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.

 Eilif wrote:

LordBlades wrote:

 insaniak wrote:


And if your main concern when building an army is how much you're going to be able to sell it for, I can't help but think you're not really that excited about actually playing the game anyway...

Not necessarily. What if you have troubles deciding what army to play but can't really afford 3-5 armies? Keeping your resale value high for when you unavoidably change your mind again is a smart choice in this case, and unpainted models sell way better than painted ones unless you're an outstanding painter.

I have a RL friend just like this: awesome guy to game with but just can't settle for a single choice: he keeps changing RPG characters, RTS factions, builds etc.

So the idea is to establish potential wargaming standards (assuming folks have any desire to have standards) on the basis of what will accommodate indecision and resale-ability?
No Thanks.

If I'm seeing the same wall of grey week after week and when I ask why the answer is "I might want to sell it" my answer will be "Excuse me, I might want to find a new opponent".
This is actually not a dig on the personality of the other gamer. Rather it's clear that we want such radically different things out of the game that we're essentially doing completely different hobbies. In such a situation I'd likely have a much better time finding someone else to play against.

The idea is to accept that some people might have valid reasons for not painting models and they are not 'doing it wrong'.

Why do you feel there Is a need to establish standards in regards to painting (or not) armies anyway?

 Eilif wrote:

I could further argue that the preponderance of pictures of painted models in rulebooks is evidence that the game is designed to be played with painted models, but that would likely have little impact on someone who wants written

RULES…RULEBOOKS (and)…. THE LAW

to tell them exactly what to do and not do.

I enjoy the hobby aspects of the game. I like that the painted pictures are there to give ideas and to foster encouragement of getting involved in them. Here is a thread I made on some kitbashes I am doing.

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/639224.page#7655920

What I want is for people to get off other peoples cases because they don't. The game is not influenced by the hobby. The rules are the rules, the extra mile is just that. It is fun to me. I would gladly encourage others to do it. I would also gladly play an unpainted army without creating house rules that penalize them because I NEED others to PLAY with their TOYS like I DO or else THEY ARE NOT PLAYING RIGHT!

See what I did there?

The biggest thing here is that none of us are forcing you to paint your models. We're not saying you can't play the game. There are plenty of opportunities to get in games with your unpainted stuff. All of the "no unpainted" is houseruling we have for our tournaments, because the goal of our tournaments is for the handful of us that set it up want to have as much fun as possible. There's no prize money, no buy in. It's the 5 of us that are at the store most often, and the store owner, getting together and saying we want to run a tournament. And it's not just the painting houserule, we come up with a dozen other different rules that we, the people hosting the tournament, like in our game.

Our "committee" sets up rules that like. We make custom scenarios for it, we come up with ideas for specifc FOCs you might have to follow, we decide whether or not to allow unbound, we even set limits on max points value of a single unit or max armor value of a tank in smaller games. Yeah, you probably don't want to play with all these special rules, but it's a tournament that we set up and are hosting. If you want to show up and play, sure. Follow the rules we've provided. If you don't want to deal with a dozen extra rules, wait until next week when we have open games going without special rules.

Another example I could use is the sportsman's club that I'm in. Sometimes we'll get together and set up a rifle event. If you're a right handed shooter, you have to use a left handed rifle. Vice versa. I genuinely don't know of any other competition that requires you to do this. Sure, if you're at the club and feel like joining in, go ahead. But don't complain that we set up rules that make the competition more fun for the rest of us. Maybe you think the idea of shooting a left handed rifle is stupid, and want to shoot normally, as it's easier. Too bad, come again some other time.

The whole idea of most events that I help hold, whether at the FLGS or at the sportsman's club, are to set up something fun for a group of us to do. We don't take the competitive aspect of 40k very seriously, and our organized events are just made so that we can have a couple of good games between friends, with outsiders welcome... with the condition that they want the same sort of fun that we want.

I mean, the tournament we're looking to set up next is going to be a convoy themed mission, where you'll need vehicles. If you want to play, you'll probably want to buy vehicles, as you get extra points if you can get your vehicles to drive down the road and off the map safely. We aren't going to require that you own and run vehicles, you can run nothing but foot infantry if you want. You're going to be at a competitive disadvantage though, as vehicles score points, but we won't stop you from playing.

