were the worst looking minis I had ever seen and had the most god awful color scheme possible and this guy was ranting that my friends army made the game look horrible because the bases weren't flocked. Um...yeah...only time I EVER commented in a negative way about someone else's paint job. Couldn't not do it after the rant we had just listened to...

If someone hands me a mini that isn't remotely close to the best I've ever seen and is really proud of it, my initial comment is always "Cool!" If they ask for painting advice I will offer some I think might help, but otherwise if they are happy with their mini then I am happy with their mini too. That is respect for a fellow human being.

Skriker


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 curran12 wrote:
And I do field painted armies, I commission friends and/or studios as I can afford because I appreciate good-looking models, but I do what I can. And I've been accused of cheapening the hobby for doing it. Even people who know I have nerve damage and have seen the jagged, 8-inch scar on my arm. So I really don't put a lot of stock into the understanding nature of fellow wargamers until I see it firsthand.

Sadly Curran, some people are tools and they will ALWAYS be tools...can't really worry about or care about what they have to say. I am glad you said "people you know" and not "friends" who know you have nerve damage who still say so definitely are not friends of yours. Some people have never had any *real* issues in their lives so have no understanding of the impact they can have.

Skriker


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
Never seen office space. And you are correct, i did not specify lazy people, i made a generalization.
But let me ask you this. Why not paint your army? you
1: Have a great looking thing you can be proud of
2: Get great compliments.
3: If you dont like it, it can improve discipline and patience.
4: If you find it boring, put on a TV show you like, that is how i paint.
Painting is part of the entire hobby IMO.

Why worry about others painting their army? I've painted half a dozen full armies and hundreds if not thousands of other minis as parts of other armies in the time I've been involved in the mini gaming hobby. Just because the minis I have on the table today aren't painting means nothing towards my love of the hobby or my commitment to painting in any way, shape or form. You are just creating a snap judgement against someone because of a single instance of minis on a table. I have a full time job, am a volunteer fire fighter, work in cat rescue, am in a band and also a member of the 501st legion, so that all adds up to very little free time in a week. That free time covers things like laundry, cleaning the house, taking care of my own cats, repairs around the house and any mini gaming related stuff I want to fit into the week. Most weeks it comes down to paint or play with a small block of time and in that situation play wins every time. I haven't painted a mini in over a year. I have added some minis to my collection in that time so they see the table without any paint. Hardly the end of the world. I love my life as crazy as it is and if I had so little on my plate I could spend my time being cranky that someone else didn't have the common courtesy to paint their minis and not ruin the asthetics of my gaming experience I think I would be bored out of my mind...and might go bonkers...

I will agree that painting is a part of the hobby, but ONLY a part. In 23+ years in this hobby I have never let painting dictate anything about how/when I play the game. It has its time and place just like playing does, but since the reason I buy these minis first and foremost is to play the game with them it is kind of dumb to not play because of some push by someone who is offended by unpainted minis to get them painted and meet their deadline imposed on me as to when they think that I should have my minis painted by. Love those posts from people putting month limits on their acceptance of those who haven't painted their minis as if it is *their* choice and decision how and when someone else paints their own minis. Really amusing to me....

Skriker


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 MetalOxide wrote:
What I find funny is that some people say that they have no time to paint, yet have time to assemble the miniatures and have games.

Let's ask ourselves a couple questions shall we?

1) Can one play a mini game if their miniatures are still in the boxes? Answer: No. So that means we have to build our minis.

2) Why do we buy all these stupidly over priced minis? Answer: To play the game with. So that means once we have built minis we are actually going to, gasp, play the game.

3) Can you play the game with minis that have no paint on them? Answer: Yes. Nothing stops thoses minis from being used on the table in the least.

So there you have it. A rather straight forward explanation of how people that say they have no time to paint have time to assemble and to play. Honestly if someone has to paint everything before they play to appease the demands of others I know many people who wouldn't even bother.

"Oh cool I spent $800 on this army that is now built, but I can't use it until I spend the next 6 months painting it all in my little free time so as to not offend the sensibilities of some elitist twit at the game store", said no on ever....

