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.

gorgon wrote:

While I think you can make the case that a miniature painter picks GW miniatures because they're among the best around, the case IMO feels weaker for the pure gamer who picks GW games.

Simple reality. If you want to play a wargame, GW is often your best choice for a wide spread of opponents. It's why people run windows: it's universally accepted.

GW games also allow a deeper level of customization and personalization than historicals and even pre-painted stuff.

I don't understand why so many people are saying "LULZ GOLDEN DAMEONS DUNT RECKWIRE U 2 PLAYZ"...

you cannot compare the golden daemon competition to any kind of tournament, for a simple reason... the golden daemon scoring system is entirely subjective, while a tournament is normally objective.

In the golden daemon competition, its a matter of opinion which model is painted better, because each model is often very well done. In a tournament, there are scores for battle points and comp (objective when compared to a rubric).

The argument isn't that painting should be judged in a tournament... in fact I think it shouldn't be, because I can't paint very well. I just think its a bare minimum requirement that you paint your damn army. Is it really so much to ask? These tournaments are often announced months in advance. Do you really mean to tell me you can't spend an hour a day painting in front of the television? an hour a day, for 2 months, would get almost any army fully painted. Sure, it might not be to a perfect standard, but it would look respectable and playable.

This is a major problem with the world, nowadays. A new codex comes out, and people say, "Screw my old army, i'm going to be a powergaming git and jump on the bandwagon! Tournament in 2 weeks? Who cares! I need my uber cheese army of doom! So what if its not fun for my opponent, as long as I win its fun for me!" Nobody has any patience, or foresight. People that go out and buy models AT A TOURNAMENT to play there sicken me. They are a degradation to the hobby, and their exclusion from it would benefit it as a whole.

I understand the whole "they can play the way they want" argument, I do, so don't bother making it again. But the truth is, almost 50% of this poll don't like playing against unpainted armies. Now that GW has discontinued the GT's, the only national GW tournament is 'ardboyz. By allowing mouth breathers who want to slap together an army, and say they are ready to play, to compete, it causes that 50% of the game to just say "screw this" and not bother competing.

gorgon wrote: As I said in another post, I'm fine with 'Ard Boyz as is but don't see the notion of a low painting requirement as an unreasonable request, given our hobby. I've said umpteen times I personally don't get the attraction to the hobby if painting's not a piece of it.

Given YOUR (and many other's) VIEW of the hobby. I have a strong attraction to the hobby because of the tactical implications and the customization possibilities. Not to mention the fluff and the narrative aspects. All of which are completely independent of painting (which I admittedly do, just very slowly). The point is, just because you can't see how other people could be attracted to the hobby without taking part in the painting aspect doesn't mean they aren't. It simply means they are wired differently than you are and are getting their fun in another way. I don't see anything wrong with that. To each their own.

While you see a 3-color minimum at 'Ard Boyz as a reasonable request, I don't see it that way. I see it as taking an event aimed at those people who would much rather play than paint and changing it to where it would exclude them unless they "come around" to your view of what the hobby is. I don't think anyone in the "non-painting" camp is asking for all GTs/RTs or even open play to no longer have a painting component. I think we just want 'Ard Boyz left alone, as it is the only large event that is aimed at us. That way everyone will have events that fit their interests.

@Gorgon I think you've been more than reasonable in your arguments.

Your going to a huge national tournament, get some respect for your models and paint em you lazy slacker.

Frazzled wrote:Is it just me, or am I noticing a distinct lack of consensus in this thread?

No worse than a RAW v RAI YMDC thread...

JohnHwangDD wrote:

Frazzled wrote:Is it just me, or am I noticing a distinct lack of consensus in this thread?

No worse than a RAW v RAI YMDC thread...

LOL... Yup, no locks or bans yet. Give it time though.

Polonius wrote:So, is the problem an unpainted event, or is the problem the lack of GTs that require paint? I agree to the extent that there should be GW events that highlight the entire hobby, and hard boys doesn't do that. I'm not sure you can make hard boys really be the representative of the hobby... it's simply too focused on battle points. You can't make an apple an orange.

Please refer to the GW UK GTs, which are exactly what you just described. Battle is the only thing scored, but painting is still required.