Edit: oh, and we do have two "house rhinos" that can be used for any faction if you don't own vehicles. And for armies that can't take vehicles (nids) we're trying to come up with a way of counting a monstrous creature as one, with the stipulation that it can't leave the road, can't melee but can't be locked in melee.

King Bobbito,
I wish I'd had a group like yours when I was playing 40k.

LordBlades wrote:

Why do you feel there Is a need to establish standards in regards to painting (or not) armies anyway?

I our (the club's) case we established standards because we think painted models are unattractive, and detract from the experience of wargaming. Thus we have established standards for miniatures, while (as explained earlier) taking steps to ensure that everyone who comes is welcome and able to participate. On a more personal note, most of us were in some way originaly attracted to the "spectacle of painted armies" when we got into gaming. Most of us are in this hobby for the "whole package" and wouldn't be satisfied if our hobby was just rolling dice and pushing around grey counters.

On a practical level, we're also all busy adults with jobs so when we get together every-other-week, we want to have a really great looking game everytime. For 5 years now we've been sticking to this aesthetic and it has worked out wonderfully. You can see the blog in my sig for the results of this philosophy.

Of course we can't impose our standards on any other club, but as stated before, I'm fully in support of any FLGS owner, tournament organizer, club leadership, etc that decides that it's worthwhile to establish such standards in their club, competition or community.

And the argument that has been made, repeatedly, and is in fact proven by any event in human society with parallels, is that by placing rules that are arbitrary (like the no paint ones) you foster an attitude that is detrimental to your community as a whole.

Anytime you even insinuate that they are less then you and thus not allowed you create that schism that forms elitism. There are people who comment in this thread that say "I will not play with someone who has unpainted models". Where do you think he gets that thumbing his nose attitude from?

All the other stuff, the neat scenarios, the point limitations etc etc..

That stuff creates interesting scenarios that forces people to come up with new tactics and strategies that break them out of their norm. Good. Excellent even. The best.

But the unpainted rules don't actually effect anything but pointing at somebody who might only be new, or somebody who hasn't been encouraged to do it yet, and instead of welcoming him into the community encourage him to never come back.

You can say you and your stores owner have a right to do it all you want. It STILL makes it a jerk move and defending it still makes you a jerk.

Lance845 wrote:
And the argument that has been made, repeatedly, and is in fact proven by any event in human society with parallels, is that by placing rules that are arbitrary (like the no paint ones) you foster an attitude that is detrimental to your community as a whole.

Not proven, and quite the opposite of almost any club, activity or organization, country, etc in existence. They all have standards to which they expect members to hold to if they are to participate. Many of which may seem arbitrary to those who view things differently.
-Is a Car club elitist and if they encourage or only allow painted cars at the car show?
-Is the train club elitist for only allowing painted trains and scenery in a specific scale on the layout?
-Is a country elitist when it only gives voting rights to it's own citizens?

For much of the wargaming community the visual aspect is as important as the game itself, just as for many railroaders the display is as important as the running of trains and railway research.
Clearly the same standards will not cross all groups, but there is no detriment to communities establishing standards. Quite the contrary, standards can (though not all) be beneficial to the group, it's cohesiveness and it's output.

I recently wrote a blog post about this in response to a similar dakka discussion.
http://chicagoskirmish.blogspot.nl/2014/08/painting-matters-in-defense-of-hobby.html

I like to take my time painting. I shouldn't have to wait to play with the army I want to or be forced to rush a crap paint job because it's required. I just skip those tornys and the club loses out on prize pool and the store loses money because I usually buy something every time I come in...you know...like...paint?

Was america elitist when they told black people to eat in their own restraints? What about white only water fountains? How about the way the Irish were treated when they first came over? What about that big southern wall idea?

Clubs with exclusive membership... You mean snobby rich white guys who don't want the poor to join?

Reminds me of that family guy cut away when Peters anscestor invented golf. "alright. So were all clear on the rules. No blacks and no Jews".

Lance845 wrote:
Was america elitist when they told black people to eat in their own restraints? What about white only water fountains? How about the way the Irish were treated when they first came over? What about that big southern wall idea?

