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.

Well, look at it from this point. You are not encouraging a player to be more commited by excluding him. More the opposite.

Some players refuse to play a younger player. Wrong attitude. I`ve played younger players and yeah, some are over enthusiastic. It would be nice to be as enthusiastic about some things again the way they are. But I won't refuse a game with them. Hopefully they'll come away from it having learned something that will improve them. Same thing by including non-painted armies. By being inclusive they see what they might be able to achieve. That will encourage them more than saying, sorry but until you paint to my standard I'm not playing you. Frankly you would turn someone off the hobby much quicker that way.

My line of work involves a lot of mentoring and positive reinforcement works a lot better than negative reinforcement.

My gaming group likes to poke friendly jabs at each other about our paint jobs and terrain making skills. Hell, I make it a priority sometimes to target a model just because it`s painted so well and buddy put all that effort into it only to watch it die on turn one lol.

Monster Rain wrote:

Crantor wrote:To be fair though I think more players leave the game due to prices, rule changes or lack of gaming opportunities or even life changes..

For me, 40k was always about hanging out with friends.

Since I moved, I find that I enjoy the hobby a lot less when playing with strangers.

Ditto. Though I'm probably about to move back, so I'll get to see them again.

Scott-S6 wrote:So, by enforcing a painting standard, the store owner might actually be encouraging long term business at the expense of some short-term business.

That was certainly the reasoning behind GW's always-painted policy. (and it should be pointed out, it certainly never hurt GW. Are GW's current decline and the current dropping of painting standards in some stores related?)

To be honest, I think that GW's Policy for 3 color minimum is to sell their overpriced paints, not to foster any kind of player. It has been said that a new 40k player will buy more in their first year than a veteran will buy in three. Furthermore a new player will be the first to balk at being refused a game. They have the least invested in it.

My point in all of this has not been whether painted or unpainted is right or wrong. My point is that refusing games is a slippery slope for any game that has a social component to it. Whether by Eliteism, Painting Nazis, WAAC Players, or Lazy McPlayer we are all responsible for the growth of our community and the game.

Killkrazy wrote:The thing is, there are plenty of games which you can play out of the box, and don't require painting. Whereas the core point of playing tabletop miniature games is to create a colourful, attractive spectacle with your army and terrain. That's why there is such resistance to people playing with bare armies.

I humbly disagree, the point of playing tabletop miniature games is to play the game. This is why it is called a tabletop miniature game.

This is like a recent conversation overheard between two parents at a girl scout meeting my wife had at our house. The gist was that they had to be wearing the proper tennis apparel to play tennis. The mom said it wasn't playing tennins if they were just in play clothes. So with a few questions asked the mom revealed that they had 2 outfits for tournaments, and 6 outfits for practice.

The point I'm trying to make is that for tournaments it is more than fair to require 3 color minimums and such, but for "practice" it shouldn't matter whether or not they are painted. Anything else is an arbitrary imposition on to the player.


edited for spelling

UsdiThunder wrote:My point is that refusing games is a slippery slope for any game that has a social component to it.

However, if the social contract as that all miniatures are painted then there is no "refusing" and the standard is, generally, not questioned since that's what everyone adheres to.

UsdiThunder wrote:The point I'm trying to make is that for tournaments it is more than fair to require 3 color minimums and such, but for "practice" it shouldn't matter whether or not they are painted. Anything else is an arbitrary imposition on to the player.

Since the vast majority of 40K players don't play in tournaments I really don't see that this is relevant.

wolfshadow wrote:

Mad4Minis wrote:

wolfshadow wrote: My GW where I started playing had a 3 color minimum for an army, and they wanted them based as well.

Thats complete bull. Not only would I never spend a single dime in a place with that attitude, but I would make every effort to divert other players to other retail or online sources. If they want things finished to a certain quality level then they can provide them, or deal with waht i bring. Now if this was a private clubs rules that would be fine...but for a business to make demands like that...far to snobby and unacceptable.


Personally, I prefer to have everything completely built and painted before I use it. Doesnt always work out that way, but I try. Now its been about 12 years since Ive played anything in a retail store. I do all my gaming at my house or a friends.

I could care less about how much or how well someone elses army is painted, but being partially assembled would be annoying. Not only would they need to be clear about what each unit was, but I might make them park a small note next to each one with the major details just so I dont have to keep asking or guessing. Also keeps things form changing during the game.

