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.

LunaHound wrote:
Because a painter / collector would field multiple standalone armies.

Where a player would just add them together and end up with less total models since they are all gray.

Oh, you're refering to the self impossed compultion to only field one chapter at a time and only as the chapter it's painted as. Yeah, that's a real bonus for Games Workshop. I thought you meant something else.

dripwelquest wrote:

LunaHound wrote:
Because a painter / collector would field multiple standalone armies.

Where a player would just add them together and end up with less total models since they are all gray.

Oh, you're refering to the self impossed compultion to only field one chapter at a time and only as the chapter it's painted as. Yeah, that's a real bonus for Games Workshop. I thought you meant something else.

xD

Sidstyler wrote:I'm just keeping my army true to the background. All the artwork in my codex is in black, white, and grey, so...grey minis are more fluffy than your painted ones. :3

"Stelek" and "fun" should never be uttered in the same breathe...

If I had the money, I'd love to field several different SM chapters, each painted up in their proper regalia. As it stands, I have a generically painted SM foce, that I can use as most regular chapters. Kudos to the guy with all those beautifully painted armies though.

I prefer to play against painted mini but it is not compulsary.

Some guys just don't like painting, I can deal with it.

Eh. I can easily get as indignant over some fully-painted player that does not change up either their models or tactics, and as a result becomes predictable and easily beaten time and again.

It really is about personal preference, which is why trying to define the hobby by the way that you participate in it is not only futile, but narrow minded and silly.

sourclams wrote:Eh. I can easily get as indignant over some fully-painted player that does not change up either their models or tactics, and as a result becomes predictable and easily beaten time and again.

It really is about personal preference, which is why trying to define the hobby by the way that you participate in it is not only futile, but narrow minded and silly.

Nicely stated sourclams.

sourclams wrote:It really is about personal preference, which is why trying to define the hobby by the way that you participate in it is not only futile, but narrow minded and silly.

Why do people have such a hard time separating the definition of the hobby from the specifics parts of it that they enjoy?

Las wrote:

sourclams wrote:It really is about personal preference, which is why trying to define the hobby by the way that you participate in it is not only futile, but narrow minded and silly.

Why do people have such a hard time separating the definition of the hobby from the specifics parts of it that they enjoy?

Because they want to feel better about themselves instead of admitting their shortcomings. I'm simply not good at layups in basketball despite having the height to actually do so. Therefore, layups are not part of my basketball and are haven't been historically part of the sport anyways... it's completely ridiculous reasoning. If you have ZERO interest in painting, just admit it and stop worrying about what others think. Don't sit there and try to redefine "your" or "my" or "our" hobby with your own ala carte interests. Painting IS a part of THE hobby that is generally completely optional (as is every part). Just realize that the choice to ignore parts of it does occasionally have a consequence.

Las wrote:

sourclams wrote:It really is about personal preference, which is why trying to define the hobby by the way that you participate in it is not only futile, but narrow minded and silly.

Why do people have such a hard time separating the definition of the hobby from the specifics parts of it that they enjoy?

I have a hard time understanding why certain people wish to define the hobby for everybody.

augustus5 wrote:

Las wrote:

sourclams wrote:It really is about personal preference, which is why trying to define the hobby by the way that you participate in it is not only futile, but narrow minded and silly.

Why do people have such a hard time separating the definition of the hobby from the specifics parts of it that they enjoy?

I have a hard time understanding why certain people wish to define the hobby for everybody.

The hobby HAS BEEN defined for decades. If anyone is trying to redefine it, it's the revisionists who somehow want to erase painting as part of it. Feel free not to paint; just don't kid yourself that you're not ignoring a part of it.

warboss wrote:

augustus5 wrote:

Las wrote:

sourclams wrote:It really is about personal preference, which is why trying to define the hobby by the way that you participate in it is not only futile, but narrow minded and silly.

Why do people have such a hard time separating the definition of the hobby from the specifics parts of it that they enjoy?

I have a hard time understanding why certain people wish to define the hobby for everybody.

The hobby HAS BEEN defined for decades. If anyone is trying to redefine it, it's the revisionists who somehow want to erase painting as part of it. Feel free not to paint; just don't kid yourself that you're not ignoring a part of it.