Clubs with exclusive membership... You mean snobby rich white guys who don't want the poor to join?

Reminds me of that family guy cut away when Peters anscestor invented golf. "alright. So were all clear on the rules. No blacks and no Jews".

That got racist real quick

 Desubot wrote:

Lance845 wrote:
Was america elitist when they told black people to eat in their own restraints? What about white only water fountains? How about the way the Irish were treated when they first came over? What about that big southern wall idea?

Clubs with exclusive membership... You mean snobby rich white guys who don't want the poor to join?

Reminds me of that family guy cut away when Peters anscestor invented golf. "alright. So were all clear on the rules. No blacks and no Jews".

That got racist real quick

Yeowza!
That may be the first time I've heard someone equating racial discrimination with the required painting of toy trains, classic cars and miniature soldiers?

Your not "breeding a better player" by "weeding out" the undesirables with these rules. Your just limiting your community and breeding a send of entitlement.

I did it earlier in this thread too. It's just a good opportunity to do it again.lol. Seriously. The ideas and arguments your using. Replace painted unpainted with men/women white/black. And can play/cannot play with vote/cannot vote.

It's really easy to see that your the bad guy.

 jasper76 wrote:
The houserule in our little gaming club is "better than base-coat".

That said, we will try and help people paint up there minis, if they want the help and some of us have time to help.

I don't think there is anything wrong with a paint job that is a nice selection of colours neatly block painted in with no highlights or shading. Personally I do more, but I don't see why having to do so would be a requirement for having painted models.

Lance845 wrote:
Your not "breeding a better player" by "weeding out" the undesirables with these rules. Your just limiting your community and breeding a send of entitlement.

I did it earlier in this thread too. It's just a good opportunity to do it again.lol. Seriously. The ideas and arguments your using. Replace painted unpainted with men/women white/black. And can play/cannot play with vote/cannot vote.

It's really easy to see that your the bad guy.

First, you still didn't answer my questions regarding real and common examples of standards:

-Is a Car club elitist and if they encourage or only allow painted cars at the car show?
-Is the train club elitist for only allowing painted trains and scenery in a specific scale on the layout?
-Is a country elitist when it only gives voting rights to it's own citizens?

Second, standards exist. They may be useful or detrimental or relatively neutral, but simply having them does not make a club elitist. Niether does one standard (painted miniatures) correlate to other standards (Jim crow laws). To equate the two is dishonest and illogical.

It's far more useful and intellectually honest to judge each standard on it's own merit and on an individual basis. 3 examples:

1) Jim Crow laws existed to disenfranchise African Americans and maintain a white power structure.
Clearly a bad standard for a bad purpose

2) Doctors are required to attend medical school and be certified to practice medicine.
Clearly a good standard for a good purpose

3) Our club has a painting standard to make for a more beautiful table
An arguably benign standard for a purpose that may or may not appeal to some people.

Clearly, you can't simply replace one standard with another in order to reject or endorse all other standards. Each standard must be judged on it's own merits without resorting to ridiculous, inaccurate and inflamatory comparisons to racism, misogyny, etc.

Lance845 wrote:
Was america elitist when they told black people to eat in their own restraints? What about white only water fountains? How about the way the Irish were treated when they first came over? What about that big southern wall idea?

Clubs with exclusive membership... You mean snobby rich white guys who don't want the poor to join?

Reminds me of that family guy cut away when Peters anscestor invented golf. "alright. So were all clear on the rules. No blacks and no Jews".

Actually, all the snobby rich white guys play at a club a few towns over, where everyone buys their models prepainted and half of them own a titan

Plus some of our tournaments encourage new players by only allowing stuff that new players are going to own, a single HQ (often unnamed), no vehicles...

And like I said, it's not like we're playing with a buy in for prizes or anything. 1st place might get a picture taken of your army on the table (part of the reason he doesn't want an unpainted army to be first), he'll put it up on the store page.