Normally I agree with you on a lot of things, but on this one I feel like you’re somehow misreading the posts in this thread, and something is distorting your perception of what the “pro-painting” side has actually posted. I can think of maybe TWO posters in this thread who had anything negative to say about people who choose not to paint their figures. Despite that, you (a rational, sharp guy) choose to apply terms like Elitism and Prejudice to everyone on this side of the debate as a group.

Please note that I did not draw a generalization about the unpainted guy I played. I’m sorry if it felt that way. I noted it as a data point. I made no statement about it being a general trend, but mentioned it because it did seem to be illustrative that the player who had the least paint was also the player who had the least investment in the hobby, including the least rules knowledge. This doesn’t make him a bad person. I played two people who attempted to cheat, too, and both of those guys had fully-painted GT-quality armies. IME people who attempt to cheat are vanishingly rare (and I’ve played a lot of tournament and competitive games in the last ten years), and there doesn't seem to be any correlation between whether they paint well or not.

P1NK3Y3, thanks for quoting the dictionary for us. If you think elitism is an applicable word, please be so kind as to point out where I’ve asked for special treatment. No one in this thread has demanded that Ard Boyz change its rules. Nor have they suggested that its rules be changed with insufficient notice for people to get some minimal painting done. No one I’m aware of is calling Trade Sales and asking for the rules to be changed. This is a discussion about what people think would make a more enjoyable event.

Sincity wrote:And the standard , at 'ard boyz was paint not required. Glad to see at least one of you paint nazis coming around , and before you spout pho-indignation .... don't.

Soup jokes/spelling digs aside, thanks for the Godwin’s Law point. Good job.

Carmachu wrote: But god forbid that there is ONE tournment without a painting score and its a crime. Why can you not just leave it alone and let folks play in ONE tournment that has a different requirement. Why can you not let folks play in one without insisting on painting?

Its elitism right to its core.

Its a big deal becuase you and others just want it your way and no other.

BUZZ. Wrong answer, Carmen. Enhance your calm. No one here has opined that it is a “crime” that there are events without painting requirements. No one here is going to go lobby against or complain about a private event that works that way. We’re not even COMPLAINING about ‘ardboyz. It was a fun event, even as it was. What we are doing is expressing that we think it would be more enjoyable, and more in keeping with the tradition of wargaming, for a GW event, specifically the only large, competitive, potential showcase event they’re running in the US this year, to require at least minimal painting. This is constructive feedback and discussion about preferences. There’s no need to get a persecution complex over it.

I agree with Gorgon that multiple posters on the “painting optional” side appear to be overreacting. And I have to wonder if some of that is coming from a pre-existing internal discomfort they already had with this aspect of the hobby. You can see it in terms like “hate” applied to painting.

I sure didn’t enjoy painting when I first tried it. It was hard work. But I enjoyed the results, and felt pride and accomplishment in return for the investment of effort. As I continued, painting because progressively easier and faster, and my results got better, and it became more pleasant and even more satisfying. That's a good outcome, and one I think a lot more people could share if they invested a little more effort. In the larger miniatures wargaming community, it is an assumed norm.

Within the historical wargaming community, it is very common to meet gamers who NEVER field an unpainted model. This is the tradition of miniatures wargaming. It’s about the visuals as much as the tactics. Maybe more about the visuals, honestly. And GW’s design philosophy and priorities are completely in line with this. The miniatures are more important than the rules, they always make clear. I'm not sure why as many GW players don't paint as apparently don't. It's strange.

I think Darth has made some excellent points about the rationale behind ‘Ard Boyz and its intent within the Trade Sales structure. I don’t know if I agree completely with his conclusions, however. As Redbeard pointed out, using spray primer and drybrushing, it would take barely any more time or effort to paint 9 Valkyries to a minimal standard than it would to assemble them. I also tend to disagree about his picking any one group of players out as more likely to complain than others. Gamers love to complain. The stink at the end of last year’s ‘Ard Boys made perfectly clear that you can have all the drama with none of the painting, if you like.

gorgon wrote:

carmachu wrote:

gorgon wrote: None of the arguments presented so far have convinced me that it's not a strange hobby to adopt if you never intend to paint. *shrug*

How's it any stranger to someone who just paints a couple of figures an enters a GD(or even better doesnt enter) and never plays?

See, I'm actually not sure that folks at either extreme end and I share the same hobby. I feel like I can relate to someone who's 90/10, 10/90 or anything in between. Things get foggy for me at 100/0 and 0/100.

