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.

I've been playing for at least ten years. Everyone I started with played Grey Elves or Grey Dwarves. Only I was bold enough to play Grey Men Actually, I was the only one really into painting, and got bummed out that my painting wasn't up to the level that I wanted it at-at the time.

40k came out in 1987, so they appeared in 40k armies in 1987.

That being said, there wasn't any grey back in those days. Silver yes, but the plastic was all sorts of colors.

GW required 100% painted minis in GW stores and battle bunkers within a 50 mile radius of GW US HQ up intil around 2005-2006. This is also when RTTs were in full force and GW GTs were around. All required painting.

When the GW GT died, GW began letting unpainted models towards the launch of 4th edition in my experience. When GW began allowing unpainted in GW stores... the genie was out of the bottle.

Up until then, all GW stores required painting and most FLGS near me required at least PRIMED to distinguish from people opening stuff and assembling in store and possibly 'stealing' things. Requiring primed was a theft deterrent as it is harder to steal a 40$ model and assemble it in a corner and play it and claim it is yours if it has to have a coat of primer on it.

augustus5 wrote:

Daston wrote:To be fair the whole "dont like painting" is a lame excuse. My friend dosn't like painting that much be even he manages primer, dipping and some detail looks pretty good too and way better than a load of grey marines

To be fair, you don't really know what you're talking about.

It's plain and simple. Some people don't like/want to paint their armies. They choose to play with unpainted armies. There is nothing obligating anyone to partake in the painting aspect of the hobby unless that person wishes to take part in tournaments or clubs with a painting requirement.

So basecoat+dip doesn't look better than unpainted models? In which part of what you quoted does he not know what he's talking about?
Not liking painting _is_ a lame excuse. As much as nothing obligates anyone to paint their armies it's also nothing to be proud of. You're choosing to play with ugly models because you're lazy or uninformed about how easy and quick it can be to manage a solid looking army these days.

When I started playing in 91-92 I only ever saw unpainted models at my sporadic school club meets or when I was playing at home. Unpainted models have always been around, people have only been proud not to bother painting fairly recently since it apparently became a sign of how committed they are to "competitive play".

Come on guys, let's not turn this into another painted vs not thread.

Interestingly, it does seem to me that folks are more willing to be "out" about not having the time to paint or even wanting to.

I wonder if this collective lowering of the painting-bar is actually now encouraged (or at least painting isn't as emphasized) by GW and Privateer who have tapped into a new large group of competative players who are more likely to play if the community at large doesn't place as high a value on painting.

As an asside, one reason I ventured into this topic was feeling quite out-of-sorts after visiting my FLGS's very popular Warmachine night (I was not playing warmachine). I counted about 18 armies and less than a third had any paint at all, and only 2-3 were completely painted. I've been in on the WM nights since then and continue to see less than 1/3 painted miniatures.

It may be just a gut reaction, but I feel quite sure things were not always this way in wargaming'dom.

nkelsch wrote:GW required 100% painted minis in GW stores and battle bunkers within a 50 mile radius of GW US HQ up intil around 2005-2006. This is also when RTTs were in full force and GW GTs were around. All required painting.

When the GW GT died, GW began letting unpainted models towards the launch of 4th edition in my experience. When GW began allowing unpainted in GW stores... the genie was out of the bottle.

Up until then, all GW stores required painting and most FLGS near me required at least PRIMED to distinguish from people opening stuff and assembling in store and possibly 'stealing' things. Requiring primed was a theft deterrent as it is harder to steal a 40$ model and assemble it in a corner and play it and claim it is yours if it has to have a coat of primer on it.

I think the GW influence has a big effect. We may rag on GW stores for being places where snot-nosed 12 year olds go to scream WAAAGH!!! and play but GW at least used to set a firm example that the hobby aspect was important to the overall game by running painting clinics and requiring painted models to play in their stores. Those small mall stores introduced alot of kids to the hobby who later graduated to playing with and as adults at independent FLGS. When GW stopped stressing the hobby aspect and switched focus to all-sales-all-the-time, those kids didn't get the same "hobby matters" message and its too late to change some of their minds. Combine that with the overall increase in the model count of 40k armies over the past 15 years making it harder to completely assemble/paint an army (more time/effort to do so) and a tourney scene that switch from "must be painted" to "bonus points if you paint well" to "no benefit if you bothered to paint" in the recent 'ard boyz.. and you end up with more armies that have no plan to ever be painted. There have always been armies that were WIP or unpainted but the social pressure to put some effort into making them look nice has largely disappeared.

