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.

Slipspace wrote:
I'm genuinely confused how people can find playing against unpainted armies unfun to the point they will refuse a game against them. Doubly so when the poster I replied to specifically said gaming was one part of the hobby as a whole and then said they wouldn't take part in that side of the hobby with someone who hadn't taken part in one of the other (rather arbitrarily designated) parts of the hobby. Like, I understand you'd prefer to play on a brilliantly modelled board with fantastic terrain against a well-painted army, and I think all gamers would probably prefer that as the pinnacle of the hobby, but I just can't understand a situation where someone says no to a game because the opponent hasn't painted their army, especially because the poster in question specifically said they'd wait and not play at all until such an opponent materialises. So if no such opponent exists in their area they just wouldn't play? Yeah, not too logical to me.

As Jidmah alluded to, I have played a couple hundred tabletop games (board games, card games, war games, rpgs, etc.) and find the actual game part of Warhammer 40k to be in the bottom 25% of all everything I have played before. Without the spectacle and immersive elements of painted armies (and players having a bit of personal lore on their stuff) the game seems like a kinda a waste of my time if I am playing Marlon Rando most of the time. Though, there is a occasional diamond in the rough gaming moments. More often than not, the game is basically already decided before the first miniature hits the table. Even if it isn't, there really doesn't seem to be that many 'decision points' (read: parts of the game where a player makes a meaningful choice to pursue one choice over another) compared to most mediocre or better board games post-2012.. So why would I want to commit to a few hours of looking at a random collection of stuff passing for terrain and gray/silver bits with a stranger in an activity that probably won't even be a contest for the winner? I don't have the kind of free time to take that risk as much these days. At least with painted stuff I can something at least visually simulating.

I can't spend more than a couple nights at the FLGS so if spectacle nor social element aren't really there, and I want to play a game that feels like fair match of wit and luck, I might as well go to the board game night instead. It is just a better experience for that kind of thing for me. Now unpainted stuff doesn't bother me too much if isn't my stuff. However, I will fully admit I don't really bother driving through Friday night traffic to park a few blocks away carrying a couple of cases of models just to get play a game of 40K against a person that has unpainted and barely built models. That is too many things creating resistance to play a game I only kinda acceptable to play.

I actually enjoy just walking around during tournaments even for games I don't play just to see what others have done with their forces. Far more than I ever would actually playing in a tournament. I am just not a tournament kind of player. It is always neat to me to see what kind of local artistry of other miniatures painters. I also really appreciate the gamer paint jobs as they usually aren't as good as painting competition models. However, there is something about a person's whole army on display over a single well done piece. I don't know, whole armies just feel more honest rock n' roll to me compared to a single well done piece. So a lot of time it is much like the enjoyment I would get walking through an art museum.

Last and certainly least, my personal experience as been that nearly all all my bad gaming experiences from my opponent have been facing unpainted models. I am excluding new players, of course, and I am mostly speaking of players that have had unpainted army(s) but has been playing for years. I not saying that all games against unpainted armies are always bad experiences. Just like I am not saying that all painted armies owners are always going to be good experiences. I am just saying that my personal experience has been that I haven't really met a person with a fully painted army that was unbearable to play, but I have a few times with players that didn't. I also don't think it is fair to lump all unpainted army players in with the few bad apples. However, my experience has lead me to be weary of anyone that has been miniatures war gaming for years but has never painted their stuff. Even if they are a decent person and player, we probably aren't looking to get the same thing out of our game leading to disappoint for both parties. Often best just not risk it since I would rather not game at all than spend a few hours feeling like I am work but not getting paid.

Saturmorn Carvilli is spot on with how I feel.

Honestly my favorite reason to go to Adepticon or Nova is to walk around looking at everyone's armies and talking about painting and conversions

 JNAProductions wrote:

Spoiler:

 Jidmah wrote:

Slipspace wrote:
I'm genuinely confused how people can find playing against unpainted armies unfun to the point they will refuse a game against them. Doubly so when the poster I replied to specifically said gaming was one part of the hobby as a whole and then said they wouldn't take part in that side of the hobby with someone who hadn't taken part in one of the other (rather arbitrarily designated) parts of the hobby. Like, I understand you'd prefer to play on a brilliantly modelled board with fantastic terrain against a well-painted army, and I think all gamers would probably prefer that as the pinnacle of the hobby, but I just can't understand a situation where someone says no to a game because the opponent hasn't painted their army, especially because the poster in question specifically said they'd wait and not play at all until such an opponent materialises. So if no such opponent exists in their area they just wouldn't play? Yeah, not too logical to me.