Hit the nail on the head, there. Someone who doesn't play, and just paints a couple of figures is not a Miniatures Wargamer.

Agreed. A non-player occasional painter of figs is a painter, not a gamer.

Okay, I lied. One more post.

I think I've always viewed the miniature wargaming hobby as the point at which painting and gaming intersect. And I suspect this discussion is making many seem more polarized than they really are. As in some of those strongly on the non-paint side might tell you that ideally they'd like their miniatures to be painted but that it's something they're just not focused on right now. I get that. Put them in the 10/90 or 5/95 camp. On the other side you have the GD painter who every once in a while still gets an urge to play. They fit in the 90/10 camp or whatever. And I get that too.

It's when one of those numbers gets to zero that I'm not sure we're really experiencing the same hobby anymore. I feel like it becomes only a game, or only an exercise in painting. And it's fine if that's their preference. But I guess I feel like they're missing out on something richer by not experiencing both sides, even if only a tiny bit.

So I guess that's why I can see some value in introducing a minimum requirement for 'Ard Boyz -- not as some kind of enforced conformism for conformism's sake, but as a reminder of the wider, more immersive hobby it can be. There's obviously no way to enforce the inverse of that on GD, but I've always wondered how many of the GD painters actually game once in a while. Frankly, I liked that competition better back when I knew the people painting were also people playing and not pro artists who didn't give a $hit.

Hopefully I've articulated my viewpoint a little better this time. Now I'll bow out.

Mannahnin wrote:

Polonius wrote:So, is the problem an unpainted event, or is the problem the lack of GTs that require paint? I agree to the extent that there should be GW events that highlight the entire hobby, and hard boys doesn't do that. I'm not sure you can make hard boys really be the representative of the hobby... it's simply too focused on battle points. You can't make an apple an orange.

Please refer to the GW UK GTs, which are exactly what you just described. Battle is the only thing scored, but painting is still required.

Ok, i'm referring to them... waiting for some relevance. US GTs have always been about the hobby as a whole, which made Hard Boys a distinct new element. I didn't know that the UK Gts didn't score paint, but they're still the flagship event for GW in the UK. And IMO Hard boys is not meant to, nor should it be, the flag ship event in the US. The fact that it is is unfortunate, but there is no standard you can impose on Hard boys that will truly make it represenetative. People will grudgingly paint three colors on their models, and they will look bad. If that's what you call representative of the hobby, then fine, but I'd rather make it clear "this event is only about game play".

Normally I agree with you on a lot of things, but on this one I feel like you’re somehow misreading the posts in this thread, and something is distorting your perception of what the “pro-painting” side has actually posted. I can think of maybe TWO posters in this thread who had anything negative to say about people who choose not to paint their figures. Despite that, you (a rational, sharp guy) choose to apply terms like Elitism and Prejudice to everyone on this side of the debate as a group.

And you're drawing a very fine line between "saying something bad" and being prejudicial. I think that not wanting to have any official events where people with unpainted stuff can play is a bit prejudicial. I think I've made a compelling argument, and I think that there is some backing up by some posters who see exactly how barely nude the contempt a few people here have is.

I don't mean to paint everybody with the same brush, but when you hold the same policy views as those that hate, and you hold those views for basically the same, just not as extreme a reason, then you can't be too upset that you get tagged with the same label.

Please note that I did not draw a generalization about the unpainted guy I played. I’m sorry if it felt that way. I noted it as a data point. I made no statement about it being a general trend, but mentioned it because it did seem to be illustrative that the player who had the least paint was also the player who had the least investment in the hobby, including the least rules knowledge. This doesn’t make him a bad person. I played two people who attempted to cheat, too, and both of those guys had fully-painted GT-quality armies. IME people who attempt to cheat are vanishingly rare (and I’ve played a lot of tournament and competitive games in the last ten years), and there doesn't seem to be any correlation between whether they paint well or not.

The ethical and moral courage you show in not thinking he's a bad person for having an unpainted army moves me. Seriously, you need to point that out?

P1NK3Y3, thanks for quoting the dictionary for us. If you think elitism is an applicable word, please be so kind as to point out where I’ve asked for special treatment. No one in this thread has demanded that Ard Boyz change its rules. Nor have they suggested that its rules be changed with insufficient notice for people to get some minimal painting done. No one I’m aware of is calling Trade Sales and asking for the rules to be changed. This is a discussion about what people think would make a more enjoyable event.