Our goal with events is to help players that want to play against other painted armies find those games. Think of it as a dating site, something like "MeetPaintedArmies.com". If you're looking for a painted opponent, you come to it. If you're not, we also provide "JustPlayaGame.com" other days of the week.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Lance845 wrote:
Your not "breeding a better player" by "weeding out" the undesirables with these rules. Your just limiting your community and breeding a send of entitlement.

I did it earlier in this thread too. It's just a good opportunity to do it again.lol. Seriously. The ideas and arguments your using. Replace painted unpainted with men/women white/black. And can play/cannot play with vote/cannot vote.

It's really easy to see that your the bad guy.

Painting is a choice, race is not. It's a heck of a lot cheaper and easier to do some basic painting over few weeks than it is to get full body plastic surgery to change your skin color.

So really, tell me how not painting your models is similar to being born into a different race.

 Eilif wrote:
Yeowza!
That may be the first time I've heard someone equating racial discrimination with the required painting of toy trains, classic cars and miniature soldiers?

Bingo, probably.
You must be new here. Congrats on the 5000 posts.
Anyone got a pic?

It's the difference between "men can vote and women can't" versus "if you take the time to register to vote you can vote, if you don't take the time to register you can't".

Can I just say also, that much of what I'm describing is much less severe in the execution and how it plays out in real life.

It's neigh impossible to accurately portray over on a post, but if a newbie showed up at our club they'd already know that we're painted only and that we have lots of minis to share. They'd be welcomed with open arms, handed some minis (if they needed them) a force list and given a place at the table. What would follow would be a relaxed and fun evening of friendly gaming with good people and likely a beer or two with an invitation to please come again.

We've never had hurt feelings over our standards and it's been a really positive experience. I've said this before, but I'm convinced that what is perceived as crass elitism would be -if experienced in person- revealed to be just the opposite.

 Alex Kolodotschko wrote:

You must be new here. Congrats on the 5000 posts.
Anyone got a pic?

Thanks!
Maybe I haven't been spending enough time in the off-topic section?

Yeah, 4% is a bad score, MUST TROLL HARDER

 Alex Kolodotschko wrote:
Yeah, 4% is a bad score, MUST TROLL HARDER

Oh my, I'm above 40% for general discussion.... obvious troll I guess

Keep it that way, OT should be for when you get really bored and have nothing left to paint!

Why do you care that the other guys stuff is painted in the game? I can look at, comment on, and talk about fantastic paint jobs with every person in the store. The game is about strategy and tactics. Interesting moves with killer results is what gets discussed with your opponent.

Eilif, those jim crow laws proved that anything like them breeds elitist ideals. If you institutionalize that that guy over there is less then you for x reason then even when not in official tourneys your community will view x as less than.

Hence people just refusing to play against unpainted. Proven by society.

nareik wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:
The houserule in our little gaming club is "better than base-coat".

That said, we will try and help people paint up there minis, if they want the help and some of us have time to help.

I don't think there is anything wrong with a paint job that is a nice selection of colours neatly block painted in with no highlights or shading. Personally I do more, but I don't see why having to do so would be a requirement for having painted models.

What this means to us is, more than just a primer...more than just one color.

Multiple colors with no highlights or shading meets our "requirement". So would a primed model with a single coat of shading on top.

Lance845 wrote:
Why do you care that the other guys stuff is painted in the game? I can look at, comment on, and talk about fantastic paint jobs with every person in the store. The game is about strategy and tactics. Interesting moves with killer results is what gets discussed with your opponent.

Correct the game is about strategy and tactics. But it is also about fun. For some people it is not fun if both armies are unpainted. Does this make them wrong? No. Does this make them bad people? Again no.


If person A wants to only play against painted models, and the only people available to play are those with unpainted models, he has two choices - find somewhere else to play or try to coax (nicely of course), the other players to paint, possibly by holding classes, or giving tips. If a group of players decide that in order to play at their location you must be 21+, with at least 1500 points and painted then that is their choice. If a group decides that anyone running Ultramarines must play at a 50% point deficit (iow Blood Angels have 2000 pts, Ultramarines only get 1000 pts), again that is their choice. If it limits who gets in the game and pushes others away, then oh well.

Lance845 wrote:
Why do you care that the other guys stuff is painted in the game? I can look at, comment on, and talk about fantastic paint jobs with every person in the store. The game is about strategy and tactics. Interesting moves with killer results is what gets discussed with your opponent.