I have played wargames for almost twenty years, and in that time, aside from historicals, I have seen unpainted armies in play in FLGSs and tournaments. There has never been a hard rule in any rulebook edition of 40k or fantasy saying that the game is intended for fully painted armies only. Don't kid yourself that it's ever been any different.

augustus5 wrote:
I have played wargames for almost twenty years, and in that time, aside from historicals, I have seen unpainted armies in play in FLGSs and tournaments. There has never been a hard rule in any rulebook edition of 40k or fantasy saying that the game is intended for fully painted armies only. Don't kid yourself that it's ever been any different.

Thank you for completely missing the point and putting words in my mouth but I guess it's easier to "win" a discussion that way instead of addressing what is actually said. I never said you MUST paint or that games are intended ONLY for fully painted armies; instead, I've said "feel free to not paint". My point is just that painting has always been a part of THE hobby (no "your" or "my" BS) that people have always had a choice to ignore. People just need to be honest about the fact that they're IGNORING a part of THE hobby instead of trying to redefine it to suit their own lack of time/talent/interest.

Back in the day, you were not allowed to play in Battle Bunkers or most independent gaming stores without fully painted and based armies... One I used to go to even had house rules that unpainted minis had St and T 1 LOL! Things have changed and in order to not scare new gamers off this stigma has fallen wayside but for me and some old school gamers who remember how it was it is almost shameful to field unpainted figs, especially at tourneys... My personal opinion is different however, I hate to see quality minis being abused with fast paint jobs just for the sake of having paint on them, I think as long as they are all primed who cares....

It is IMHO irritating to see some of the same faces pop up in tournament after tournament over the years with no progress shown... I think tournaments are a different matter and models should be finished especially when there is an entry fee... I don't like paying to see crap on the nice tables...

Why is painting a model not part of the modelling process in taking something from a blister to the tabletop? This is the normal hobby, if you look around at wargaming in general. If you don't paint your army, you are not fulfilling part of the hobby. Models are supposed to be painted to be on the tabletop. However much the non-painters want to devolve the two and claim they have a different hobby, no they don't. It's the same hobby, and they decline to participate in part of it.

As for GW accepting non-painted figures, well GW aren't part of the normal hobby. They are the GW hobby and exist to shift stuff as fast as they can. They allow non-painted for one reason - it's part of the sell stuff fast strategy. If they tell kids they have to paint it properly before using it in store then the kids might think twice about buying it. If they say you can use it almost straight out the box then they will buy it. It's no wonder with the high turnover of armies, the White Dwarf "BUY THIS NOW" approach that the priority is on shifting flavour of the month armies ASAP. Telling people to paint isn't compatible with that, by the time they have painted it the next flavour of the month army will be out and they will be pressuring kids to buy that instead.

That's why there's no painting requirements in GW. And that's also why there are so few armies. Lots of youngsters with ants in their lacking the patience to paint models properly because they need to have then NOW and use them right NOW.

The idea that people who don't paint are some sort of martyrs for people with 'real lives' is such nonsense. Pretty much everyone who isn't a kid has a job and family commitments. We all manage to paint. If you don't, it's because you choose not to for whatever reason. No patience/laziness/personal dislike etc.

warboss wrote:

augustus5 wrote:
I have played wargames for almost twenty years, and in that time, aside from historicals, I have seen unpainted armies in play in FLGSs and tournaments. There has never been a hard rule in any rulebook edition of 40k or fantasy saying that the game is intended for fully painted armies only. Don't kid yourself that it's ever been any different.

Thank you for completely missing the point and putting words in my mouth but I guess it's easier to "win" a discussion that way instead of addressing what is actually said. I never said you MUST paint or that games are intended ONLY for fully painted armies; instead, I've said "feel free to not paint". My point is just that painting has always been a part of THE hobby (no "your" or "my" BS) that people have always had a choice to ignore. People just need to be honest about the fact that they're IGNORING a part of THE hobby instead of trying to redefine it to suit their own lack of time/talent/interest.