You're making distinctions without differences. Wanting to make events exclusive to your status is a form of special treatment. I thought the whole point of this thread was to see who wanted the rules changed.

You're basically saying that while you argue that painted armies are bad, and people that don't paint generally have less knowledge, and you'd really rather not have them play at your events, and you'd rather the one event that allowed them remove them... you're not elitist, prejudiced, or asking for special treatment?

Carmachu wrote: But god forbid that there is ONE tournment without a painting score and its a crime. Why can you not just leave it alone and let folks play in ONE tournment that has a different requirement. Why can you not let folks play in one without insisting on painting?

Its elitism right to its core.

Its a big deal becuase you and others just want it your way and no other.

BUZZ. Wrong answer, Carmen. Enhance your calm. No one here has opined that it is a “crime” that there are events without painting requirements. No one here is going to go lobby against or complain about a private event that works that way. We’re not even COMPLAINING about ‘ardboyz. It was a fun event, even as it was. What we are doing is expressing that we think it would be more enjoyable, and more in keeping with the tradition of wargaming, for a GW event, specifically the only large, competitive, potential showcase event they’re running in the US this year, to require at least minimal painting. This is constructive feedback and discussion about preferences. There’s no need to get a persecution complex over it.

Again with the "dont' get so heated up" BS. That's universal internet speak for "I'm getting called on stuff, so I'll minimize it."

What people are saying is that their preferences and tradition are more important than the best possible competition, in the one event that's billed as pure competition. That lead to the game/hobby divide, and Killkrazy ready to start rounding up people that play unpainted armies for relocation to clicks gaming.

I agree with Gorgon that multiple posters on the “painting optional” side appear to be overreacting. And I have to wonder if some of that is coming from a pre-existing internal discomfort they already had with this aspect of the hobby. You can see it in terms like “hate” applied to painting.

Well, i lvoe painting and use painted stuff exclusively. It's a personal standard, but not one that I see necessary to apply to others. We're over reacting because there are posters who have literally said that they're not in the same hobby as a person that doesn't want to paint.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

gorgon wrote:Okay, I lied. One more post.

I think I've always viewed the miniature wargaming hobby as the point at which painting and gaming intersect. And I suspect this discussion is making many seem more polarized than they really are. As in some of those strongly on the non-paint side might tell you that ideally they'd like their miniatures to be painted but that it's something they're just not focused on right now. I get that. Put them in the 10/90 or 5/95 camp. On the other side you have the GD painter who every once in a while still gets an urge to play. They fit in the 90/10 camp or whatever. And I get that too.

It's when one of those numbers gets to zero that I'm not sure we're really experiencing the same hobby anymore. I feel like it becomes only a game, or only an exercise in painting. And it's fine if that's their preference. But I guess I feel like they're missing out on something richer by not experiencing both sides, even if only a tiny bit.

So I guess that's why I can see some value in introducing a minimum requirement for 'Ard Boyz -- not as some kind of enforced conformism for conformism's sake, but as a reminder of the wider, more immersive hobby it can be. There's obviously no way to enforce the inverse of that on GD, but I've always wondered how many of the GD painters actually game once in a while. Frankly, I liked that competition better back when I knew the people painting were also people playing and not pro artists who didn't give a $hit.

Hopefully I've articulated my viewpoint a little better this time. Now I'll bow out.

That's a fine viewpoint, but here's the reality: what is a person that enjoys miniatures wargaming, but doesn't like painting, supposed to do? Play AT-43 with the 12 people nationally that like it?

If you want to war game, 40k is your best bet.

I still stand by my argument that a person can build an army, develop a background, enjoy the fluff, and even model the army appropriately and thus have pride in ownership of having their own army, without having to paint it. That's an aspect that other games don't have.

If all you like is painting, there are tons of minis companies. If you like building an army and playing it, you're options dwindle to almost nothing.

I've yet to see a convincing demonstration that 'Ard Boyz is really bad for the hobby. Seriously, if you're so convinced then why is GW allowing it? Greed, you say? GW just wants people to spend more money. (This thread is tied up with other controversies, obviously.) Isn't that ultimately good for the hobby--i.e., GW is more successful, more popular, more accessible? It encourages people to be lazy perhaps? Well, people are already lazy. I wonder how many people are as assiduous as Polonius in only playing with painted armies period (not just at tournaments, where it's usually required). My guess is that the supposedly majority painting crowd is actually the minority. The majority, however, don't bother with dakka (unless they're dug in over in the rules threads) because they're too busy actually playing the game or have somewhere along the line lost interest (but hey, they still bought minis at some point).

