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.

Thank you to everyone for keeping it civil and polite. I really appreciate that no one's been crapping on others just for enjoying the hobby differently!

 bocatt wrote:
I feel like this question (from the way it was phrased in the OP) is not "How important is the act of painting to you" but instead "how important is it to you that your opponent has painted their entire army" and all the generally elitist baggage associated with that kind of question.

Mate, nobody's being "elitist" by stating a preference.

I answered 5/5 because to me it is the biggest part of the hobby. The game of 40k is pretty much supplementary. It’s cool that I can spend hours painting these models, then push them around a board playing toy soldiers. I don’t mind someone having a badly painted army if they’ve tried with it. My models are no golden daemon winners, but I don’t really want to play against a grey hoard, I just don’t enjoy it that way.

Meta chasers tend to have perpetually ugly armies with minimal, rushed paint jobs.

I have little patience for those.

I dig the visual aspect, but I'd never refuse to play an opponent with unpainted models.

That said, I'd sooner play one with painted models

Now for ME? I want at least my models to be primed, ut i play with entirely different lists all the time, i always get about 8-10k points in any army i play other than a couple, playing something different for me and my opponent is more fun than fixating on 1 list and getting it painted. I paint my favorite models first.

For others?
Some people are players, some are painters. Who am i to judge someone else's hobby time.

To me its not important at all (and i'm a painter) b.c i know some people that almost can't paint at all (nerve damage, color blind, eye sight problems, etc..) or just love the story and game but not the painting. Why should i get upset that they don't paint their models?

 Nazrak wrote:

 bocatt wrote:
I feel like this question (from the way it was phrased in the OP) is not "How important is the act of painting to you" but instead "how important is it to you that your opponent has painted their entire army" and all the generally elitist baggage associated with that kind of question.

Mate, nobody's being "elitist" by stating a preference.

Now, now...remember, if you like anything nice, or hold yourself and others to a higher standard you're an elitist "gatekeeper", etc.

I think if you're playing friends or new players then non painted models are fine. If you're playing at a tournement that's different, you're paying to play top quality 40k and playing against someone who has sprayed 3 random colours over all their models (which I've experienced on a handful of occasions) is just not fun when you've spent hours painting your army to look half decent.

I'm not bothered about the quality of the painting but everyone can slap some contrast on and spend a couple of hours putting some detail on their models.

Same goes for proxies in my mind. If you're trying something new or testing before buying models that's fine but if you're playing with half the army as something it's not then I'll just play someone else.

 small_gods wrote:
I think if you're playing friends or new players then non painted models are fine. If you're playing at a tournement that's different, you're paying to play top quality 40k and playing against someone who has sprayed 3 random colours over all their models (which I've experienced on a handful of occasions) is just not fun when you've spent hours painting your army to look half decent.

And what if three random colours is what the person your playing against thinks that looks decent? Or they've painted the models like that for a reason?

For me it's 5/5. I thought about it, and realized I probably wouldn't even play the game at all if it wasn't for beautifully painted miniatures that I worked on myself.

It just feels sooooo good to get down to eye level with nicely painted minis and decently painted terrain. Really immerses you in the game!

I see it more as a missed opportunity. A painted model brings some story that the hobbist created during the process of painting it. If the model is not painted then it is a little story less in the game.

Besides that, playing against somebody who never paints his or her soldiers could be an indication that is a "that guy". Perhaps she or he would not paint it because of other reasons which are fine for me. But if the reason is that always wants to bring the latest cheese to the table without caring on reduce the fun and enjoyment of your opponent that would bring the missed opportunity to play a fully painted game, then no. It´s not okay.

I will definitely not participate in a tournament that allows painted models up to the tabletop standards.

psipso wrote:
I see it more as a missed opportunity. A painted model brings some story that the hobbist created during the process of painting it. If the model is not painted then it is a little story less in the game.

Not my models. Their story is forged on the game table, not the paint desk.

psipso wrote:
I will definitely not participate in a tournament that allows painted models up to the tabletop standards.

???