Skriker

Unfortunately I am one of these individuals that hasn't painted pretty much anything in my army..... Sorry armies! It takes too long and being a hard working individual that has a selection of hobbies and interests doesn't have the time. Frankly does it matter? I think not. I agree with lots of other people that have posted, in that I play for fun. I want to have a good game against friendly opponents-regardless of wether they're armies are painted. For the record my friend and I have over 6k points of orks, 6k of space marines, and about 5k of choas + tau, guardsmen, necron, tyranids and many other. Can kinda see why we don't have much painted.

 Orkimedes1000 wrote:
not not really, But only thing that "grinds my gears" (thankyou peter griffin) is when a gamer can paint his models to a high standard but uses blu-tack instead of glue (cheaper/quicker than magnetizing) to hold his/her models together

Well, it depends on how one does the blu-tacking. I mean, the only things I glue on my marines is the center torso pieces to each other, and if I use magnets, those have to be glued in place. Legs and head are attached to torso with blu-tack to allow reposing, shoulder pads are attached to arms with blu-tack, etc. But recently I've just mostly used blu-tack for arms too. Aside from being easier there's also the fact that usually the blu-tacked arms stay in place better than magnets. My magnetized power armor arms tend to keep falling off especially if the models are in a tight formation (like pushed base to base in a close combat) which is a major pain.

Anyway, in some cases the blu-tack isn't visible at all. It has a lot to do with the model's pose. A regular Bolter marine for example usually hides its blu-tack pretty well. With CC units it's harder, since the arms are usually "spread out."

Although I can appreciate the difference when facing painted armies. I really get peeved when I have to field my own unpainted models. Drives me nuts, and I hold to the solemn truth that UNPAINTED MODELS DIE FIRST!!! I've greatly increased the model count of my Daemon army since the Codex, and its driving me nuts when I get in games while I still have to field unpainted models. Every game is followed by hours of painting, stupid compulsive issues....

I have no problem if anyone uses unpainted models.

While I do generally only field painted models I'm a gamer first, the painting is secondary.

I'm interested to see what people think of players such as myself.

I have an entire guard force using DKOK models from forgeworld. I spent a LOT of time custom meddling and converting each one. But they are all just primered black.

Why do you ask? Because I can't paint. Really. I've tried, and RUINED my test models over and over again. Strip, retry, fail. Those forgeworld minis are not very forgiving.

Would you all really deny a player a game? All because he lacks an innate ability to paint?

I would rather the models be completely bare than primed black. It makes it so much harder to see what the models are when the entire thing is a matte black blob, making it harder to play.

But even so, it's nice if they're painted but as long as I can tell them apart it's fine! I wouldn't even turn down a game against the black blobs.

J0kerrMT wrote:
I think painting is part of the game..if you don't want to paint would it be acceptable to use print outs of the models that have the gear very visible? Of course not. If you don't have the time and/or money you really should find another hobby.

There are great hobby games out there (example: MAGIC) that require just the purchase of the product to play.

IN RESPONSE TO THE ABOVE: You can always print out foldouts of the WH40K army. This would let you play the game with no money problems or painting problems. Would that be acceptable to other gamers....I am guessing not. Now please reply in a new comment so everyone can see it instead of hiding in your edits.

In all honesty, cut outs would anger me more than unpainteds. Seeing cutouts would piss me off due to the fact that the opposing player didn't even put money into the hobby. The moment one paper model was put on the table whilst I was setting up, I would immediately start packing up. I've spent ALOT of money on this hobby, and have painted as many of my models as possible, at the same time, showing active growth in the hobby.

I have the sam opionion as kronk:


My armies are at least 90% painted, although I have hardly freetime but I will play anyone with an army even when not painted.

Its much more fun to play against a well made army although.

Do I care?

Not at all, unless of course my models are painted and they proceed to critique my work while setting up grey and dark grey minis.....

Do I get why you play 40k if you don't want to paint the models?

Nope, I can't understand at all, to me an intergral part of 40k in fact the most fun part of 40k is developing a theme and incorporating that across your army. If I wanted a game of tactics and skill I'd play a RTS. 40k is barely a functioing tabletop game as is, every other month the newest army comes out and breaks the system, I play for the fun of seeing awesome minis and having enjoyable fun battles. So I don't care if you play with unpainted minis I will still play you and even play you again, but it will be a lot less fun than seeing a cool painted army set up across from me.