Polonius wrote:what is a person that enjoys miniatures wargaming, but doesn't like painting, supposed to do? Play AT-43 with the 12 people nationally that like it?

He can always use a painting service to paint for him. Good, consistent tabletop-quality results every time.

Failing that, he can find a group that doesn't care so much about painting. Hell, we've had a guy play an army of pants (legs on bases)...

Manchu wrote:I've yet to see a convincing demonstration that 'Ard Boyz is really bad for the hobby. Seriously, if you're so convinced then why is GW allowing it? Greed, you say? GW just wants people to spend more money. (This thread is tied up with other controversies, obviously.) Isn't that ultimately good for the hobby--i.e., GW is more successful, more popular, more accessible? It encourages people to be lazy perhaps? Well, people are already lazy. I wonder how many people are as assiduous as Polonius in only playing with painted armies period (not just at tournaments, where it's usually required). My guess is that the supposedly majority painting crowd is actually the minority. The majority, however, don't bother with dakka (unless they're dug in over in the rules threads) because they're too busy actually playing the game or have somewhere along the line lost interest (but hey, they still bought minis at some point).

Well, in Mannahiens revisionist history of this thread, nobody is saying anything bad about hard boys, unpainted armies, or anything. They're just saying it's more enjoyable to play painted armies. Of course, they then go on to say it's more enjoyable because it's a sign of respect, painted armies are a sign that a person is a real hobbyist, and that unpainted armies make events bad.

But they're not saying anything bad or complaining.

JohnHwangDD wrote:He can always use a painting service to paint for him. Good, consistent tabletop-quality results every time.

Doesn't that get very expensive, though? (Not rhetorical; I really don't know.) I mean, it's already expensive enough.

As to just finding that easy-going group, would that it were so easy. This hobby attracts a lot of detail-obsessed TFGs that are genetically unable to take it easy. Treasure your gamer friends! People over 18 who are actually fun to play with are not so readily available in my experience.

@Polonius: Of *course* people with painted models are morally-superior, more handsome, make more money, better lovers *and* well-hung.

People who lack painted models are cretins, beastly, hard-scrabble animals who need Enzyte to even have something to grip, and Viagra for anything but a wet noodle.

This isn't self-evident?




[sarcasm above, for those who couldn't figure it out]
____

@Manchu: It depends on the service and quality one expects, along with the total volume of stuff to be painted. If you're looking for basic work, you can probably get a local kid to paint for not too much. If you're looking for more, there are services that will do it all for a price.

Personally, if I ever win the lottery, I will hire an art student for a summer and have them prep, build & paint & detail my stuff. $5k to be fully-build & fully-painted to spec by someone with actual art training? Yes, please.

Group-wise, as it ages, it mellows, so it should get easier with age.

Way to polarise the debate, John!

What's wrong with wanting to play with painted figures?

Kilkrazy wrote:What's wrong with wanting to play with painted figures?

Nothing. What's wrong with wanting to play before everything is painted?

Kilkrazy wrote:Way to polarise the debate, John!

What's wrong with wanting to play with painted figures?

Are you really going to try to reframe the debate like this?

That's a very poorly worded post.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

JohnHwangDD wrote:@Polonius: Of *course* people with painted models are morally-superior, more handsome, make more money, better lovers *and* well-hung.

People who lack painted models are cretins, beastly, hard-scrabble animals who need Enzyte to even have something to grip, and Viagra for anything but a wet noodle.

This isn't self-evident?

Oh, I know that. But I'm a big believer in noblesse oblige.

which is why not only do I let people with unpainted armies play, I offer to show their wives or girlfriends a night with a real man, to take some of the burden off his shoulders.

Kilkrazy wrote:Way to polarise the debate, John!

What's wrong with wanting to play with painted figures?

Absolutely nothing wrong with YOU wanting to play with painted minis. Don't try to tell me that YOU want ME to play with painted minis.

Kilkrazy wrote:Way to polarise the debate, John!

What's wrong with wanting to play with painted figures?

