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.

Having standards is fine, and as I've said I prefer to play against painted armies and have painted a good share of my models and I intend to finish them all someday. I never go to tournaments without my entire army having at least 4 or 5 paint colors on them, and they are all based.

Elitism is the belief or attitude that those individuals who are considered members of the elite — a select group of people with outstanding personal abilities

If you don't think some of the posts in this thread reflect the above attitude we are at a fundamental impasse.

Well I would agree, but who has been saying they have outstanding personal abilities? I don't think people are saying "you must not only have a painted army, but an outstandingly painted army." Is just having three colors painted on your army an outstanding paint job? Three slapped on colors is the only thing I would consider sub-par, but three reasonably attempted colors seems reasonable.

The judgments placed on people who don't have the epic time management skills were really what made me feel that way. Some people are slow painters, some people don't like to paint at all. While I seem to find time to get my tournament models painted I don't feel particularly superior to those who don't.

I'm really jealous of the people that have local tournaments that emphasize Paint and Comp though. I'm not against letting unpainted models into tourneys, but giving the people who do paint and worry about fluff and comp a bit of a boost really seems like the right thing to do.

@Skinnattittar I respectfully dissagree with you, i think you are being an instigator. I think you have a bad attitude when it comes to paint vrs. non-paint, and just general poor sportsmanship. And thats why i wouldn't play you.
If you have a problem with some of the opinions stated on this board, fine. If you think I have a problem, fine. If you think you are the only one who doesn't have a problem, fine. congrats you win the thread.
you aren't worth this ridiculous on-line back and forth B S thats dripping all over this thread.
It should've been killed by the MODs a few pages ago.

hcordes wrote:congrats you win the thread.

Awesome! I win! +5exp for me!

10 pages...

Thread just about to collapse under its own weight...

STOP the personal attacks and insults.

So again, I ask:

Has anyone actually encountered another person who refused to play because models were unpainted?

I'm talking in real life here. I real encounter with someone where they said "no thanks, I only play against unpainted models." Not some guy on the internet, but around a gaming table.

Anyone?

You mean, "no thanks, I only play against painted models"?

But nope, haven't in a casual setting. Unless the other person's trying to pull a fast one and is just trying to swap their generic army every other game for something else.

I've heard people lament over other player's armies of gray marines or gray orks, etc... But refuse to play them because of it? Nope.

frozenwastes wrote:So again, I ask:

Has anyone actually encountered another person who refused to play because models were unpainted?

Skinnattittar wrote:I've heard people lament over other player's armies of gray marines or gray orks, etc... But refuse to play them because of it? Nope.

Multiple people in this thread who clearly stated that they did so aside, I assume?
I've encountered it at my old FLGS several times, and learned quickly what cliques to avoid.

If one feels like they have to be forced to paint then that defeat's the point of the whole fun factor.

tigonesskay wrote:If one feels like they have to be forced to paint then that defeat's the point of the whole fun factor.

And then the terrorists win!

Some people's fun gauge respond to different things. For them, painted armies increase their fun factor, or unpainted armies decrease their fun factor. Simple notion I think. Different strokes for different folk!

Did you get it? Strokes! Paint strokes?!

EDIT : grammar

Just let this stupid thread die. Seriously. It's been beaten to death.

Kanluwen wrote:Just let this stupid thread die. Seriously. It's been beaten to death.

I'm shocked that it got to be 10 pages. It's about to collapse under it's own weight.

Kanluwen wrote:Just let this stupid thread die. Seriously. It's been beaten to death.

I don't understand this what you asked for. If people still want to discuss it, why not let them? You don't have to read this thread anymore?

Davor wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:Just let this stupid thread die. Seriously. It's been beaten to death.

I don't understand this what you asked for. If people still want to discuss it, why not let them? You don't have to read this thread anymore?

If you people actually *discussed* anything new rather than sniped back and forth or rehashed the same old argumentative tripe over and over and over, there'd be no issueh

This topic is a right of passage for newer members, it seems.