Eilif wrote:
I wonder if this collective lowering of the painting-bar is actually now encouraged (or at least painting isn't as emphasized) by GW and Privateer who have tapped into a new large group of competative players who are more likely to play if the community at large doesn't place as high a value on painting.

As an asside, one reason I ventured into this topic was feeling quite out-of-sorts after visiting my FLGS's very popular Warmachine night (I was not playing warmachine). I counted about 18 armies and less than a third had any paint at all, and only 2-3 were completely painted. I've been in on the WM nights since then and continue to see less than 1/3 painted miniatures.

It may be just a gut reaction, but I feel quite sure things were not always this way in wargaming'dom.

It's similar at my LGS. Warmachine (the game I'm currently playing) definitely has fewer painted models than the 40k gamers. Some of that is a function of some of the players being new to Warmachine, some of it is encouraged by PP and official tournaments that have no painting requirement. We just had a new influx of players that seem to place some value on painting, which is good. I can't see how anyone can argue that, everything else aside, playing with painted armies looks better.


I guess I understand the incessant complaints about prices a little more now. If your $$$ is only buying you an incredibly expensive counter and not something you get to paint and convert I don't think I'd see the value either.

Eilif wrote:
It may be just a gut reaction, but I feel quite sure things were not always this way in wargaming'dom.

You're wrong. Man up and deal with it.

Bookwrack wrote:

Eilif wrote:
It may be just a gut reaction, but I feel quite sure things were not always this way in wargaming'dom.

You're wrong. Man up and deal with it.

I'm not above admitting when I'm wrong, but the thread is still pretty split so there really isn't any consensus that I should consider submiting to.

However, I welcome you to the thread and would encourage you to continue if you can find anything usefull to add.

Bookwrack wrote:

Eilif wrote:
It may be just a gut reaction, but I feel quite sure things were not always this way in wargaming'dom.

You're wrong. Man up and deal with it.

Quite an opportunity here for some young people. The final test of manhood in many cultures is to agree with an abrasive nerd on a gaming forum. Welcome to adulthood!

I blame the whole ardboys thing starting tournaments that don't require painting and the push towards larger points values. I remember when they still had tournaments at 1500 pts. Then 1750 and 1850 is the norm, now its 2000 for Nova style tournaments. Takes time to paint all that stuff. Also if your going to trade or selll your army to hop on the latest bandwagon it being painted is an instant hit in value unless you are a golden daemon winner.

warboss wrote:I think the GW influence has a big effect. We may rag on GW stores for being places where snot-nosed 12 year olds go to scream WAAAGH!!! and play but GW at least used to set a firm example that the hobby aspect was important to the overall game by running painting clinics and requiring painted models to play in their stores. Those small mall stores introduced alot of kids to the hobby who later graduated to playing with and as adults at independent FLGS. When GW stopped stressing the hobby aspect and switched focus to all-sales-all-the-time, those kids didn't get the same "hobby matters" message and its too late to change some of their minds. Combine that with the overall increase in the model count of 40k armies over the past 15 years making it harder to completely assemble/paint an army (more time/effort to do so) and a tourney scene that switch from "must be painted" to "bonus points if you paint well" to "no benefit if you bothered to paint" in the recent 'ard boyz.. and you end up with more armies that have no plan to ever be painted. There have always been armies that were WIP or unpainted but the social pressure to put some effort into making them look nice has largely disappeared.

Well said, for the most part I would have to agree...

Eilif wrote:As an asside, one reason I ventured into this topic was feeling quite out-of-sorts after visiting my FLGS's very popular Warmachine night (I was not playing warmachine). I counted about 18 armies and less than a third had any paint at all, and only 2-3 were completely painted. I've been in on the WM nights since then and continue to see less than 1/3 painted miniatures.

It may be just a gut reaction, but I feel quite sure things were not always this way in wargaming'dom.