____

Polonius wrote:

JohnHwangDD wrote:@Polonius: Of *course* people with painted models are morally-superior, more handsome, make more money, better lovers *and* well-hung.

People who lack painted models are cretins, beastly, hard-scrabble animals who need Enzyte to even have something to grip, and Viagra for anything but a wet noodle.

This isn't self-evident?

Oh, I know that. But I'm a big believer in noblesse oblige.

which is why not only do I let people with unpainted armies play, I offer to show their wives or girlfriends a night with a real man, to take some of the burden off his shoulders.

Thank you, sir - gracious and generous, as befits a man with painted models.

Saldiven wrote:They reason they're called elitists is because they are the ones telling the non-painters that not painting your armies is playing the wrong way. Nobody ever said to the painters that how they chose to enjoy the game was wrong; it was the painters who derided the non-painters for somehow being in the wrong.

Well that's because the non-painters haven't got a leg to stand on so they resort to name calling. I'd be fascinated to know what comparable criticism the non-painters could come up with about those that paint their figures before playing.

I think what's being said is that stereotypical paint-obsessed hobbyists are less enjoyable to game with because they're elitists.

Horst wrote:

you cannot compare the golden daemon competition to any kind of tournament, for a simple reason... the golden daemon scoring system is entirely subjective, while a tournament is normally objective.

Not really. Only the battle points are objective. There's been many an arguement over the "soft scores", being composition, Sportsmenship and painting that are quite subjective. And further some of those scores-comp and sports, have been used to game the system in order to win or get your buddy to win....ie tank your opponent.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Mannahnin wrote:
I sure didn’t enjoy painting when I first tried it. It was hard work. But I enjoyed the results, and felt pride and accomplishment in return for the investment of effort. As I continued, painting because progressively easier and faster, and my results got better, and it became more pleasant and even more satisfying. That's a good outcome, and one I think a lot more people could share if they invested a little more effort. In the larger miniatures wargaming community, it is an assumed norm.

For you. Fo rme, after almost 20 years. Still not. Still dont like it, still dont care about painting. Its not where my enjoyment of the game comes from. I'd rather throw money at blue table or someone and let them paint it and just enjoy the parts of the game that I usually do.....playing. WIth good people. *shrug*

Within the historical wargaming community, it is very common to meet gamers who NEVER field an unpainted model. This is the tradition of miniatures wargaming. It’s about the visuals as much as the tactics. Maybe more about the visuals, honestly. And GW’s design philosophy and priorities are completely in line with this. The miniatures are more important than the rules, they always make clear. I'm not sure why as many GW players don't paint as apparently don't. It's strange.

Becuase people have different priorities of what they like. I have several painted armies.....but thats not really a prority or parts of the game I like. YOu...take pride in painting. Great. Have fun. I dont. I know I'm not alone in not caring about painting....its not where I'm at, and frankly never will be.

Polonius's point about being a 'feast day' of sorts has a lot of merit. I'll even concede my position on painting precisely to that point:

There are certain minimum standards that should be applied even in this sort of event:

Assembled Miniatures - part of the rules directly rely on this. Assembly at tournament levels shouldn't be too unreasonable. Blatant 'Assembly for game advantage' (how thin can a chimera be assembled?) should be disqualified by the tournament organizer.
Unit Differentiation - some obvious method to differentiate same units. It takes moments with a sharpie to put visible dots on a model.

So long as these minimum standards can be met in the sense of fair play. I reserve the right to tease, cajole, and gently mock regarding spraypaint being too hard to use. I also accept the consequences of a righteously indignant tabling.

And I'm still upset about the soup.

carmachu wrote:

Becuase people have different priorities of what they like. I have several painted armies.....but thats not really a prority or parts of the game I like. YOu...take pride in painting. Great. Have fun. I dont. I know I'm not alone in not caring about painting....its not where I'm at, and frankly never will be.

That's fine, and you are welcome.

The difference is you can indulge your desire to play games without painting the figures by buying pre-painted, or by having them pro painted, or by playing games which don't use miniatures.

The people on my side of the fence can only indulge our desire to play games with painted figures if people use painted figures.

This surely makes it clear why we are against people playing the game without painted figures.

So I'm glad you have some painted armies because those are what I would want to play against if we have a game.

Polonius wrote:People will grudgingly paint three colors on their models, and they will look bad. .