Bytheway if you proceed to not paint because you are too busy buying the latest and greatest power gaming units than I will have problem as well, I never refuse to play but I doubt I will be very personable while we have a game.

I prefer to play against a painted army, but I am quite understanding if someone has constraints that don't give them time to. For instance if I play against someone with an unpainted army and them a month or so later there has been no progress made on it, then it feels like they can't be bothered and an unpainted army does diminish the experience.
I work 45 hours a week but still have time to get my things painted, I don't have kids or anything though but there is an element of pride in having a nicely painted force on the table. If someone doesn't paint their models then i'll usualyl just make sure I win

Waging war with painted minis against painted minis make me happy, I dont look down on anyone because they arnt painted. i have about 4000 points of Sisters of Battle painted fully, 2000 of Grey knights painted fully. But only like 800 points of chaos out of 8000 points i have. I never refuse a battle because their models arnt painted. I DO however refuse to play someone who is a (known by previous battles) Jerk. thats more important than painted models, is the player that owns them.

I personally hate painting models. It's just a drag for me. But last week I finished painting my dark angel army and it was a very fulfilling feeling. I think that painting models is and important and necessary part of the game. My models look crappy because I suck at painting but it still looks better than flat grey.
I know painting isn't the most fun part of the game, but it makes the gaming experience much more enjoyable when you see that burst of color from the board.

I prefer to play painted armies, purely because it looks so much better and because I myself make the effort to paint my models - not that I find it a chore - but I would still never refuse a game because someone has unpainted models.

I don't hate it but I find it quite annoying that they have huge armies but can't be bothered to paint them. I mean, they don't have to be amazing but you still have the time to do it (after all, you could be painting them instead of playing) I have a campaign house rule that by the start of another half term, any unpainted models in the previous half term must be painted and that all models must be at least undercoated.

I have two people at my FLGS and they are both power gamers, who don't have anything painted. They have them either bare plastic or primed. And I wonder if the hobby is such a big thing to you that you would do anything to win. And don't even want to paint your own army?

I don’t understand, even after reading most of this, why people have such an issue with the activity of another that has no repercussions for them, most of my army is unpainted I don’t have the skill to paint them quickly to a standard that I’d be happy with, they are expensive and I carefully model and sculpt everyone to be unique.
I don’t need someone telling me I can or cant play a game because of how my army looks, I don't spend all my waking hours on them, rush the tits of them or just airbrush and then dip them (yeah so much better than unpainted)... In fact it generally urks me when people have a go at me for my half painted army when I look across the table I see their army which is either poorly executed or cheese...

I enjoy modeling first, playing second and painting last, the hobby contains all three and i can do them in what ever order i like. May be as i get better at painting that will change but i do not see my self ever being short sighted enough to give a damn if someone hasn't painted all there models.

HiveFleetPlastic wrote:
I would rather the models be completely bare than primed black

Definitely. I always wonder as to the reasoning behind people asking for models to be at least primed. What exactly does a primed model accomplish over a bare model, especially if it's grey or black? It's still just one color. Locally this once came up, the answer was that it's difficult to see who has what if the model is unpainted. Eh. It's harder with a primed miniature in my books. If it's black, it becomes a total pain in the butt!

 dracpanzer wrote:
Although I can appreciate the difference when facing painted armies. I really get peeved when I have to field my own unpainted models. Drives me nuts, and I hold to the solemn truth that UNPAINTED MODELS DIE FIRST!!! I've greatly increased the model count of my Daemon army since the Codex, and its driving me nuts when I get in games while I still have to field unpainted models. Every game is followed by hours of painting, stupid compulsive issues....

I agree I hate doing it and especially when they are broken in some way ... I find it embarrassing. As many other people say, I prefer to play painted armies ( a friend of mine plays nids and most of the are just primed and nids have a rather basic colour scheme anyway IMO.

I like having a well painted army, even if my tactics suck. Sometimes I get an opponent that wants to take a look at my tank even though he just blew it up, because he's jealous. Might not win me games, but half of the hobby is painting and having people admire my models is RL VP's.

I have never played against a fully painted army at either FLGS I've been a part of. I wouldn't say it bothers me but I would like to play some games with fully painted armies on the board, mostly because I invest so much time into my own. That said I won't ever criticize or refuse a game because I understand its a lengthy process.