I will NOT ever field an unpainted model on the table.
I don't care what game it is for. It does not get used until it is painted. Not just undercoated/primed. Base and detail coats minimum.

But I also put "playing the game" at the bottom priority also. I'm in the hobby for the making aspect. Building and painting.

ccs wrote:

 small_gods wrote:
I think if you're playing friends or new players then non painted models are fine. If you're playing at a tournement that's different, you're paying to play top quality 40k and playing against someone who has sprayed 3 random colours over all their models (which I've experienced on a handful of occasions) is just not fun when you've spent hours painting your army to look half decent.

And what if three random colours is what the person your playing against thinks that looks decent? Or they've painted the models like that for a reason?

I mean literally randomly sprayed 3 colours with an airgun, not matching the model so they can get round the '3 colours and a textured base' rule that most tournaments have. I don't mind if someone is not artistically gifted at all, I just mind when people are lazy or trying to game the system.

Painting is important to the hobby. It completes the building of the model. Grey plastic and white metal with green stuff just doesn't quite suit the situation.

I find it helps me to make them mine. When I paint, it gives me some zen. I don't paint very often, though. I get a little performance anxiety when I do, which is silly. I'm not bad, I'm just not great, but many of my meta are just flat out amazing in their work, which doesn't help. I'm happy when I reach tabletop quality.

As for others painting? I'd prefer it, if only because it helps complete the immersion, but I understand if they don't, because I am so slow at getting it done. I won't hold someone else up to a standard my own lazy side won't accomplish (unless they've committed to it).

 Strg Alt wrote:

A better hobby would be for them MtG but as lazy as these guys are they wouldn't even take an effort to put their cards into sleeves.

They'd probably not even take the cards out the boosters. That alone is allot of effort.

It's why I prefer historicals.
You won't find an unpainted Napoleonic army because the painting is a MASSIVE party of the hobby and something you want to be proud of.

The majority of 40k players have no pride in what they do because their army will be on eBay when the next powerful codex releases.
So why even bother?

I don't like playing with unpainted models and they will be at least primed before they hit the table. They might also be lacking weapon options - I tend to play a unit at least once with each configuration before I make a final decision on armament - if I haven't either magnetized or built a set with each option (the latter was done with my guardsmen).

As for the opponent, as long as I can identify what I'm battling, that's on them in what shape they bring their models. I wouldn't fight just bases (unless it was supposed to represent something invisible or cloaked), but I've faced against proxies, paper models/standees, half-assembled, unpainted and the like without complaint.

On Christmas, my Uncle was showing me his Battle of Saratoga miniatures(he's more of a modeler/diorama guy) while I was showing off my Salamanders Relic Contemptor.

I dont think either one of us would ever field an unpainted army.

For me the breakdown would be; Build 25%, Paint 40%, & play 35%. The more time I put into making it look good, the more I'll enjoy it on the tabletop.

I have on occasion played with primed and based models. But I avoid it as much as possible.

Im a slowpoke painter/procrastinator so this means that I currently don't play as much as I would like to as I don't want to detract from peoples experience. Some of the people at my club have extremely high standard finished armies and I feel like a chum bringing a half finished army.

That's ok though. The hobby is about the long haul aspect of improving skills and eventually having display worthy finished army because to me personally that is what really brings the hobby and the game to life.

I would prefer to play against panted models if possible but I understand people might be at different stages in their hobby/ collections so I wouldn't begrudge someone a game. Probably would not want to make that a repeat experience though as it is somewhat important for reasons given above.

 Elbows wrote:

 Nazrak wrote:

 bocatt wrote:
I feel like this question (from the way it was phrased in the OP) is not "How important is the act of painting to you" but instead "how important is it to you that your opponent has painted their entire army" and all the generally elitist baggage associated with that kind of question.

Mate, nobody's being "elitist" by stating a preference.

Now, now...remember, if you like anything nice, or hold yourself and others to a higher standard you're an elitist "gatekeeper", etc.

You do realize that at least one person said that anyone who doesn't have a fully painted army is lazy and doesn't deserve to play right?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I said 3/5. It's something to work towards, but not always possible.