You want to draw people away from the only local place to play? Doesnt seem that sensible to me. There is, as far as I can tell, about 3 places in my city that I can regularly get a game in, if I'm interested. All 3 are 30+ minutes commute time via transit. If I want to get a game in, I pretty much have to play at the local GW. Why would I want to drive their customers away? So I have no place to play? I'd rather play at a place that has a painted army standard for gaming, than not play at all.

1) My point was that a place who wants people to spend money there shouldnt be so snobby, or expect backlash. If I go to a place to game and they are going to pick apart my army to make sure its up to their standards, then they can fark themselves, Im out. I wont be returning to play amd surely not to spend any money.

2) I take it since you need a public location to host your games you dont personally know anyone who plays, and require random pick-up games? Ive gone over 12 years without a LGS or GW and have spent many, many hours gaming. However, my gaming groups have always consisted of people I know and we simply game at someones house. For example I have a 5x3 foot dining room table that works good for most size games, and Ive collected a decent amount of terrain over time.

You dont need to put up with everything a place decides to dish just because they offer a place to game.

Many players are not interested in playing with unpainted armies, and have no interest in encouraging that type of play.

This isn't any kind of a moral position, it is simply a preference of spending one's free time, the same way some people prefer cricket to football.

Scott-S6 wrote:However, if the social contract as that all miniatures are painted then there is no "refusing" and the standard is, generally, not questioned since that's what everyone adheres to.

Since the vast majority of 40K players don't play in tournaments I really don't see that this is relevant.

It's relevant because Tournaments can enforce painting of models with out stigma attached. If a store starts doing it then they lose customers, and most, if not all cannot afford to lose customers.

There is no contract to speak of, the only time I knew that painting models was mandatory was when I started playing in Tournaments. Before then I played at home with friends or when I played friends at the FLGS. No where in the BRB, at the store, or in my codexes has it been said that painting is mandatory. You can't have a contract based on heresay, or personal preference.

I personally enjoy playing against a painted army, but at the same time I won't refuse to play someone unless they give me a true good reason.

UsdiThunder wrote:It's relevant because Tournaments can enforce painting of models with out stigma attached. If a store starts doing it then they lose customers, and most, if not all cannot afford to lose customers.

How does that work? You've asserted that painting standards in a store would drive customers away. But painting standards in a tournament do not?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

UsdiThunder wrote: No where in the BRB, at the store, or in my codexes has it been said that painting is mandatory. You can't have a contract based on heresay, or personal preference.

Painted models only has been the standard in GW stores for 25-odd years. It has been relaxed only recently and only in some areas - as such, for many older players, there is an implicit expectation of painted models.

Tournaments are a different ball game designed to appeal to the more serious gamer. Painting, comp and win/loss are all factors. Some tournaments disallow special characters or forgeworld models others allow for some.

So if someone says "No special characters" they must be bad hobbyests because they are not considering everything. Just like the guy who doesn`t read HH novels or maybe the guy who only likes converting models or how about that guy who refuses to play anyone who plays a certain army a certain way...

Whatever.

This thread I think has gone on long enough and we are spinning in circles. Agree to disagree.

Dang,

Read through almost the entire thread (missed pages 2 and 3).

Unfortunately, my mind is still the same going into reading this thing as it stands as of this post. I can't paint to save my life, and I use washes faaaar to liberally to cover up my horrible painting. But I'm proud of what I've painted even though I know mostly everyone can paint better than me.

Since I know I suck at painting, I'm pretty fair at judging everyone elses painting. I don't mind shoddy painting so long as its painted.

Refusing to play because their army is not painted to your standard? That's pretty elitist and to be brutally honest, stuck up. I'm pretty sure you're not a Michelangelo yourself.

Scott-S6 brings up a good point about painting and tournaments. If you're not in a tourney, what does it matter if your guys aren't painted up to standard?

The only exception is if an army isn't even put togeter...like guys are missing arms or all you're playing is bases with no guys on em. That is what isn't so great. I'll play against the army, but inside I get a little disappointed.

Crantor wrote:Tournaments are a different ball game designed to appeal to the more serious gamer.

Thats the bottom line on that. Tournaments are pretty much a special case...they offer larger scale recognition and should be held to higher standards.