The thing is, at that point we're playing different games then. To you perhaps, 40k is a game about strategy and tactics. I won't argue that. But to us, it is more importantly a game about simulating combat in the 41st millennium. We don't paint our models just so we can say we painted them, we do it so that during the game it feels like there's an actual battle on the tabletop. We'll hold games that it's just about playing, but when we set up elaborate scenarios it's because we want cinematic battles, and it loses that cinematic feel.

Sure, you can play a game of D&D as Sir Scrotelicker the human bard that has an obsession with scrotums. In a casual game with a bunch of drunk friends that's acceptable. But at the same time, there are people that want to have a game with full roleplay going on, wearing costumes, with detailed miniatures on a map. They aren't going to let Sir Scrotelicker join their game, as it'd kill the mood. Would you blame them for not wanting him in their group? So tell me then, how is 40k different if what we want in the game is a serious cinematic battle?

Lance845 wrote:
Was america elitist when they told black people to eat in their own restraints? What about white only water fountains? How about the way the Irish were treated when they first came over? What about that big southern wall idea?

Clubs with exclusive membership... You mean snobby rich white guys who don't want the poor to join?

Reminds me of that family guy cut away when Peters anscestor invented golf. "alright. So were all clear on the rules. No blacks and no Jews".

Annnnnnnnd all credibility in your argument is gone. I even was supporting most of what you said until you got to this insanity. If you can't see the difference between institutional discrimination and racism and people prefering to form a group with their friends to play with toy soldiers in a certain way then I see no help for you.

Skriker

Lance845 wrote:
Why do you care that the other guys stuff is painted in the game? I can look at, comment on, and talk about fantastic paint jobs with every person in the store. The game is about strategy and tactics. Interesting moves with killer results is what gets discussed with your opponent.

That's probably where you and we most disagree. For us the game itself is more than just strategy and moving tokens on a board. For us a game is a communal event in which visual spectacle plays a major role. It's partly pure aesthetics and partly suspension of disbelief. Have you ever been to a historical wargaming convention? Most of us aren't historical gamers, but we have the same kind of desire for visual beauty and narrative that drives those kind of games, model railroad clubs and the like. In short, we want a game that is much more than just strategy and tactics, we also want story and pictures.

Lance845 wrote:

Eilif, those jim crow laws proved that anything like them breeds elitist ideals. If you institutionalize that that guy over there is less then you for x reason then even when not in official tourneys your community will view x as less than.

Hence people just refusing to play against unpainted. Proven by society.

Once again you refuse to even attempt to counter my lists of widely-accepted and exclusionary standards and fall back on a vague categorization of my standard as elitist. Try again.

I would add that we don't pretend that we are better people, merely that we have decided that this is the way we want to play. Likewise, Aussie-Rules football players are not elitist because they have decided to play a different way than Americans. Nor is a Blues club necessarily elitist because it bars heavy metal acts from the stage. People specialize and separate themselves for all matter of activities. What matters is that we recognize the humanity in each other and come together when it matters.

Lance845 wrote:
Congratz. Unless you can find a line inside of the rule book that says models need to be painted you are acting like a toddler throwing a fit for because.

Well, other than the whole not actually throwing a fit thing.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Xenomancers wrote:
I like to take my time painting. I shouldn't have to wait to play with the army I want to or be forced to rush a crap paint job because it's required.

Why not?

 kingbobbito wrote:
It's the difference between "men can vote and women can't" versus "if you take the time to register to vote you can vote, if you don't take the time to register you can't".

No. They already took the time to register to vote when the purchased and assembled their army. The only thing needed to play.

 kingbobbito wrote:
It's the difference between "men can vote and women can't" versus "if you take the time to register to vote you can vote, if you don't take the time to register you can't".

Thats a terrible analogy.

Lance845 wrote:

 kingbobbito wrote:
It's the difference between "men can vote and women can't" versus "if you take the time to register to vote you can vote, if you don't take the time to register you can't".

No. They already took the time to register to vote when the purchased and assembled their army. The only thing needed to play.

Well, you also need an opponent...