FuzzyLogik wrote:
I prefer to play against a painted army, but I am quite understanding if someone has constraints that don't give them time to. For instance if I play against someone with an unpainted army and them a month or so later there has been no progress made on it, then it feels like they can't be bothered and an unpainted army does diminish the experience.
I work 45 hours a week but still have time to get my things painted, I don't have kids or anything though but there is an element of pride in having a nicely painted force on the table. If someone doesn't paint their models then i'll usualyl just make sure I win

So do you keep a log of people you've played and the painted state of their army that day so that you can look it up later and compare to a future date so that you can diminish your experience? I am honestly curious or do you just rely on the fallible human memory that tells you that you need to be annoyed playing a particular person because you are pretty sure that they haven't painted as much as you would have liked since you last saw them?

Sorry, but it just seems so silly and arbitrary to try and keep track of the painting progress of people you have played against in the past so that you can be offended by it at a later date. What a useless waste of mental and emotional energy.

Skriker


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 conker249 wrote:
Waging war with painted minis against painted minis make me happy, I dont look down on anyone because they arnt painted. i have about 4000 points of Sisters of Battle painted fully, 2000 of Grey knights painted fully. But only like 800 points of chaos out of 8000 points i have. I never refuse a battle because their models arnt painted. I DO however refuse to play someone who is a (known by previous battles) Jerk. thats more important than painted models, is the player that owns them.

Well stated Conker. I have never found any link between being a painting nazi and being a challanging or even decent player, or person. If someone is a jerk I don't care how well painted their army is I won't waste my time playing them. Just isn't enough gaming time in the week to waste it on them. When I hit the table I want to play a fun game and an opponent who complains through the entire game sucks the fun right out of the experience for me whether they are complaining that I had the audacity to use unpainted minis or that my army is cheesy because it is stomping him into the ground.

Skriker


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Sgt_Smudge wrote:
I don't hate it but I find it quite annoying that they have huge armies but can't be bothered to paint them. I mean, they don't have to be amazing but you still have the time to do it (after all, you could be painting them instead of playing) I have a campaign house rule that by the start of another half term, any unpainted models in the previous half term must be painted and that all models must be at least undercoated.

Yeah brilliant there Smudge: Pay hundreds of dollars to buy minis to play a game, but don't bother to play because someone else things you should be painting instead. I have found in the past that all requiring painted models in a campaign meant is that it excluded many decent players who just didn't have the time to paint in their week.

Oh and for those who claim they have a "full" schedule, but can still get 500 points of minis painted each week AND play a bunch of games each week, you don't really KNOW what a full schedule actually is.

Skriker

So do you keep a log of people you've played and the painted state of their army that day so that you can look it up later and compare to a future date so that you can diminish your experience? I am honestly curious or do you just rely on the fallible human memory that tells you that you need to be annoyed playing a particular person because you are pretty sure that they haven't painted as much as you would have liked since you last saw them?

Sorry, but it just seems so silly and arbitrary to try and keep track of the painting progress of people you have played against in the past so that you can be offended by it at a later date. What a useless waste of mental and emotional energy.

Skriker

Well, I personally don't care about painted armies or not.

I don't keep track either but for me I do notice that my opponent's stuff progresses in terms of painting wise.
Like his Wraith Lord was unprimed last time, and then it is this time.
Like you notice a bit by bit and by the end you'll see a fully painted army.
At least I noticed that when I play with the people at the FLGS

It's kinda obvious when you have a full grey army with nothing primed every game that you play with them too.
Not that it matters but you do notice though.

I don't have any issues with unpainted armies on their own. Where I do run into trouble is when I'm playing TFG AND he has an unpainted army it just ends up being an extra strike.

My opinion,

I don't care that much about the other Army being painted or not, if they are not I always slightly try to stimulate them into painting, My armies aren't 100% either but when I field my army 80% is always finished. (just a notice, my army pictures in the gallery are OLD as are my thread pictures, alot is painted now.)

Hearing players state 'I can't paint, I'm rubbish' is saddening. EVERYONE has to start somewhere.

Fair enough - you don't have time, or don't like painting, or are physically unable to (injury, no space etc).

But if you are not bothering because of a few unsatisfactory results - 'giving up' - you should keep trying!