Kanluwen wrote:

Davor wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:Just let this stupid thread die. Seriously. It's been beaten to death.

I don't understand this what you asked for. If people still want to discuss it, why not let them? You don't have to read this thread anymore?

If you people actually *discussed* anything new rather than sniped back and forth or rehashed the same old argumentative tripe over and over and over, there'd be no issueh

Ah I see what you mean now. Thanks for answering politely.

Manchu wrote:This topic is a right of passage for newer members, it seems.

What do we win? A spiffy hat I hope

LordofHats wrote:What do we win? A spiffy hat I hope

Sorry, no. The prize is having a thread in which to endlessly ramp up your post count.

+1 post!

Skinnattittar wrote:Well I would agree, but who has been saying they have outstanding personal abilities? I don't think people are saying "you must not only have a painted army, but an outstandingly painted army." Is just having three colors painted on your army an outstanding paint job? Three slapped on colors is the only thing I would consider sub-par, but three reasonably attempted colors seems reasonable.

OK, I was trying to avoid this topic. I saw it was still around but I avoided it. But this bothers me. Painting, modeling and gaming are three totally different things. If somebody only likes one of them I would recommend a different hobby. However, I think that anybody who really likes two of those hobbies should be able to find a home in Warhammer.

I'm not saying that people should not see their ultimate goal as being a fully painted army, but painting is much more of a chore for some people. What would you have them do, just chuck on some paint and be done with it? You may as well leave them grey or basecoated. They would probably look better that way. Further, if they try to go back and do a proper job they will probably have to strip or at least start from scratch, which makes it even less fun. Let people enjoy the aspects of 40k that they like, instead of trying to bore them out of it.

This is doubly so for large armies like Orks and IG. Working for an hour or so a day an infantry heavy (aka NORMAL) 1000 point ork force would probably take at least a month and a half to do to a reasonable tabletop standard. That is a month and a half of dedication from somebody who has yet to take part in the aspects of the game that they like.

So essentially this attitude IS elitist: It states that only people who like painting should be allowed to play warhammer.

nintendoeats wrote:This is doubly so for large armies like Orks and IG. Working for an hour or so a day an infantry heavy (aka NORMAL) 1000 point ork force would probably take at least a month and a half to do to a reasonable tabletop standard. That is a month and a half of dedication from somebody who has yet to take part in the aspects of the game that they like.

So essentially this attitude IS elitist: It states that only people who like painting should be allowed to play warhammer.

This right here states my attitude towards the matter quite well. It's only after I've been gaming for a while that I've started really wanting to see my army in its full colors. Now that I know what I'm doing on the battlefield, what I once considered a chore I now enjoy because I know the result will be worth it and can enjoy shaping that. To deny people the ability to really get into the game and their army just because they're inexperienced and painting for months on end doesn't immediately float their boat is to push away a lot of gamers that will eventually come to add a great deal to gaming.

I will say that having your army painted up all nice provides great incentive for others to get theirs painted as well. I personally am looking at about 6 months of casual painting to get my army done to a good table level, thank the emperor for citadel inks though or it would take much longer to get them to look as good.

@Nintendoeats:

So your three categories are:

(1) painting

(2) modelling

(3) gaming

And you say that someone who enjoys at least two of these should be able to find a home in Warhammer. In this train of thought, a person who doesn't like painting must therefore like modelling and gaming. I agree that the non-painters who have expressed their opinion in this thread like gaming. I would question whether they like modelling.

Yes, they put their armies together. But is that because they like to do it or because they have to in order to game? I would guess the latter. If it were somehow possible to play with unassembled minatures and still be playing WHFB or 40k, these folks would surely find a way.

Now the difference between the people who say you should paint and the people who say you shouldn't have to is that the first group looks and painting as (at minimum) a stage of assembly. For them, you have to have some paint on a model in order to play just like you have to have the model put together in order to play. The non-painters, however, don't agree for the obvious reason that there are no rules that rely upon having painted miniatures: it is technically possible to play with unpainted armies.