Mad4Minis wrote:

Crantor wrote:Tournaments are a different ball game designed to appeal to the more serious gamer.

Thats the bottom line on that. Tournaments are pretty much a special case...they offer larger scale recognition and should be held to higher standards.

This is true. Any tournament has its special rules. That's why its a TOURNAMENT and not a pickup game. The recongition you get for playing (and possibly winning) is what sets the standard.

Scott-S6 wrote:
I feel that it is. That reduced attachment that people have to their unpainted armies makes it much easier for them to quit the game.

Not to be a jerk, but I'm don't cry that much over FOTM people that cease to play. The more I read this thread the more it reminds me of hardcore MMO players vs casual players. Bottom line is that provided you meet the basic rule requirements, there is no "right" or "wrong" way to play ANY game. There is only what you enjoy and do not enjoy.


That being said, My Little Ponies and Gundams make me want to drop kick a kid off his 10 speed bike.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Kilkrazy wrote:Many players are not interested in playing with unpainted armies, and have no interest in encouraging that type of play.

This isn't any kind of a moral position, it is simply a preference of spending one's free time, the same way some people prefer BEER AND BASEBALL to PORK RINDS AND NASCARl.

Fixt so's Americans can relate.

Doombot001 wrote:Refusing to play because their army is not painted to your standard? That's pretty elitist and to be brutally honest, stuck up. I'm pretty sure you're not a Michelangelo yourself.

While I agree with your post, and many others, I'm a bit fed up with the elitist talk.

So everyone says it's lack of respect/consideration/empathy not to play an opponent because his army isn't fully painted.

However, no one considers the people who spend countless hours painting, labouring over an entire army, with more or less skill and dedication.

No one takes into account that for some people, the hobby experience is painting/modelling and wargaming as a whole. Playing with a full painted army over carefully built and painted terrain is part of an experience, adding to the "epicness" of it all. Why should people who have dedicated money and time to get their armies done are insulted? Isn't it also their right to pick who they play?

On the same subject, would everyone here play against Pretty/Hello Kitty Marines? Or Ork armies using an Orc fantasy army?

Might as well play with Legos or paper models like the ones in W40k 2nd Edition.

Just to reiterate, I would play against an opponent without a painted army. I pick my opponents based on other factors, but I'd prefer them to have a painted army. Part of me enjoying the battle is just that, as pitting two different armies creates a story, evokes a feeling that is much more than a bunch of miniatures; it really makes it look like two armies, two opposing forces.

Scott-S6 wrote:

UsdiThunder wrote:It's relevant because Tournaments can enforce painting of models with out stigma attached. If a store starts doing it then they lose customers, and most, if not all cannot afford to lose customers.

How does that work? You've asserted that painting standards in a store would drive customers away. But painting standards in a tournament do not?

Like you said here

Scott-S6 wrote:Since the vast majority of 40K players don't play in tournaments I really don't see that this is relevant

.
Most people who play 40k don't play in Tourneys, and to play in the tourney you have to play by the rules of the tourney. It is 100% voluntary to play in the tourney, but for those poeple looking to play with other players finding another store to play at is not voluntary. It may be the only store for hours.

Scott-S6 wrote:

UsdiThunder wrote: No where in the BRB, at the store, or in my codexes has it been said that painting is mandatory. You can't have a contract based on heresay, or personal preference.

Painted models only has been the standard in GW stores for 25-odd years. It has been relaxed only recently and only in some areas - as such, for many older players, there is an implicit expectation of painted models.

Maybe this is a difference in cultures. Here in Dayton, OH across the pond we don't have a GW store within hours of us, we have 2 FLGS. FLGS here out number the GW stores. In America out of 50 states we have only 12 states with GW stores. Our FLGS don't have a minimum painted policy unless it's a tournament, and even then there might not be one. Here loss of customers means we lose a store. If we lost our two stores here the closest would be 1.5 hours away in Cincinatti.

My opinion has been colored by where I've learned how to play. To be honest I doubt I would of gotten into 40k if I had someone refuse to play me when I first started. I doubt I would of bought anything from the store that said to play here you must have your miniatures painted. I would figure that paying $37.25 for 10 plastic army men from the store would of shown enough support to the store to play the game there.

I once thought it would be a blast to go to a GW store and play, but since less than 50% of my armies are painted, I'd rather not risk it.