There was a guy at ‘Ard Boyz who painted a third of his army solid, gloss head-to-toe Fire Engine Red. Another third the same kind of Canary Yellow. The last third Sky Blue. It certainly made his ork mobs easier to distinguish from one another. It still looked poor, and even a three-color minimum would look better. Yes, there will tend to be a few people out there who only grudgingly meet the minimum requirements. A larger number of people will exceed the minimum when you set the bar low.

Polonius wrote:And you're drawing a very fine line between "saying something bad" and being prejudicial. I think that not wanting to have any official events where people with unpainted stuff can play is a bit prejudicial.

Are we talking about having no official events without painting? I could swear that I opined that if there’s only ONE big official event for the year, it should require some paint. IMO it doesn’t make sense for GW events in general to not require painting, but it would certainly make MORE sense if one event did not out of a larger number of events. In a larger philosophical sense I do think it’s odd for a miniatures wargame to ever have a big event without it, but again, that’s not the original point of the thread.

Polonius wrote:I don't mean to paint everybody with the same brush, but when you hold the same policy views as those that hate, and you hold those views for basically the same, just not as extreme a reason, then you can't be too upset that you get tagged with the same label.

Sure, exactly; since I’m standing here with the KKK, I should expect to be called a bigot. Wait.

I could swear we were talking about miniature wargaming. There’s no real hate here. I don’t think it in any way justifies general namecalling because one or two people said something that offended. If you feel differently, feel free to keep it up, but I don’t think it helps your argument.

Polonius wrote:The ethical and moral courage you show in not thinking he's a bad person for having an unpainted army moves me. Seriously, you need to point that out?

Apparently, because neither you nor Gornall seemingly understood, and Gornall took it personally. Your sarcasm makes me sad. Quite literally. I’ve read your posts for a long time and I honestly expect better from you.

Polonius wrote:You're making distinctions without differences. Wanting to make events exclusive to your status is a form of special treatment.

I don’t think the distinctions I’ve drawn would make no difference. Wanting some or most miniatures wargaming events which are officially put on by a company which produces a miniatures wargame to represent the miniatures wargaming hobby by requiring painted figures, does not seem to me in any way elitist. Why should players who don’t choose to participate in a core, expected activity within the hobby expect to be catered to? They're perfectly free to put on their own events. But I don't think it's good for GW to encourage or support it at a high-profile national event.

Polonius wrote:You're basically saying that while you argue that painted armies are bad, and people that don't paint generally have less knowledge, and you'd really rather not have them play at your events, and you'd rather the one event that allowed them remove them... you're not elitist, prejudiced, or asking for special treatment?

Pretty much, yeah. Bearing in mind that I’d be very happy for said people to play at “my” events if they painted up to an easily-met minimum standard. And that I've run local tournaments which did allow un- or partially painted armies. And that the ONE event we’re talking about is the only national competitive event put on in my country this year by the manufacturer of the game. Out of a pool of ONE, yes, I certainly think it makes more sense for it to have a minimum painting requirement.

Polonius wrote:Again with the "dont' get so heated up" BS. That's universal internet speak for "I'm getting called on stuff, so I'll minimize it."

You can stuff that in your hat, sir. IMO Carmachu was in the wrong, and I told him both that he was wrong and he should stop taking the discussion so personally. I’ve been chatting with him on this forum and another since 1999 or 2000. I reserve the right to tell him if I think he’s off base. If you think that’s “BS”, then I can only conclude that you’re taking the discussion too seriously and being irrational.

Polonius wrote:What people are saying is that their preferences and tradition are more important than the best possible competition, in the one event that's billed as pure competition.

Please feel free to speak to any of the several thousand gamers who’ve attended the GW UK GTs, or the Adepticon Gladiator, to be disabused of your misapprehensions. I disagree that requiring a little paint would in any way detract from the best possible competition.

Polonius wrote: We're over reacting because there are posters who have literally said that they're not in the same hobby as a person that doesn't want to paint.

And you’re choosing to inflame things by equating that with being ”rounded up” and “relocated”. It’s silly.

The miniatures wargaming hobby is (traditionally) one in which hobbyist gamers paint and model armies, and face them off in battle. However it happened, some players have elected to skip the painting part, and I don’t think it’s unreasonable to wonder why, and to think that’s generally a bad thing, and something we shouldn’t encourage.