From what I understand, the difference is whether you are playing WH40k as a wargame or if you are playing it as a tabletop board game.

Wargaming is closer to having a model railway - it's more about having epic or historic scenes unfold while moving about models and less about either side actually winning the game. Just like you wouldn't run an unpainted train through your beautifully crafted landscape, those people wouldn't want an unpainted tank lumbering over their battlefield.

All assuming rational people, of course. There are also people who throw a fit because a vibrating mobile phone ruins their immersion or because you painted your apothecary in a non-canon color. Feth them.

In any case, neither the wargamers nor the tabletop players are wrong. However, anyone claiming either is not properly participating in the hobby most definitely is wrong.

I object to your exact wording-to me, a wargame is a simulation of war in game format. Armies fighting other armies, attempting to achieve objectives. It has nothing to do with spectacle.

Your general point, though, is a good one-I merely think you chose the wrong term.

I think Jidmah's right about the spectacle, they're just missing the "miniature" part of "miniature wargaming." If we were pure wargamers only concerned about the simulation, we'd only be playing hex-and-counter wargames where the mechanics of the game take priority over how the game actually looks. Heroes of Black Reach from Devil Pig Games does that for 40k, funny enough. If you want a tactical experience over a visual experience I very much recommend HoBR since it gives a good "feeling" of 40k with a good set of tactical rules. At the very least, if we were more concerned about the simulation, then we'd be playing with wooden blocks, cardboard chits or paper cutouts to represent squads or even individuals. None of which needs much investment in terms of time and can still look pretty good if done well.

But we're here for the pageantry of the little plastic, resin, and metal toys we put on the table as we are for the dice rolling. And part of that involves the painting thereof.

I would rather only play people who make the effort to paint their models (even if their force is in-progress) because I only want to play against people who are like-minded and are as gung-ho about the hobby as I am. I don't think it's high minded of me to think that way, it's just because during a game it's another thing I enjoy that I can talk about with my opponent.

To me the hobby side of miniatures wargaming is the entire point, otherwise it's easier to play video games where the work is done for you and you can just enjoy the mechanics. I want to see other people's cool spin on things, and have my own work be driven forward by some healthy competition over who can show up with the coolest ideas. And THEN have some fun playing the game with those ideas.

Honestly, not having any inclination to model or paint forces is right up there with people who moan about how much work it is to make terrain to play on. If someone doesn't like any part of the handiwork side of wargaming, then minis wargaming is a really wierd hobby to get into versus all the boardgames that can give the same feel without the work (Heroes of Normandie and Heroes of Black Reach are my absolute favorites in that realm. They give all the mechanical experiences of a minis game other than the actual minis, yet still have forces and battlefields look awesome.)

I mean, minis gaming can be perfectly rewarding if all the terrain and models are left unpainted, but it loses some of it's soul at the same time.

While I do paint and actually paint well , tho slowly. I really don't care if my miniatures are painted or not. I am in it for the gaming mostly and I don't care if the rules are simple, good or bad and I don't like boardgames. So all you fellows who think people who don't paint should play something else well "That's like your opinion, man". I play miniature wargames because I played with toy soldier's as a kid. I played cool battles with my mono colored toy soldier's too but I never considered painting the things and wouldn't have anyway. Fast forward to now and I just consider miniature wargames an extension of toy soldiering. If you feel this hobby is some sort of artistic expression then good for you but don't pretend to force your standards on those of us who don't feel the same. Maybe this is why I prefer to solo game these days, so much freedom!

Kenshinzo 7: Check out Rangers of Shadow Deep! It can be single player and you don't have to paint/use offical models. You can use whatever you have laying around. You may want to check out Kings of War or some of the smaller scale Age of Sigmar games (Beastgrave). I have a friend who prints out his squares for KoW and they dont even need minis!

You're right on the second point as well! We're all nerds playing with little plastic toys for some fake cinematic meet up at a comic shop to roll some dice to represent a fantasy we're having. It's whatever your mind can visualize. The Red little men fighting the blue bugs and so on. I didnt bother to paint Space Hulk for the same reason.