Automatically Appended Next Post:
Yes I would play against hello kitty marines, pretty marines, even against Ultramarines



Automatically Appended Next Post:
I'd also play against Female marines with over sized chestplates too

You are confusing the purchase into the GW authorised universe with entry into the wider world of wargames. This is the root of the issue.

GW can of course enforce any standard they like in their own shops. IN recent years, their standards have become less onerous.

If you played at a typical club, who are interested in the interests of their members rather than maximising model sales, you would be gently discouraged from playing with unpainted figures.

At the same time, most clubs would offer you the chance to play with other people's painted figures while you got your army ready for the table.

Mad4Minis wrote:

wolfshadow wrote:

Mad4Minis wrote:

wolfshadow wrote: My GW where I started playing had a 3 color minimum for an army, and they wanted them based as well.

Thats complete bull. Not only would I never spend a single dime in a place with that attitude, but I would make every effort to divert other players to other retail or online sources. If they want things finished to a certain quality level then they can provide them, or deal with waht i bring. Now if this was a private clubs rules that would be fine...but for a business to make demands like that...far to snobby and unacceptable.


Personally, I prefer to have everything completely built and painted before I use it. Doesnt always work out that way, but I try. Now its been about 12 years since Ive played anything in a retail store. I do all my gaming at my house or a friends.

I could care less about how much or how well someone elses army is painted, but being partially assembled would be annoying. Not only would they need to be clear about what each unit was, but I might make them park a small note next to each one with the major details just so I dont have to keep asking or guessing. Also keeps things form changing during the game.

You want to draw people away from the only local place to play? Doesnt seem that sensible to me. There is, as far as I can tell, about 3 places in my city that I can regularly get a game in, if I'm interested. All 3 are 30+ minutes commute time via transit. If I want to get a game in, I pretty much have to play at the local GW. Why would I want to drive their customers away? So I have no place to play? I'd rather play at a place that has a painted army standard for gaming, than not play at all.

1) My point was that a place who wants people to spend money there shouldnt be so snobby, or expect backlash. If I go to a place to game and they are going to pick apart my army to make sure its up to their standards, then they can fark themselves, Im out. I wont be returning to play amd surely not to spend any money.

2) I take it since you need a public location to host your games you dont personally know anyone who plays, and require random pick-up games? Ive gone over 12 years without a LGS or GW and have spent many, many hours gaming. However, my gaming groups have always consisted of people I know and we simply game at someones house. For example I have a 5x3 foot dining room table that works good for most size games, and Ive collected a decent amount of terrain over time.

You dont need to put up with everything a place decides to dish just because they offer a place to game.

I'm getting back into the hobby after a 6+ year absence, and a 5 year total disinterest in the hobby. I no longer have any friends that play the game, and have to make do with what is available if I want to play.

But even when I was playing regularly, the deal was we generally played at the store, as they had terrain, and tablespace that we lacked. The whole culture of the hobby in my area at the time, along with many other areas. (See S6's posts) was that you showed up witha basically painted army, or you used someone else's painted army to play, untill yours was painted. Heck, there were times when we would get together at the store before hand to paint up a unit for someone so they could play with their army that night.

So, it appears that there are different culture groups within different gaming areas.

@ your comment about voting with your pocketbook. Well, as I said before... If I want to game, I have to abide by the rules that the local scene has in place, or I dont get to game. And frankly, its not a rule I have a problem with, and actually I like the rule.

Different strokes for different folks.

agroszkiewicz wrote:Not to be a jerk, but I'm don't cry that much over FOTM people that cease to play.

Agreed. But is it in the long-term interests of the store and the hobby to try harder to retain them? Would a painting standard achieve that?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

UsdiThunder wrote: but for those poeple looking to play with other players finding another store to play at is not voluntary. It may be the only store for hours.

This is a part of the US wargaming scene I find quite odd - you really don't need to play in a store. (I've played literally one game in a store since 2nd edition was released). Is there some sort of cultural aversion to forming clubs? Is it much harder to find available space to use? Whatever the reason, playing at home or in clubs seems to be far more common in the UK than in the US.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

UsdiThunder wrote:Our FLGS don't have a minimum painted policy unless it's a tournament, and even then there might not be one. Here loss of customers means we lose a store. If we lost our two stores here the closest would be 1.5 hours away in Cincinatti.