I value progress, rather than completeness. I try to have more of my army painted for my next game, and I encourage my opponents to do the same.

I have no issues playing against a grey horde game one, half primed game two, full primed game three, one squad mostly done game four, ect.

I myself enjoy playing as much as I like painting, and sometimes I don't have time for both. Other times, weather gets in the way. It's been raining all week, so I can't prime anything.

None of this is helped by the fact that I'm a slower painter, so where one guy might get a squad done, I'll get maybe 3-5 painted.

I voted 3/5 since I enjoy both armies being painted, but I know we have jobs, families and lives so giving anyone grief over a unpainted model is just... Weird sense of detachment from reality to me.

I love having two fully painted armies clash off, and in my local area we celebrate when someone who was long struggling to finish painting his army to HIS standard, not anyone elses, finally does it! It's a strangely wholesome way and keeps the hobby community strong and friendly.

Hell, I have a large portion of my new chaos army primed, no one gives me grief over it since I'm painting at my own speed (and factors such as having one eye makes extended painting sessions very painful) and the fact I know no one is on my back makes enjoying the hobby all the more satisfying.

I used to be known as the grey army guy. So I didn't care much about it then. Now that I put a lot of effort into getting my stuff painted well, so I hold more importance to it. In fact I really don't like playing with unpainted stuff anymore. I would prefer to play against painted armies but I would never decline a game over it. I also enjoy talking about painting with my opponents so I went for 3/5.

Hard question.
My #1 part of the hobby is build the models.
I black prime so leaving models in that state and playing them is garbage (what is he holding??).
My #2 is to play, they are playing pieces after all or I would build other things.
Painting is pretty much the close 3rd because it is all about making the model look good right?
I agree on the aspect of immersion.

I paint to a high standard where I can, so I can see how good they can be when using the less... well done models.

When I "finish" building a model, I Zenithal 3-step (3 shades) base-paint the models and get colour on the graveled base.
I can then see detail and they are at least started.
They are suitable to play with if I get impatient (it is similar to the meta-play paint job mentioned).
I tend to assembly-line paint and usually start with all the troop models and work my way up the elite and Sgt type.

Final process is decals, hard clear-coat, matt-coat and then the model gets named... when you put that much effort in, he will proudly be called at least "Grunt E Bulletsworth the 3rd".

This is the standard FOR ME. I am far less judgmental of others.
If I play someone new, seeing ANY progress from week to week makes me happy.

For myself? I'll either play with fully painted models or unpainted or primed models. The latter two is mostly for two reasons.

First, I have high standards for myself when I paint. I'm comfortable with shortcuts if they don't diminish the quality, but I typically spend 4+ hours per model (in a Guard army no less!). Had I restricted myself to only playing when the army was fully painted, I'd either have to suck up and paint less than my best (can't do, I refuse), or wait over a year to play.

Second, and perhaps the bigger thing is because my gaming group always pressures me to play regardless of what's fully painted or not. Heck, they try to get me to bring metal models that haven't finished and been sealed yet (I never will because I don't want them to chip). I enjoy gaming, but not enough to overtake my desire to bring a painted army. Thus, bringing some unpainted or some primed models is a compromise.

As I've been painting more, I've been liking playing painted models more, and have been prioritizing painted models in my lists. As one of my goals for this year is to be able to field a fully painted (and well painted) Guard army, I'll say that for me, painting is a 4/5 Pretty Important thing. For me, the hobby is as much about painting as it is about gaming.

That said, for people I game against, I'd say it's a 3/5 or 2/5. People where I live have to work a lot in order to make it (40+ hours). I myself work a regular 8-5 job, so I understand not having a lot of time to paint, or people who want to try out stuff before committing to painting. Because of that, I would never require others to have a fully painted army, even if I bring one.

I mean who does not like the feeling of debuting a polished fresh new addition to their army

On my very first model I had spent dozen of hours assembling and painting it and I keep returning, buying stuff for it to make it look better with new dyes and decorations. For me, every model is an expression of my passion and love for this hobby. I spare no expense or time in making model look to the best of my abilities. This seems to lead to highly individualized models, because I treat every model as unique little snowflake and I experiment on them.