I'm in the entire hobby for terrain and storyline. Frostgrave and Mordheim are my favorite games right now since it has what I'm looking for.

 infinite_array wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:

Spoiler:

 Jidmah wrote:

Slipspace wrote:
I'm genuinely confused how people can find playing against unpainted armies unfun to the point they will refuse a game against them. Doubly so when the poster I replied to specifically said gaming was one part of the hobby as a whole and then said they wouldn't take part in that side of the hobby with someone who hadn't taken part in one of the other (rather arbitrarily designated) parts of the hobby. Like, I understand you'd prefer to play on a brilliantly modelled board with fantastic terrain against a well-painted army, and I think all gamers would probably prefer that as the pinnacle of the hobby, but I just can't understand a situation where someone says no to a game because the opponent hasn't painted their army, especially because the poster in question specifically said they'd wait and not play at all until such an opponent materialises. So if no such opponent exists in their area they just wouldn't play? Yeah, not too logical to me.

From what I understand, the difference is whether you are playing WH40k as a wargame or if you are playing it as a tabletop board game.

Wargaming is closer to having a model railway - it's more about having epic or historic scenes unfold while moving about models and less about either side actually winning the game. Just like you wouldn't run an unpainted train through your beautifully crafted landscape, those people wouldn't want an unpainted tank lumbering over their battlefield.

All assuming rational people, of course. There are also people who throw a fit because a vibrating mobile phone ruins their immersion or because you painted your apothecary in a non-canon color. Feth them.

In any case, neither the wargamers nor the tabletop players are wrong. However, anyone claiming either is not properly participating in the hobby most definitely is wrong.

I object to your exact wording-to me, a wargame is a simulation of war in game format. Armies fighting other armies, attempting to achieve objectives. It has nothing to do with spectacle.

Your general point, though, is a good one-I merely think you chose the wrong term.

I think Jidmah's right about the spectacle, they're just missing the "miniature" part of "miniature wargaming." If we were pure wargamers only concerned about the simulation, we'd only be playing hex-and-counter wargames where the mechanics of the game take priority over how the game actually looks. Heroes of Black Reach from Devil Pig Games does that for 40k, funny enough. If you want a tactical experience over a visual experience I very much recommend HoBR since it gives a good "feeling" of 40k with a good set of tactical rules. At the very least, if we were more concerned about the simulation, then we'd be playing with wooden blocks, cardboard chits or paper cutouts to represent squads or even individuals. None of which needs much investment in terms of time and can still look pretty good if done well.

But we're here for the pageantry of the little plastic, resin, and metal toys we put on the table as we are for the dice rolling. And part of that involves the painting thereof.

No it isn’t. It’s only part of it if you want it to be. Having painted models is not a requirement to play the game. if I don’t have paint on my tank it’s not going to effect my dice rolls.

As I've said before in other threads, anyone who doesn't like how my miniatures are painted (or not) is welcome to paint them for me. My hobby, my time, my interests. Sometimes I paint, sometimes I don't, and it's always as the creative mood strikes. I'll eventually get my army painted, but in the meantime, play against me how it is or paint it yourself.

Also as a note, I've literally never had anyone turn me away for not having a painted army, but then, I don't go to tournies. Tournaments are welcome to have whatever rules they like, and so are individuals. Just know, going into a game with me, if you don't want to play against unpainted models, you should say so up front. And again, feel free to paint my models for me to the standard you expect. I won't mind.

You don't have to paint or even use models for whatever reason you want, your stuff just looks bad. You are welcome to have no standards and violate basic convention because you don't want to paint. Nobody will give you crap about it outside of discussion about the necessity of paint here, in reality people don't care and will keep quiet about how bad your stuff looks and politely decline/avoid with some excuse.

 Irkjoe wrote:
You don't have to paint or even use models for whatever reason you want, your stuff just looks bad. You are welcome to have no standards and violate basic convention because you don't want to paint. Nobody will give you crap about it outside of discussion about the necessity of paint here, in reality people don't care and will keep quiet about how bad your stuff looks and politely decline/avoid with some excuse.

We probably know each other. Our local area in Philly has a ton of talented painters and besides the warmachine crowd most players paint around Philly. (North/Coastal NJ has a ton of Warmahordes players with nicely painted armies actually).