While unpainted figs have always been around, the proliferation of people using them in public venues hasn't. All the old grey haired historical gamers that got me into minis gaming wouldn't have dared to put unpainted figs on the table during an official club game at someone's house or FLGS during the early to mid 90's when I started. They occasionally used a newly purchased unit of unpainted figs in small one-on-one games in their own houses but that was generally the extent of it. If they liked how it looked/played, they painted it and used it; if not, it went in the large lead pile of never painted/played figs gathering dust for 10-20 years in their garage/basement. Its from that atmosphere that GW spun off in the 80's and kept true to that ethos till 3rd edition. Every one of the half dozen 40k players in the group I joined at the very start of 3rd edition (all of us completely new to 40k so starting fresh) eventually got our intial armies painted even as we collected second ones. We encouraged each other (and so did GW via their stores, tournies/events, and printed materials like White Dwarf) and even the two players who absolutely hated painting (including the guy with the hand tremor that precluded him from doing detailed work) eventually put their 3 colors on almost every fig (barring new purchases of course that would be future WIP). The majority of our armies weren't pretty but still added to the overall look of the game and the enjoyment of most of the players present.

Warmachine was borne of a time when GW already moved away from the hobby/painting focus and it shows locally here too. I don't play warmachine but I frequently run RPGs in the FLGS during warmachine nights and noticed the distinct lack of painted forces for that game too. Even the two 40k players I knew that had several completely painted 40k armies who branched out into WM didn't bother putting a dab of paint on anything (one guy primed half his force and stopped there with no intention of going further). Much like soft scores in tournies, this just happens to be the way the industry is moving overall for better or for worse.

edit: After writing this and thinking about it for a bit, I do already see a general shift that I previously didn't notice. The generation that mentored me into gaming simply didn't use unpainted figs where as the gamers I started with played with them WHILE painting the army up (finishing up a new unit every week or two/three while playing simultaneously). The next generation graduated to "eh, I'll paint them up if I get a chance.. maybe". There are exceptions to each but the general trend towards unpainted started long ago now that I think about it.

warboss wrote: All the old grey haired historical gamers that got me into minis gaming wouldn't have dared to put unpainted figs on the table during an official club game at someone's house or FLGS during the early to mid 90's when I started.

In whatever small town/area/store you are from which in your mind represents the entire world.

The world did not match your experiences.

DarknessEternal wrote:

warboss wrote: All the old grey haired historical gamers that got me into minis gaming wouldn't have dared to put unpainted figs on the table during an official club game at someone's house or FLGS during the early to mid 90's when I started.

In whatever small town/area/store you are from which in your mind represents the entire world.

The world did not match your experiences.

Neither does the world match yours. This entire thread is about our experiences/observations and the changes (if any) we've noticed. That was the general experience in the small hamlet of Chicago... YMMV.

I started 40K in 1989 and have always seen unpainted models.

Since then, I've gamed in Florida, North Carolina, California, Arizona and Virginia and I've seen unpainted minis at every location, whether the FLGS or a GW store.

However, tourneys for the most part had painting requirements and folks followed suit. In the last few years, I've seen tourneys dropping this requirement and I've seen more and more unpainted armies at tourneys. This became even more prevalent when the Ard Boyz came around.

For myself, this is a shame as viewing and gaming against fully painted armies is as much fun as playing the game. Plastic colored armies are simply boring.

I've been an active 40k player since 1999. Unpainted arimies had been common at least that long. Although it was less prevalent. 4ed really ushered in the common unpainted armies as the gaming part of the hobby expanded.

From my region I think it was 2006 when I saw the serious shift from seeing the majority of painted models on a game table to what I see today.

I am now one of the minority with a fully painted army to field.

Personally as others have posted in here, its the policy changes from GW that has this effect.

plastictrees wrote:

augustus5 wrote:

Daston wrote:To be fair the whole "dont like painting" is a lame excuse. My friend dosn't like painting that much be even he manages primer, dipping and some detail looks pretty good too and way better than a load of grey marines

To be fair, you don't really know what you're talking about.

It's plain and simple. Some people don't like/want to paint their armies. They choose to play with unpainted armies. There is nothing obligating anyone to partake in the painting aspect of the hobby unless that person wishes to take part in tournaments or clubs with a painting requirement.

So basecoat+dip doesn't look better than unpainted models? In which part of what you quoted does he not know what he's talking about?
Not liking painting _is_ a lame excuse. As much as nothing obligates anyone to paint their armies it's also nothing to be proud of. You're choosing to play with ugly models because you're lazy or uninformed about how easy and quick it can be to manage a solid looking army these days.

When I started playing in 91-92 I only ever saw unpainted models at my sporadic school club meets or when I was playing at home. Unpainted models have always been around, people have only been proud not to bother painting fairly recently since it apparently became a sign of how committed they are to "competitive play".