I don't mind playing unpainted models, but I simply enjoy creating models from grounds up so much that it is a hobby in itself to me. I do not understand why loving to create your own miniatures is exclusive to playing with them. I do not feel discomfort by playing with unpainted miniatures and I enjoy my hobbies in both ways. It is surprising to me that other people consider that assembled and painted army is something valuable when resselling their models. Assembled or not is not a big factor for me.

4/5 not literally the most important thing but pretty high up there for my own enjoyment of my own models.

Im not going to deny someone else a game because they arent painted. though its different in a tournament setting where it was a requirement.

 ValentineGames wrote:

 Strg Alt wrote:

A better hobby would be for them MtG but as lazy as these guys are they wouldn't even take an effort to put their cards into sleeves.

They'd probably not even take the cards out the boosters. That alone is allot of effort.

It's why I prefer historicals.
You won't find an unpainted Napoleonic army because the painting is a MASSIVE party of the hobby and something you want to be proud of.

The majority of 40k players have no pride in what they do because their army will be on eBay when the next powerful codex releases.
So why even bother?

with all due respect I think you're wrong and are letting your personal hobby preferances adjust your view, some people are absolutely like that but they're far from the norm. In fact most 40k players seem to have unpainted models more because we keep buying and assmbling them at a faster rate then we can paint, Historical players however have a much more "set" army then 40k does.

where 40k players are given a thousand points and can do anything like that, presumably historical players follow a stricter FO&E (such as a napleoniaic era company etc) thus once you've bought everything you need I doubt you're buying extra units. it's not chasing the power meta etc, in a lot of cases it's "OHHH and thats cool too!" leading to constant collection growth. I know my minis that are unpainted still (I rarely use unpainted minis however once for a kill team game I ended up doing so due to not having had time to paint an auxillery I rarely use outside of Kill team) is because of that.

3/5. I find it very zen and relaxing but I honestly don't have the time to spend doing it. It is too isolating from my family to just lock myself away for hours at a time and I barely find the time to go to a tournament once a month. I'd rather spend my time doing so many other things than locked in a room by myself agonizing about painting an eyeball or getting a wash on an area that shouldn't have it and having to touch up detail work.

I don't like being alone. I'm a social person but painting requires too much concentration for it to be a social part of the hobby and that social part is why I play.

If I don't chase the meta I get crushed at my local FLGS so I am constantly adding things to my army and finding time to paint it all is the bane of my 40k existence.

The guys that I play with have collections in the tens of thousands of points, it's nothing for them to pull 18 assassins off a shelf (or 3 storm ravens, 60 brimstones, you get the picture) somewhere and put them on the table.

I don't have the time to develop another circle of nerd friends to play beer and pretzels 40k with. I enjoy pick-up games and tournaments so I try to get all of my models up to that paint job but after spending a month on painting up hellblasters to just see them sit on my shelf I paint to a much more basic standard.

Once i have my 40k of 40k then I'll probably go back and pretty up my paint jobs but screw anyone my models offend. I don't find 40k an immersive narrative experience regardless of what the paint jobs on the models look like. The rules/game just don't recreate how the setting is in my head at all, the abstraction to get there is so onerous that if you can make that much of a leap in your head I don't see how painted models all of a sudden make it immersive.

The gate-keeping snobs telling me how to enjoy my hobby are exactly why I avoid the CAAC guys like the plague. Insulting people with words like lazy and having no pride because we value different things in life/hobby than you do is pathetic and should have no place in our hobby. We need to be more inclusive in our hobby. I'd rather play against the worst TFG with soda cans with labels for models than drive people away because they are scared they will never paint anything up to someone else's bizarre standard.

3/5

I think it is an aspect of the hobby that can't be ignored, but having said that, I got into this hobby for the game first, the spectacle of nicely painted army is a distant second. Not an unimportant second, but definitely not the primary reason I started.

This is proven by my slowly dwindling pile of unpainted models.