I feel like it depends on your local store. When I started wargaming at a Gamesworkshop store as a teenager they had a rule for Veteran's night required fully painted and based models. I was used to that and participating in events. The few Dakka members here that do not paint also stated they do not attend tournaments or tend to play solo or elsewhere.

There are so many reasons why people online claim to be declining games, who cares if painting is one of them.

 Irkjoe wrote:
You don't have to paint or even use models for whatever reason you want, your stuff just looks bad. You are welcome to have no standards and violate basic convention because you don't want to paint. Nobody will give you crap about it outside of discussion about the necessity of paint here, in reality people don't care and will keep quiet about how bad your stuff looks and politely decline/avoid with some excuse.

My stuff looks fine, in my opinion, and mine is as valid as yours. I have fine standards - they just involve gameplay and sportsmanship rather than whether or not I slapped a certain number of pigments on a toy. Also, convention can climb a tree. There's no basic convention about having painted models, though there is a trend. As many games in my area are played with painted models as without, and no one says anything about "convention." Pfath. Convention is the weakest possible argument for painting, it's the "we've always done it this way!" of this argument.

EDIT: Also, thanks for being condescending, insulting, and downright rude about your response.

 Octopoid wrote:

 Irkjoe wrote:
You don't have to paint or even use models for whatever reason you want, your stuff just looks bad. You are welcome to have no standards and violate basic convention because you don't want to paint. Nobody will give you crap about it outside of discussion about the necessity of paint here, in reality people don't care and will keep quiet about how bad your stuff looks and politely decline/avoid with some excuse.

My stuff looks fine, in my opinion, and mine is as valid as yours. I have fine standards - they just involve gameplay and sportsmanship rather than whether or not I slapped a certain number of pigments on a toy. Also, convention can climb a tree. There's no basic convention about having painted models, though there is a trend. As many games in my area are played with painted models as without, and no one says anything about "convention." Pfath. Convention is the weakest possible argument for painting, it's the "we've always done it this way!" of this argument.

EDIT: Also, thanks for being condescending, insulting, and downright rude about your response.

Take it however you want, the point is that hobby miniature games are supposed to be painted as opposed to unpainted. It doesn't matter how you feel about it, that's the intent. There is something to be said about paint adding to the game in the same way that models do. If you are only concerned with gameplay and sports then you can do that with token proxies.

Fine if you don't want to paint, your time and money. But no matter how you rationalize it, your stuff still looks bad.

I’d be curious to know how the folks who won’t play against unpainted minis would react if offered to play against someone with a horrible paint job - say, were someone’s minis looked as if they had been painted with playdoh (for lack of a better example).

Now, in addition to my statement above, I'll play someone who has a grey horde of minis, but I'll also fully and honestly admit that at the same time I'll be a bit disappointed that my painting efforts are existing in a vacuum, regardless of how good they are. I would gladly play someone with horribly painted minis than ones that just look like they are dumped out of the box, because I recognize enthusiasm, even if it's unpolished.

To me "person who just isn't into the hobby side of things" is a level or two below "person who doesn't really care to engage you in friendly banter during the game". I'm not going to openly snub them because that's not what functioning adults do, but things not being reciprocated from across the table is a bit lonely in such a social hobby and bums me out.

It's like when I try to get gamers in my area interested in other minis games I find interesting, and the response is "Meh, we just play 40k around here because that's all anyone plays". So, like....branch out?

 Stormonu wrote:
I’d be curious to know how the folks who won’t play against unpainted minis would react if offered to play against someone with a horrible paint job - say, were someone’s minis looked as if they had been painted with playdoh (for lack of a better example).

I don't decline games with players with unpainted models, or else I wouldn't get in any games as I think less than 1/10th the players in my army seem to have much more than primer color for their army That said, I can say playing someone with horribly painted models would likely still be preferred depending on the intent. I see horrible paint jobs going one of two basic ways.

The first is someone that is pretty new/young to the hobby went out got some models and some craft store paints and went wild with them. These models are caked in so thick of paint someone might not even be sure what the model underneath was. That shows effort, enthusiasm and spirit to try. With better supplies, knowledge and patience those players are likely to paint just as well as me or better and if they continue in the hobby probably will. These players are probably going to be fun to play even if their excitement is a little much sometimes.