I never implied that non-painted models look better or worse than painted models. I just don't agree that non-painted models equals lazy or uninformed player. Maybe some people genuinely just enjoy playing the game, and don't give a good god damn about painting their figures. Painting one's figures isn't a necessary requirement for wargaming. Calling somebody lazy because they have different motivations than you do is at best an ignorant, vain notion.

augustus5 wrote:
I never implied that non-painted models look better or worse than painted models. I just don't agree that non-painted models equals lazy or uninformed player. Maybe some people genuinely just enjoy playing the game, and don't give a good god damn about painting their figures. Painting one's figures isn't a necessary requirement for wargaming. Calling somebody lazy because they have different motivations than you do is at best an ignorant, vain notion.

Agreed! Very few people think that the person who only paints models is too lazy to show up for games, or too stupid to learn the rules. They may think that they are odd, but the painter/modeler doesn't catch any flak for their hobby.

However, it's totally ok to label the non-painting gamer as lazy. Why?

You'll also notice that many war-games (Risk, Axis & Allies, Chess) use unpainted miniatures all the time. Shock!

DarkCorsair wrote:Tournaments actually is not a valid answer. Most tournaments require you to have your army at a 3 color minimum, and then you get scores based on your painting. Tournaments are where I see the most professionally painted armies.

Had to adjust that a bit. Tournament gamers don't paint.

Da Butcha wrote:

augustus5 wrote:
I never implied that non-painted models look better or worse than painted models. I just don't agree that non-painted models equals lazy or uninformed player. Maybe some people genuinely just enjoy playing the game, and don't give a good god damn about painting their figures. Painting one's figures isn't a necessary requirement for wargaming. Calling somebody lazy because they have different motivations than you do is at best an ignorant, vain notion.

Agreed! Very few people think that the person who only paints models is too lazy to show up for games, or too stupid to learn the rules. They may think that they are odd, but the painter/modeler doesn't catch any flak for their hobby.

However, it's totally ok to label the non-painting gamer as lazy. Why?

You'll also notice that many war-games (Risk, Axis & Allies, Chess) use unpainted miniatures all the time. Shock!

I blame Vassal. Nothing is more lazy then playing 40k with no actual table, terrain or models. it is corrupting the children I tell you...

Da Butcha wrote:

augustus5 wrote:
I never implied that non-painted models look better or worse than painted models. I just don't agree that non-painted models equals lazy or uninformed player. Maybe some people genuinely just enjoy playing the game, and don't give a good god damn about painting their figures. Painting one's figures isn't a necessary requirement for wargaming. Calling somebody lazy because they have different motivations than you do is at best an ignorant, vain notion.

Agreed! Very few people think that the person who only paints models is too lazy to show up for games, or too stupid to learn the rules. They may think that they are odd, but the painter/modeler doesn't catch any flak for their hobby.

However, it's totally ok to label the non-painting gamer as lazy. Why?

You'll also notice that many war-games (Risk, Axis & Allies, Chess) use unpainted miniatures all the time. Shock!

Well, for a start the person that only paints doesn't show up to a game store, put his models opposite me on the table and then actively refuse to play me for an hour and a half, but I am expected to happily face someone's grey horde week after week because they can't find three hours, some spray paint and some dip.
Modellers and painters don't detract from my experience of the game by doing their thing, people that never paint do. I'm perfectly happy to be completely unreasonable about this. I don't care if it's not what you got into gaming for, it's part of the hobby, deal with it or go play the (billions) of games that don't ask you to paint anything under any circumstances. I know gamers with 4 kids that still get stuff painted (slowly) so yes, if you never paint any of your models I'll label you lazy. You can either be content with the fact that some random guy thinks you're lazy or you can paint your models. If you don't care, actually don't care, don't run around demanding that I respect your decision to not do things.

Yes, I have noticed that there are games that don't require you to paint anything. That proves that no-one should ever have to paint anything?

plastictrees wrote:three hours, some spray paint and some dip.

TBH I'd often rather play against a clean unpainted army then one submited to what you describe above...

CT GAMER wrote:

plastictrees wrote:three hours, some spray paint and some dip.

TBH I'd often rather play against a clean unpainted army then one submited to what you describe above...

Hyperbole. Obviously they'd get a finishing coat of glitter before I'd consider them truly painted.

Da Butcha wrote:
Agreed! Very few people think that the person who only paints models is too lazy to show up for games, or too stupid to learn the rules. They may think that they are odd, but the painter/modeler doesn't catch any flak for their hobby.