My opinion has been colored by where I've learned how to play. To be honest I doubt I would of gotten into 40k if I had someone refuse to play me when I first started.

I think that this is why this issue tends to get a little heated, there is a very fundamental cultural difference at work.

It wouldn't be a case of people refusing to play you when you got started. Rather, you would get started with the aspiration of getting an army painted quickly so that you could play. The expectation is completely different right from your first moment of contact with the hobby. If you've never seen an unpainted unit on the tabletop you wouldn't consider trying to get a game when your army was unpainted.

Clearly, painting standards do not drive customers away - GW have done just fine with those standards in place. Trying to change the existing social contract among a stores player base by imposing one where there was not one previously would be a very different story, however.

Scott-S6 wrote:

agroszkiewicz wrote:Not to be a jerk, but I'm don't cry that much over FOTM people that cease to play.

Agreed. But is it in the long-term interests of the store and the hobby to try harder to retain them? Would a painting standard achieve that?

Nah, them gaks would still jump ship to the new "cool" game. 40k is flat out too time consuming and expensive to keep non-dedicated fans for long.

Speaking as one of the "Terrible Hobbyists", I simply don't enjoy painting, at all. It stresses me out, tires my eyes, and always leaves me frustrated. Models almost never look like what I intended them to look like. Any enjoyment that I derive from painting is usually removed when I finally give up on getting a model to look exactly like I had planned (even though other people really seem to like them).

In addition, I enjoy the creativity of coming up with a paint scheme, not executing it again and again. I can paint an individual model to a pretty good standard (one that garners compliments), but repeating that paint scheme on more models just kills my interest.

I do like painted armies. I do appreciate how good the game looks when it is played by two painted armies.

However, I really enjoy playing, and I really enjoy modeling. It's very hard for me to spend my recreational time doing something that I don't like doing. I am totally willing to do things I don't like because I need to (such as work, or housecleaning). However, when I am trying to do something for FUN, I want it to be something that I actually enjoy.

I probably should have played Bretonnians, so that I could reasonably paint each model in a different way.

I do have a fully painted Necron Army, which was primed, sprayed with Boltgun Metal spray when GW made it, detailed with black on the guns, green on the tubes, and gold on the icons, then ink-washed in the crevices. They are well based, and the entire army has a clean, neat, consistent look to it. The army actually looks pretty darn good (painting bright silver under the gauss rods made them reflect light back up into the tubes), but it is also the army that I have the least interest in. I don't think I've played them for several years. There's nothing else in the army that I want to buy, or assemble, or paint.

I don't blame people for only wanting to play against painted models. However, please don't act like there is some universal hobby timeline which we all must follow, where the "good hobbyist" shows up each week with a little more progress made on his models, and the budding painter slowly becomes more adept. Some people buy individual models to paint and never assemble an army. They are a hobbyist too. I don't paint not because I am making excuses, or because I'm not good at it, but because I find it a frustrating, unenjoyable task. Perhaps if I could find a way to enjoy it more, I might paint more often.

I'm trying out something different to see if that helps: a Praetorian Armored Company. If I can play my cards right, all I will need is 2 squads of 10 Veterans, one 5 man command squad, and a bunch of tanks (which I seem to enjoy painting a little more than smaller models). Given that I only have 2 Troops squads for all those objective missions, I don't think I can reasonably be accused of power-gaming. Maybe painting less models per army will help.

Scott-S6 wrote: Is there some sort of cultural aversion to forming clubs? Is it much harder to find available space to use? Whatever the reason, playing at home or in clubs seems to be far more common in the UK than in the US.

To play at home, which I regularly do, I have to use my kitchen area or my garage to get the space needed for a 6x4 table +players, supplies, snacks, etc... I only have one person to play against here.

At a store there are anywhere from 6 to 12 tables, 6+ players willing to play, plus gets me away from the house after 45+ hour week with an extra 7.5 hours worth of commuting, family dramas, and lets me focus on the game without distractions.

Clubs have a negative connotation here. Clubs are what children belong to in school, or what motorcycle gangs belong to.

BluntmanDC wrote:

-Loki- wrote:Since it includes highlighting, it's reasonable. I was thinking they were also trying to stop people doing two colour armies (with highlighting), which do look fine if done right. Eyes though... I never do eyes. Might try on my Nids, but feth they're small eyes.

have you tried using very small nibbed pens, you can get them in 0.5mm width

My detail brush is smaller than that, I still can't do it. When I try to do details, my hands shake, and I haven't found a reliable way to brace them. Until I do, eyes will go unpainted.