On the other hand, there are those who habitually toe the line. A tournament says all models need 3 colors up so their models are replicas of the French or Italian flag in rattle can paint colors. They seem to revel in constantly putting in the minimum effort or pushing the letter of the rules while completely disregarding the spirit. They are exactly the sort of player I am practically guaranteed to have a horrid time spending a few hours around. Honestly, it would be much easier to say I don't play opponents that don't have fully painted and based models since that is far less of a tedious argument, and there's going to be an argument from them, of 'what is fully painted and based?' compared to 'I am not breaking any rules here or this is what the book says or your GSC Neophytes are 55 points per model and you are cheating because you treat them as 5ppm.' That kind of stuff. That is the more extreme, exaggerated kind of examples, but I think I am getting my point across. I don't think I am going to have any fun playing a game with them, and I suspect the only fun they are going have is at my expense.

Like I said, I haven't yet had an issue with an opponent with a painted army (I am sure I will some day though). I have few issues with opponents with unpainted armies though including a lesser version of the 'That Guy' in the paragraph above. Again, I try to not let it bias me too much, as correlation doesn't imply causation.

 AegisGrimm wrote:
Now, in addition to my statement above, I'll play someone who has a grey horde of minis, but I'll also fully and honestly admit that at the same time I'll be a bit disappointed that my painting efforts are existing in a vacuum, regardless of how good they are. I would gladly play someone with horribly painted minis than ones that just look like they are dumped out of the box, because I recognize enthusiasm, even if it's unpolished.

To me "person who just isn't into the hobby side of things" is a level or two below "person who doesn't really care to engage you in friendly banter during the game". I'm not going to openly snub them because that's not what functioning adults do, but things not being reciprocated from across the table is a bit lonely in such a social hobby and bums me out.

It's like when I try to get gamers in my area interested in other minis games I find interesting, and the response is "Meh, we just play 40k around here because that's all anyone plays". So, like....branch out?

The hobby side is two seperate things not one, I love the modeling, but I hate painting.

And as for branching out, that requires sinking more money into other games.

DeathKorp_Rider wrote:
The hobby side is two seperate things not one, I love the modeling, but I hate painting.

It is all how you look at things. I see modeling and painting as one thing kinda like a road. You have to travel down one part of the road to get to the other (but not vice-sersa). I mean I guess you could paint everything on the sprue and not build anything ever, but let's pretend no one does that. Point is, I wouldn't consider walking down part of a road then walking down the other part two separate roads. Just like I wouldn't consider only walking down part of a road as the whole road either and the part I haven't as a second road.

I mean I hate modeling, but it is required to paint. I know sucks to be me. At least you get to walk down the part of the road and stop before the part you don't like if you want to.

DeathKorp_Rider wrote:

 AegisGrimm wrote:
Now, in addition to my statement above, I'll play someone who has a grey horde of minis, but I'll also fully and honestly admit that at the same time I'll be a bit disappointed that my painting efforts are existing in a vacuum, regardless of how good they are. I would gladly play someone with horribly painted minis than ones that just look like they are dumped out of the box, because I recognize enthusiasm, even if it's unpolished.

To me "person who just isn't into the hobby side of things" is a level or two below "person who doesn't really care to engage you in friendly banter during the game". I'm not going to openly snub them because that's not what functioning adults do, but things not being reciprocated from across the table is a bit lonely in such a social hobby and bums me out.

It's like when I try to get gamers in my area interested in other minis games I find interesting, and the response is "Meh, we just play 40k around here because that's all anyone plays". So, like....branch out?

The hobby side is two seperate things not one, I love the modeling, but I hate painting.

And as for branching out, that requires sinking more money into other games.

True about the modelling. But when I say "hobby side of things" I mean people who play minis wargames but oddly are not into making cool models, terrain, OR painting. Which seems like a boring way to enjoy the hobby, at least to me. It's like saying "I am into model trains", but only owning a bare plastic train, on some track, on a blank green piece of fabric. I wanna make cool little fantasy worlds and then play in them!

A good chunk off-topic, but as for branching out, there's tons of games, especially those at skirmish scale, which are miniatures agnostic (not tied to any specific line). For instance, I own Star Breach, Rogue Planet and Grimdark Future, to name just three, and all of those can use 40k models perfectly fine with no midifications, as well as tons of other minis. I own at least a couple of fantasy rulesets that can use AoS/WHF models. But my area is heavily, heavily biased towards GW product being seen as "more legitimate" than Indie games, like they are the only good game publisher in the world.