You're missing my point that painting is not part of the hobby, any more than converting, or flocking bases. The game requires a WYSIWYG model on it's appropriately sized and supplied base to represent a unit in the game. If someone chooses not to paint, they are not ignoring part of the hobby, but rather not taking part in an extra-curricular aspect of the hobby.

Edit: I'm typing this as the base coat on my Paladins is drying...

How is painting "extra-curricular"?

Sorry, but these models are designed to be painted just like every other miniature figure and model kit, aside from those that are pre-painted.

augustus5 wrote:
I have a hard time understanding why certain people wish to define the hobby for everybody.

augustus5 wrote:
You're missing my point that painting is not part of the hobby.

Hypocrite. These statements are not even an hour apart.

Define:to explain or identify the nature or essential qualities of.

You say you can't understand why people do it, then turn around and belch out your definition of the hobby for everyone? Nice.

Howard A Treesong wrote:How is painting "extra-curricular"?

Sorry, but these models are designed to be painted just like every other miniature figure and model kit, aside from those that are pre-painted.

I don't buy that argument. Of course models look considerably better when painted nicely, but I can't find anything in any edition of the 40k rulebooks that state that models used in the game should be painted/converted/flocked. WYSIWYG is mentioned, as is a requirement for a model to be glued to the base that it comes packaged with, but no mention of a paint requirement. Paint requirements are imposed by individuals, gaming groups, TOs, and store owners, and increasingly are required by fewer and fewer of these groups. Please prove me wrong by showing that painting is a required part of the hobby if you can.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

nkelsch wrote:

augustus5 wrote:
I have a hard time understanding why certain people wish to define the hobby for everybody.

augustus5 wrote:
You're missing my point that painting is not part of the hobby.

Hypocrite. These statements are not even an hour apart.

How exactly am I a hypocrite? I state that I don't understand why people wish to define the hobby by pushing a non-existing painting requirement onto others. Later Warboss states,

The hobby HAS BEEN defined for decades. If anyone is trying to redefine it, it's the revisionists who somehow want to erase painting as part of it. Feel free not to paint; just don't kid yourself that you're not ignoring a part of it.

, to which I respond that painting is not a part of the hobby. Perhaps I should have added for everyone? I have stated time and again in this thread that people, TOs, gaming groups, and store owners should feel free to define the hobby for their group/tourney, etc., but that no person can define it for everybody. Some of the Pro-paint crowd here repeatedly state that those who don't paint are either ignoring part of the hobby, or participating in something entirely different. I don't feel that's the case.

So next time, before making yourself look like an ass by calling somebody a hypocrite, try and read the entire thread.

augustus5 wrote:

warboss wrote:

augustus5 wrote:
I have played wargames for almost twenty years, and in that time, aside from historicals, I have seen unpainted armies in play in FLGSs and tournaments. There has never been a hard rule in any rulebook edition of 40k or fantasy saying that the game is intended for fully painted armies only. Don't kid yourself that it's ever been any different.

Thank you for completely missing the point and putting words in my mouth but I guess it's easier to "win" a discussion that way instead of addressing what is actually said. I never said you MUST paint or that games are intended ONLY for fully painted armies; instead, I've said "feel free to not paint". My point is just that painting has always been a part of THE hobby (no "your" or "my" BS) that people have always had a choice to ignore. People just need to be honest about the fact that they're IGNORING a part of THE hobby instead of trying to redefine it to suit their own lack of time/talent/interest.

You're missing my point that painting is not part of the hobby, any more than converting, or flocking bases. The game requires a WYSIWYG model on it's appropriately sized and supplied base to represent a unit in the game. If someone chooses not to paint, they are not ignoring part of the hobby, but rather not taking part in an extra-curricular aspect of the hobby.

Edit: I'm typing this as the base coat on my Paladins is drying...

Except it clearly is part of the hobby, not the GW hobby, or the PP hobby, or the tiny garage company hobby, but the hobby of table top wargaming.
I don't see why you, and others, are jumping through hoops to imply that painting armies is some sort of peripheral, vaguely related, exercise. People that don't paint their models are choosing not to participate in part of the hobby. That doesn't make them sub-human or evil, but it is what they're doing.
Warboss isn't missing your point, he's refuting your point.

augustus5 wrote:You're missing my point that painting is not part of the hobby, any more than converting, or flocking bases. The game requires a WYSIWYG model on it's appropriately sized and supplied base to represent a unit in the game. If someone chooses not to paint, they are not ignoring part of the hobby, but rather not taking part in an extra-curricular aspect of the hobby.