However, it's totally ok to label the non-painting gamer as lazy. Why?

I think it comes back to tradition. Regardless of how it played out in reality, there is a tradition in miniature wargaming of an expectation that painting miniatures is part of the hobby. It might stem from the fact that the first miniatures available were toy soldiers, which, before the advent of plastic, were always painted metal figures. As to the non-player, there is also a long tradition of those who paint and collect as a hobby and don't play. Thus, if you enter the miniature wargaming hobby and fail to even try to paint your miniatures, it is likely that folks will assume that you are either lazy, rediculously busy (but not so busy that you can't find time to assemble 2000 points and play with them...) or have some other extenuating circumstance.

Da Butcha wrote: You'll also notice that many war-games (Risk, Axis & Allies, Chess) use unpainted miniatures all the time. Shock!

Risk, A&A and Chess are completely different. They are board games, not tabletop miniature wargames and are not a proper comparison.

sharkticon wrote:I blame the increasing size of armies.

I blame George Bush!

Remember, folks... If you refuse to play with or against unpainted models, the terrorists win.


Eric

ITT: unnecessary arguing over unpainted models.

If it's that much of a problem to you, maybe you need a new hobby. Not everyone is a talented painter, or has the time to paint all their models, especially since people love to insult other people's paint jobs. When all the pathetic asshats constantly insult your painting, it can demotivate you from painting. I mean, I put in the effort to paint, even though I'm not 'eavy metal material, but there were fething 30-somethings picking on a kid because of his painting when, he wound up leaving them unpainted, and they picked on him for that, so he just quit. I say that it's none of your business whether I paint my models or not, who knows, I'm probably a better player than you anyways, I might of been a worthy opponent, you'll never know because you didn't want to play because I didn't want to paint.

Yeah, I paint my models, but I have an unpainted copy of my army, in case a model is lost or stolen, just paint it and replace.

plastictrees wrote:<SNIP> I don't care if it's not what you got into gaming for, it's part of the hobby, deal with it or go play the (billions) of games that don't ask you to paint anything under any circumstances. I know gamers with 4 kids that still get stuff painted (slowly) so yes, if you never paint any of your models I'll label you lazy. You can either be content with the fact that some random guy thinks you're lazy or you can paint your models. If you don't care, actually don't care, don't run around demanding that I respect your decision to not do things.

Yes, I have noticed that there are games that don't require you to paint anything. That proves that no-one should ever have to paint anything?

Small correction.
It's part of YOUR hobby. You cannot accurately represent MY hobby. If MY hobby does not include painting, I am still into wargames. Wargaming is still my hobby.
When you grow up, you'll understand the difference between "lazy" and disinterested. I paint. I paint quite well, in fact. I used to accept commissions in a different life time. What I would not do THEN, and rarely do NOW is paint armies or even large units. I do not enjoy it. I don't like painting hordes of models in the same color scheme. I like painting characters and -sometimes begrudgingly- small 3 to 5 man units.
You see, for me, the hobby is about having fun in a social atmosphere with people who are fun to be with while playing a wargame.

What seems to be the difference between you (and many who agree that armies should be painted) and those of us who don't care is that WE are not actually running around demanding that you "respect our decision." We simply ask that you leave us the heck alone about it. You "hobby" your way and let us "hobby" our way, without having to deal with your open scorn and derision. That isn't asking you to respect our decision. That is asking you to respect us as human beings.

CT GAMER wrote:

plastictrees wrote:three hours, some spray paint and some dip.

TBH I'd often rather play against a clean unpainted army then one submited to what you describe above...

Agreed.
Also, I'd rather play against the unpainted gray horde than someone who's going to talk crap about me because I choose not to paint.

plastictrees wrote:

CT GAMER wrote:
TBH I'd often rather play against a clean unpainted army then one submited to what you describe above...

Hyperbole. Obviously they'd get a finishing coat of glitter before I'd consider them truly painted.

See, I don't care who you are. That's funny, right there.


Eric

MagickalMemories wrote:

sharkticon wrote:I blame the increasing size of armies.

I blame George Bush!

Remember, folks... If you refuse to play with or against unpainted models, the terrorists win.


Eric

You're just saying that because you're an Clinton appointee who moderatorshipness at an internet trading site is dependent on the continuing selling/trading of those grey/silver hordes! If people refused to play with or against unpainted models, you'd be out of an (unpaid) job and have alot more free time on your hands... I declare bias!