Or games that are barely more expensive than the rules and/or templates to play, like Gaslands.

I can see we won’t see eye to eye on this

Thats fine. I'd still play you if you were using grey out of the box minis, I'd just be (inwardly) disappointed that I don't get to see your cool ideas shown off.


I see wargaming as just another form of show and tell, even if having kids means I barely have time for painting anymore.

Way too boring/repeating, thats why.
Do not help that i am obsessed by painting at my max ability on every single model i do(and that means sub assembly painting on even the moust basic trooper)

I can paint max two identical models but never more. So no army games unless i buy one pre painted on ebay.

At this point I have so many painted models that storing them is more of an issue than having enough. I feel like a lot of people see painting as some miserable chore because they make themselves miserable while doing it - sitting in silence at a table under a harsh light in a basement, painting on a dry palette with paint that goes chunky after 5 minutes and goes on terrible.

To me painting is just something I do with my hands when I'm watching TV or listening to music, it's focusing and relaxing at the same time. I also use pretty much every speedpainting/shortcut type tactic available, and don't rigidly adhere to the same scheme for 10,000pts of models.

I'll never refuse to play someone just because their models are unpainted, but I definitely would take a game against someone who I knew had a painted army over someone without one. It's pretty high up on the priority list, below "is the person just a miserable guy to play with" and "am I really not in the mood for the type of game this person wants to play"

Time... I average 500-600 hours of OT every year at work so when I am home I prefer to spend the time with my family and friends. This year me and my friend have been trying to get some painting done instead of playing video games and its helped out a lot. I only have a few more Imperial Fists to paint and ill have my first army painted since 5th ed.

Priming seems to be my worst hurdle, I don't have any place inside to prime without stinking up the house. That usually upsets the Mrs.
And if I try to do it outside the weather has to be almost perfect weather or I get figures I have to end up stripping to remove the messed up prime coat.

Next is remembering what I need to prime because I usually put everything up (clean house) so stuff that was assembled is out of sight out of mind.

Any suggestions I would love them...

 Genoside07 wrote:
Priming seems to be my worst hurdle, I don't have any place inside to prime without stinking up the house. That usually upsets the Mrs.
And if I try to do it outside the weather has to be almost perfect weather or I get figures I have to end up stripping to remove the messed up prime coat.

Next is remembering what I need to prime because I usually put everything up (clean house) so stuff that was assembled is out of sight out of mind.

Any suggestions I would love them...

If you can afford it invest in an airbrush. You can get a folded booth to go with it that you can set up spray and then put away.
Airbrush priming is fantastic. I use cans when the weather is nice as well but airbrush is just better and its kind of hard to screw up and loose details/get grainy texture. .

I think once my current cans are done I'll be going exclusively airbrush.

Frankly, I have solved the "Time for Painting" problem by drifting away from large army-scale games. in the time it takes me to paint a squad of near-identical troops for a basic unit, I can paint an entire unique skirmish force. So as GW games kept getting larger and larger, I found that for the same time and money to field a single army, I could have 4-5 factions for one or more skirmish games.

The last true army-scaled game I played was AT-43, because the troops were all prepaints that I just had to do a few touch-ups on, and focus instead on terrain.

I think most people who don't paint from GW game perspectives just don't because why bother?
The tables are usually bland, boring, uninteresting and dull.
The games are decided by the lists long before a single die is rolled.
90% of the game is bickering over rules inbetween excessive rolling.
You remove entire units in short time.
Allot of people don't really care for background or theme only meta.
It's gonna be on ebay soon.

So what's the incentive to having anything painted?
And that might sound harsh and I'll have people whinging and my comment deleted and ANOTHER temp ban.
But it's all true really.

 ValentineGames wrote:
I think most people who don't paint from GW game perspectives just don't because why bother?
The tables are usually bland, boring, uninteresting and dull.
The games are decided by the lists long before a single die is rolled.
90% of the game is bickering over rules inbetween excessive rolling.
You remove entire units in short time.
Allot of people don't really care for background or theme only meta.
It's gonna be on ebay soon.

So what's the incentive to having anything painted?
And that might sound harsh and I'll have people whinging and my comment deleted and ANOTHER temp ban.
But it's all true really.