Mannahnin wrote:

Polonius wrote:People will grudgingly paint three colors on their models, and they will look bad. .

There was a guy at ‘Ard Boyz who painted a third of his army solid, gloss head-to-toe Fire Engine Red. Another third the same kind of Canary Yellow. The last third Sky Blue. It certainly made his ork mobs easier to distinguish from one another. It still looked poor, and even a three-color minimum would look better. Yes, there will tend to be a few people out there who only grudgingly meet the minimum requirements. A larger number of people will exceed the minimum when you set the bar low.

Or you realize not everyone is a natural born painter.

Especially ones that have NO habit of painting.

Bad argument. It is a skill, but it's not a hard one to learn. Especially given the multiple easy techniques and tools (like drybrushing, washes, etc) that are out there.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
And with that, I'm off for the night.

Mannahnin wrote:Bad argument. It is a skill, but it's not a hard one to learn. Especially given the multiple easy techniques and tools (like drybrushing, washes, etc) that are out there.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
And with that, I'm off for the night.

The people that have 0 interest in painting will have no knowledge of even the basic techniques .

Thats like asking a cavemen to make a fire when the concept is unknown to them.

*Yes the example is abit extreme , but just trying to state a point that even 3 color basics
does not mean its a easy thing to do , for people that dont have habit /or care for painting .

Saldiven wrote:

NAVARRO wrote:People can play basketball without the ball cant they? they are enjoying themselves and thats good... just dont call a regular/ normal basketball player that plays with a ball a elitist because its freaking hilarious.

Basketball, in different parts of the country and the world, is played with 1+ people per side. It's played on dirt, asphalt, concrete, tile, wood and other surfaces. Some courts have hoops with cloth nets, chain nets, or no nets. Some don't even have a hoop; instead, there is a box nailed to a post or a wall. Some people play on a 10" rim while others use a lower rim. In some locations, there are referees, others play "call your own," and others use a "call goes to the loudest complainer" method. Some locations, palming a ball while pivoting/turning in the midst of a dribble is considered a traveling violation, in others, traveling is virtually never called. In some leagues, an offensive player has to all but shoot a person in the head to have an offensive foul called, while other groups call more evenly on offensive/defensive fouls. Some locations have nice, new Spalding basketballs, while others make due with balls that barely bounce made from local materials they have on hand.

Playing 40K without painting is not like playing basketball without a ball. Playing without painting would be more like playing outside with no lines on the court, no net on the rim, and nobody in uniform. In other words, it would be like playing basketball without any of the cosmetic things that don't really have anything to do with how the game is actually played.

That aside, the reason that those of us who, frankly, abhor painting call the painting protagonists "elitists" is simply because they are the ones telling us what is the "right" way to play the game.

Go to rural China and tell the avid basketball players there that they're not playing right because they don't have lines on the court, nets on the rim, uniforms, a referee, or even a decent ball. They don't care. They're having fun, and they neither need nor seek your approval to do so.

Can I assume you missed the point?
You can play basket ball nakid mate with no ball and just trowing cans inside a hole... I say if its your thing good for you! I just find ridiculous you with your cans looking down at regular/ traditional/ more common/ respectfull of the rules players and call them elitist bastards Its not them being diferent or picky or intolerant man... Its you just being diferent by option.
And if you really want to get stuck to irrelevant details on my argument I would say unpainted minis is like playing basket ball with a rugby ball, doesnt change the point I was aiming though

I think the debate is simple, in fact very simple... there is a Hobby activity carved and defined before all of us was even born it has clear practices on wich little lead men armies are designed to be painted with their uniforms and used on strategic battles... you can choose not to paint or even have any minis but that kind of auto excludes you from that particular hobby activity... I see no problem there.
Are people elitits because they do the casual normal thing that is painting the miniatures that were designed to be painted?
I find the decision not to paint or not to assemble or use proxies a adulteration of what this hobby was designed for as such i avoid them and dont understand a company with GW pro hobby gospel background falling into this.

Besides people stop being so defensive about " you cant tell me how to play with my hobby"... its not the people telling you to paint... its you that bought a miniature designed to paint for a game designed for painted miniatures that doesnt seem to understand the basics of this hobby activity... if you have to moan about it address it to the societies who carved this formula many years ago... and no its not GW, they only picked something already created and gave it some twists.