The painters then respond by saying one of two things:

(1) non-painters are not hobbyists

-OR-

(2) non-painters are engaging in a different hobby than painters

The distinction is an illusion, IMO. The second one is just a more polite way of saying the first one invented by mods to cool down these discussions. Both arguments boil down to the notion that non-painters are not fully participating in WHFB or 40k. The non-painters, in turn, immediately cry foul and accuse the painters of being elitists. But this is just ad hominem nonsense. Painters are in fact better hobbyists than non-painters just as someone who scratch builds realistic terrain is a better hobbyist than someone who throws a green table cloth over stacks of textbooks.

The trouble is that someone invariably accuses the non-painters of laziness, which is obviously true (and we can all speak from experience on this point) but also offensive.

By modeling I am referring to trying to make the models look like something unique from what GW designed. If somebody who isn't a complete epic noob tried to play me with a stock AoBR army with no paint I would seriously question why they weren't just playing a video game, since modeling to me represents the more tactile aspect that you don't get from X-Com or Advance Wars. I would certainly consider myself to be a "better hobbiest."

However, I would still play against them. THAT is what is elitest about this attitude: The idea that people who are unenthusiastic about painting shouldn't get to play at all.

I think that frozenwastes has pretty well demonstrated that the "I'm not playing against you ONLY because your army's unfinished" attitude is a myth created in these debates (usually brought up by the non-painters) rather a real life phenomenon. But maybe you've witnessed this at your FLGS?

My point of view is Tournament has to be fully painted(dont mind the standard though)

but at a local game store I have no Gripes of non painted (though I like looking at a really nicely painted army

though personally ill only game with a painted army just a standard I hold to myself and none else

and I think my piccie <---- has the answer to all of our worries

Manchu wrote:I think that frozenwastes has pretty well demonstrated that the "I'm not playing against you ONLY because you're army's unfinished" attitude is a myth created in these debates (usually brought up by the non-painters) rather a real life phenomenon. But maybe you've witnessed this at your FLGS?

That is a strawman argument. I know it wasn't intentional, because this is a very fine distinction, but an very important one.

I am not accusing anybody of holding any attitude. I will simply say that anybody who holds a specific atitude (that people shouldn't play with unpainted armies) is wrong. Seeking out people who hold such an attitude would be nothing but a witchhunt.

This whole debate is largely theoretical, because in the real world saying that you wouldn't play against an unpainted army would so fantasticly stupid that only a person who A) had no social skills and B) was a total elitest would do it.

nintendoeats wrote:So essentially this attitude IS elitist: It states that only people who like painting should be allowed to play warhammer.

I'm going to assume you were dropped on your head as a child, so I will say this again: You don't have to be a master painter and come to the game with a fully painted, fully detailed, absolutely beautiful army ready for Golden Daemon judges. My only personal judgment about people who want to count themselves as part of the 40k Hobby is they need to at least make reasonable attempts at painting. There is a lot about painting and modeling that I don't like. For instance tonight I am stippling the paint on my Baneblade and my Valkyrie (which I bought on the day of release and am finally getting to, but it will not see the field until I have it all "new coated," meaning it will look like a Valkyrie fresh from the Forge World, as opposed to the extensive weathering my other Valkyrie has). It is a slow and tedious job, I hate it, but to maintain the level of quality I demand of myself I bite the bullet and work through the annoyance and tedium. Why? Because I have standards.

I don't require others to have that same standard, but painting and modeling are major parts of the 40k Hobby. So, to me, one should keep trying to become a better painter and modeler, as well as a better gamer and player. 40k isn't just about the codices and rulebooks. It's not just a game, but a hobby. If you just want to play the game, pennies and coins or bits of paper would do just as well for you to game as models.

Now, when I say "you," I mean the ambiguous you, meaning anyone including myself. So no-one take directed offense!

I agree. But what's the point of railing against things that are obviously wrong? "Anyone who refuses to play against anything thing but GD-level painted army is elitist!" Sure, okay. And what's the point of saying that again?

put the knives away guys sheesh