Well, I suppose with that attitude you should probably take it back another couple of steps. Why build the models if that is all true, or better yet why spend a non-insignificant amount of money (for most people).

It is not like it is impossible to try out Warhammer 40k before purchasing a single miniature. A person could always pick up Tabletop Simulator to see if the game is something they might enjoy. Conversely, they could try and get a demo game in.

I am a very strong proponent in a person picking an army they like the look and lore of. Rules change, with increasing frequency these days, and unless you want to chase the dragon your army is very likely to cycle through ups and downs. But a nice paint job is always going to be there even if you get frustrated at the game and put your army on the shelf for a while.

To answer you more directly, tables are only as dull as the players make the out to be. The spoiler has some of my Kill Team boards with the terrain I built and painted myself last year. At this point, I am starting to have enough to put together a nice 6'x4' table and a fantastic one combined with similar GW terrain my FLGS also has. It took some amount of work, but I think the extra effort is worth it fore a more attractive looking battlefield. Sure, with 40k's current terrain rules a lot of it is just decoration. Still worth it to me.




I am not about to disagree with you the game can be both tedious and/or frustrating at times. Especially with people who want to rule grub every little thing and have no more love for the gray plastic 'Iron Warrior' Intercessors as they have that they would a Rook in chess. I have no interest in play optimized army (read: competitive) 40k. So I have on interest in playing such players. I think 40k works far better when both players build armies with stuff they like and everyone in the group sort of adjusts the power level to a sort of common level within a group. This is hardly the best solution of course. And I know a good deal of Dakkanauts say we shouldn't do GW's job for them. I am not going to argue with them and say they are wrong. Because they really aren't. But the game is what it is, and we can complain that GW knocked over the milk and spilled or we can grab a towel and clean it up and make it into something we and our opponent fine enjoyable. So long as we find like minded individuals.

Because those few times when 40k actually works with both players wanting the same thing out of the game and willing to make the compromises to get it work the game can be magical. I am pretty sure anyone that has been of Dakka Dakka for a while has had at least one of those magical games in life to continue to frequent a 40k focused forum so much. I think a lot of the negatively comes from the fact that those magical games become fewer and fewer as the reality of what the actual quality of the game becomes more apparent. I continue to be amazing in the hope that the next rule alteration will be the one that turns 40k into a great game when we all should realize that it might be a little better but still probably a good distance from where we want it to be.

Me, I had the fortune to play a good deal of other miniatures war games before walking into GW's walled garden. I knew I was walking into a mediocre game. I was sold on the models as someone that learned to enjoy painting from previous games. Later I enjoyed the lore. I even enjoy playing Kill Team which I is a surprisingly good game even with a few rough spots. I can't say I have enjoyed full 40k to that level though I have like a few of the games I have liked well enough.

TL;DR:
I think the incentive to paint your models is that they are rather nice models (and some of the easiest I have ever painted) and look very nice all painted up. Two well painted armies on a table with terrain given equal care is a thing of beauty to behold. The game may be a little weak, but it isn't like GW is the only tabletop game creator out there. Those other games might not be miniatures war games or they might be much harder to find players for compared to GW's stuff.

“Nothing in the world is worth having or worth doing unless it means effort, pain, difficulty… I have never in my life envied a human being who led an easy life. I have envied a great many people who led difficult lives and led them well.”

― Theodore Roosevelt

 ValentineGames wrote:
I think most people who don't paint from GW game perspectives just don't because why bother?
The tables are usually bland, boring, uninteresting and dull.
The games are decided by the lists long before a single die is rolled.
90% of the game is bickering over rules inbetween excessive rolling.
You remove entire units in short time.
Allot of people don't really care for background or theme only meta.
It's gonna be on ebay soon.

So what's the incentive to having anything painted?
And that might sound harsh and I'll have people whinging and my comment deleted and ANOTHER temp ban.
But it's all true really.

Honestly sounds like if those are your particular thoughts then you should stay away from GW stuff and have fun with other companies' games. There are a LOT of fun ones out there to be seen once the big elephant in the room is out of the picture. A couple of the skirmish games I like can actually have models regain health during a game, so there's more time for cool looking and painted models to shine on the table, rather than being disposable pawns. There's times when that put me off painting large armies, too.

Scenery is the third army in a game, when it comes to modelling and painting.