I personally fall in the middle here; one army painted to a standard far below par (Dark Angels), one army painted to a tabletop standard (mostly) (Tau), and one army that is about 1/3 painted, varying from slightly sub-par to slightly above-par (Eldar). I find painting to be fun but it can rapidly become tedious if not sustained with regular games. I personally don't have issues playing unpainted armies. Some people play 40K just to play; who am I to look down on them (especially they usually beat me)? That said, I admire a well painted army and honestly battles between two painted forces acquire a degree of epicness unknown to the land of gray plastics. On a final note, I have fortunately never encountered a person who attempts to run unpainted marines as every codex. I consider myself lucky.

Lol look at the chaos ive created with this thread. Im in no way trolling but trying to form a rational debate and in the process sturred up a civil war of sorts. I think we are beating a dead horse in a ways as people keep repeating the same opinions over and over the fact still remains "people are just different" and there is no right or wrong person in this. Its just best that everyone play the game how they will and however they have fun.

All this because of one phrase I think..."Terrible Hobbyists"

Tell you what if I change the term to painting haters, or gamers vs hobbists, will that resove all our issues?

If a guy showes up FOR A YEAR with models modeled like the ones posted earlier on this thread and painted horribly, or not painted at all just because he wants to POWERGAME (just takes enjoyment from winning, no actual social enjoyment for just gamplay)and they start all over again the next time he thinks a cheese list surfaces... Im srry if you fit this description you are a TERRIBLE HOBBYIST and if that makes me a "nazi,elitist, pompus duech" then I will accept that and not play you and enjoy my game with one of my friends or a complete stranger that doesnt fit THAT^ description. They can continue playing the game how they want and prolly have fun, save alot of time and money, and be cancer free (apparently o_0) but they shouldnt plan on making many friends or finding many people to play while they continue powergaming with ugly models you bought off ebay or just never painted a year ago.

Reading this thread has made me pretty sad. There seems to be a pretty fierce and vehement defense of having unpainted miniatures.
I think things have been going around in circles a bit, with people seemingly taking things a bit personally (which is never a nice situation), so I will raise another point:

Is anyone else aware that in some of the LGS, paints are no longer provided free of charge?
I think this is a really sad situation - a lot of younger hobbyists are put off by the cost of paints (and even a minimum collection you are talking $50+).
This is not a good way of getting the new generation into what, for many people, is a large chunk of the hobby.

I realise this is getting off the point slightly, but could plastics be moulded pre-coloured?? Ork bodies green, trousers red , marines blue (or some suitalble colour) etc?? Then unpainted armies might not look so bad to those who have the time/money/patience/inclination/enter-your-reason-here to paint armies .

Would that be practical??

UsdiThunder wrote:Clubs have a negative connotation here. Clubs are what children belong to in school, or what motorcycle gangs belong to.

That's interesting. A lot (quite possibly the majority) of gaming in the UK happens in clubs.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Son_Of _Deddog wrote:I realise this is getting off the point slightly, but could plastics be moulded pre-coloured?? Ork bodies green, trousers red , marines blue (or some suitalble colour) etc?? Then unpainted armies might not look so bad to those who have the time/money/patience/inclination/enter-your-reason-here to paint armies .

Would that be practical??

Pre-painted is actually easier/cheaper to do. Look at starwars minis, AT-43, the deluxe edition of Dust: Tactics.

Some people love the idea. Some hate it.

@OP: At least he had his army painted, even if he didn't do a good job. Sure, it was crappy so he didn't want to claim it as his own, but still. Better than most...

I think 'pre-painted' is OK (AT-43 looked good), but I think the painting/modelling aspect of the hobby is inseparable from the gaming, at least as far as the current companies direction goes. Look at how much of the new WFB rulebook is dedicated to fantastic looking set-ups and models, it's impossible not to be enthused by!

Maybe in the future, if attention spans continue to decline, it might become a possibility for the company. Personally, I think if that happens they may as well sell to Bandai or Hasbro and be done with it.

No it's not. I'm not "enthused" about it. I dread painting, and it's a chore that I wish I could afford to make someone else do.