I agree that painting is no more or less a part of the hobby than assembly, converting, or basing, all of which are part of THE complete hobby that people can choose to partake of. As for that last sentance ignoring supposed "extra-curricular aspects of the hobby", that is nonsensical and completely self-serving revisionist redefinition of THE hobby. Could you please show me where a long standing company or group or website about THE hobby actually says anything remotely similar to that? You've been playing for two decades so there must be some reference to your claim. Painting is not something that is incidentally done to miniatures by a small group relatively recently but a long standing (and completely option... have to restate it before you try to put words in my mouth again) tradition in THE hobby since it's inception.

warboss wrote:

augustus5 wrote:You're missing my point that painting is not part of the hobby, any more than converting, or flocking bases. The game requires a WYSIWYG model on it's appropriately sized and supplied base to represent a unit in the game. If someone chooses not to paint, they are not ignoring part of the hobby, but rather not taking part in an extra-curricular aspect of the hobby.

I agree that painting is no more or less a part of the hobby than assembly, converting, or basing, all of which are part of THE complete hobby that people can choose to partake of. As for that last sentance ignoring supposed "extra-curricular aspects of the hobby", that is nonsensical and completely self-serving revisionist redefinition of THE hobby. Could you please show me where a long standing company or group or website about THE hobby actually says anything remotely similar to that? You've been playing for two decades so there must be some reference to your claim. Painting is not something that is incidentally done to miniatures by a small group relatively recently but a long standing (and completely option... have to restate it before you try to put words in my mouth again) tradition in THE hobby since it's inception.

I'm paging through my trusty copy of Warhammer 40k Rogue Trader, trying to find this painting requirement that established painting as part of the hobby, but I can't seem to find it anywhere.

augustus5 wrote:

How exactly am I a hypocrite?

Because you're clearly trying to define the hobby in a different way.
When you're at the point of distinguishing between painting being not "part" of the hobby but an "extracurricular aspect" of the hobby I feel like you're just trying to make an argument for the sake or arguing.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

augustus5 wrote:

warboss wrote:

augustus5 wrote:You're missing my point that painting is not part of the hobby, any more than converting, or flocking bases. The game requires a WYSIWYG model on it's appropriately sized and supplied base to represent a unit in the game. If someone chooses not to paint, they are not ignoring part of the hobby, but rather not taking part in an extra-curricular aspect of the hobby.

I agree that painting is no more or less a part of the hobby than assembly, converting, or basing, all of which are part of THE complete hobby that people can choose to partake of. As for that last sentance ignoring supposed "extra-curricular aspects of the hobby", that is nonsensical and completely self-serving revisionist redefinition of THE hobby. Could you please show me where a long standing company or group or website about THE hobby actually says anything remotely similar to that? You've been playing for two decades so there must be some reference to your claim. Painting is not something that is incidentally done to miniatures by a small group relatively recently but a long standing (and completely option... have to restate it before you try to put words in my mouth again) tradition in THE hobby since it's inception.

I'm paging through my trusty copy of Warhammer 40k Rogue Trader, trying to find this painting requirement that established painting as part of the hobby, but I can't seem to find it anywhere.

Yup, you're just being a ridiculous pedant now. /ignore

augustus5 wrote:
I don't buy that argument. Of course models look considerably better when painted nicely, but I can't find anything in any edition of the 40k rulebooks that state that models used in the game should be painted/converted/flocked. WYSIWYG is mentioned, as is a requirement for a model to be glued to the base that it comes packaged with, but no mention of a paint requirement. Paint requirements are imposed by individuals, gaming groups, TOs, and store owners, and increasingly are required by fewer and fewer of these groups. Please prove me wrong by showing that painting is a required part of the hobby if you can.

Second sentance in the 5th edition rulebook, page IV refers specifically to painted armies. Also, 4th paragraph on the same page:

"players MUST be prepared to expend time and effort collecting, assembling, and PAINTING their models"

My emphasis but quoted exactly from the FIRST REAL PAGE OF THE RULEBOOK.

augustus5 wrote:

How exactly am I a hypocrite? I state that I don't understand why people wish to define the hobby by pushing a non-existing painting requirement onto others. Later Warboss states,

The hobby HAS BEEN defined for decades. If anyone is trying to redefine it, it's the revisionists who somehow want to erase painting as part of it. Feel free not to paint; just don't kid yourself that you're not ignoring a part of it.

, to which I respond that painting is not a part of the hobby. Perhaps I should have added for everyone? I have stated time and again in this thread that people, TOs, gaming groups, and store owners should feel free to define the hobby for their group/tourney, etc., but that no person can define it for everybody. Some of the Pro-paint crowd here repeatedly state that those who don't paint are either ignoring part of the hobby, or participating in something entirely different. I don't feel that's the case.

So next time, before making yourself look like an ass by calling somebody a hypocrite, try and read the entire thread.

You are a hypocrite, hypocrite. You claim to be the only 'true definer' of the 'hobby' because you are pushing a self-serving definition based upon a lack of words within a rulebook for a game as if the rulebook for a game defines the hobby overall. "Oh it is not there, therefor my definition is correct and I don't know why anyone bothers to define it elsewhere."

You know why people define the 'hobby' because you are doing it! Saying the 40k rulebook says nothing about paint so that then defines 'the bobby' as only things mandated by rules is absurd, and intellectually dishonest, and making a definition based upon NOTHING and claiming all other people making definitions are wrong makes you a HYPOCRITE.

Edit: I see painting is in the rulebook. I look forward for your revised definition of the hobby to now include painting because the rulebook which you claim is the only source to define now says it is part of the hobby.

augustus5 wrote:

Howard A Treesong wrote:How is painting "extra-curricular"?

Sorry, but these models are designed to be painted just like every other miniature figure and model kit, aside from those that are pre-painted.

I don't buy that argument. Of course models look considerably better when painted nicely, but I can't find anything in any edition of the 40k rulebooks that state that models used in the game should be painted/converted/flocked. WYSIWYG is mentioned, as is a requirement for a model to be glued to the base that it comes packaged with, but no mention of a paint requirement. Paint requirements are imposed by individuals, gaming groups, TOs, and store owners, and increasingly are required by fewer and fewer of these groups. Please prove me wrong by showing that painting is a required part of the hobby if you can.

The warhammer rulebook does not define the wargaming hobby, although you will find instructions on how to paint and no unpainted models are used in photos. Painting is as old as the hobby, the only figures that are not intended to be painted are those sold pre-painted.

If you want to be picky, then no painting isn't "required" to play the game. But then, nor are figures really. They are only counters after all. Painting doesn't render the game unplayable in the same manner as say, forgetting to bring dice and rulers. But in any meaningful sense, these figures are intended to be painted. It's not an "extra-curricular" activity, it's just one that doesn't render the game unplayable if you don't do it. That's not quite the same thing. Writing your own fluff is "extra-curricular", painting is just normal behaviour, at least in the wargaming hobby as a whole.

Howard A Treesong wrote:it's just one that doesn't render the game unplayable if you don't do it.

The game can be rendered unplayable without clear unit designations where models are the same and have no difference between units.

There have been multiple examples where 'ard boyz games were damaged to an unplayable point due to lack of painting where units merged together and players were unable to keep track of the units.

augustus5 wrote:
I'm paging through my trusty copy of Warhammer 40k Rogue Trader, trying to find this painting requirement that established painting as part of the hobby, but I can't seem to find it anywhere.

There has never been a painting "requirement" but painting has always been a part of THE hobby. Most Rogue Trader books have back binding so I'll just assume you're not being obtuse and simply are missing the pages for the section "Assembling and Painting Your Forces" (248-254). I suspect most reasonable people when looking at a minis rulebook that has almost entirely painted minis shown in the pictures and has a specific section devoted to the painting of those minis would assume that painting is a part of THE hobby.

Unpainted armies definitely bother me alot, because there is no flair to them, practically no aesthetic value.