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.

LunaHound wrote:
Or you realize not everyone is a natural born painter.

I actually realize that no one is a natural painter. Painting, like anything else, is a skill that must be practiced. That said, there are many techniques that require significantly less skill, and that yield very nice results. Try spraying your tyranids tan and then dropping them in a can of wood stain, for example. Ta Da.

Especially ones that have NO habit of painting.

Well, this is a choice one must make, obviously.

I was PMing with another poster and came to a bit of a realization about why I like the painted army as a minimum standard to play.

I, unlike many posters here, have not been playing forever. I started in 2004. At the time I started this hobby, the policy at the GW store was to require painted armies if you wanted to play. They made some exceptions for people showing honest progress. At that time, there was a rich community of adult, veteran gamers in the area, there was a regular tournament scene, and when you played a pick-up game at a store, there was a better-than-average chance that the person you were playing against knew not only the rules of the game, but also how to play their army strategically.

In 2005, or thereabouts, GW's policy changed. I believe the policy change was financially motivated, and, in that way, it worked. There are currently more people gaming on an average night at the local shop than there were before. However, the quality of play has gone down, and I don't mean simply because the armies are unpainted. There are now more kids in the store than ever before. Finding a pick-up game with another adult is largely impossible. And, when you do find a pick-up game, the play is poor. The players, for the most part, do not know either the basic game rules, their codex rules, or how to play other than simply running their guys at your guys. The idea that someone would learn tactics appropriate to their army is non-existent.

Furthermore, the larger local community pretty much fell apart. I don't think there were any local tournaments in 2007, and maybe one in 2008. This in Chicago, one of the larger cities in the country, and the place that started Adepticon. The Bunker ran a few events, but without a painting requirement, they were both poorly attended, and drew little interest.

A few months ago, Zero_Cool started hosting a series of tournaments here again, this time, with a painting requirement. And, it has generated a lot of interest in the local veteran community. People are working on armies, to get them ready for the next event. They're showing up and having fun again.

That's not to say that the people who are playing with the unpainted armies aren't having fun in their own way, but I think it is reflective of the larger attitude shift at GW in the last few years. When I started, the emphasis, even at GW stores, was on the larger hobby concept. Sure, they tried to sell you models (they're a store afterall), but the staff knew what armies I played and moved their pitches that way. And they not only wanted to see people finish projects, but actively helped them get there. Now, the emphasis seems to be more on buying more. The new players are encouraged to jump to the newest army, regardless of whether they finished the last one or not. And, honestly, they're a corporation, it is their job to sell stuff, so this is good for them. But they've realized that people buy more if they don't actually paint things before moving on, and they're actively encouraging this. 'Ard Boyz is one more example of this.

Now, we as a community don't have to follow that lead. We don't need to adopt that attitude. The GW stores are free to espouse it, as it benefits their bottom line. But it doesn't benefit the larger community. Not in my opinion, formed as I stated above, by the observation of what happened to my local gaming community both when GW got rid of their painting requirement, and the change that has taken place since Zero_Cool re-instituted it for his events.

I really don't want to exclude anyone. What I'd like to do is include those who don't like painting by helping them to learn how to do it in as painless a way as possible. Maybe I am elitist, but a painted army, even one that's not spectacular, is something that you can take pride in fielding. And, I simply cannot fathom how so many people can claim not to have the time. I really just can't.

As stated many times by other posters, the historical community has had the painting requirement for, well, ever. And the GW community did for a long time too. It wasn't until the big corporation came along and said, "we can make more money by encouraging people not to paint" that it went away. And the community, at least my local community, has suffered for it.

I'm probably just rambling, but as sad as Polonius is about how elitist I may be, I'm just as sad to see our community values sold out to a multinational in pursuit of the almighty dollar, and how easily people have joined in to that mentality.

Sorry- doublepost.

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

I think it makes less sense that Hard boys was the only official event. Besides, all of the indy stuff has paint requirements. GW or not, Hard boys is still the only major event not to require painting.

And I've said many times that I think it should be one of if not the only one, with plenty others that require it.

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

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

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

You can be snippy all you want, and I'm sorry if you feel I'm being unfair, but there some folks who said some pretty extreme things. When the rest of the painting crowd doesn't say anything, it can be read like tacit approval. I'm sorry if I was wrong.

You "it's just a thread about wargaming" argument doesn't help you either. If it's not a big deal, then why do you care? Why wouldn't you want more people to attend? The very fact that this conversation is happening is because people have views about thinking it would be better to require certain behavior, and if necessary, exclude those that fail to conform. That might not be hate or bigotry, but "conform or be excluded" isn't exactly the most accepting attitude.

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

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

Seriously, since this is the second time you've pointed out that I'm a generally good poster, maybe you should rethink some of your underlying assumptions, and see if maybe I'm making some sense. You can assume that for some reason I'm throwing myself into a debate (that doesn't even affect me) completely at odds with my past posting, or you can assume that maybe I have a reason for posting the way I am in this thread.

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

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

The distincition I was making was the difference between the definition of elitism provided and your attitudes towards the game.

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

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

I'm fully conceding that hard boys shoudl not be the only national GW event. I've pointed that out, and I'd also point out that plethora of really good indy GTs that have sprung up. While it's the only official GW event, Hard Boys is still the only major event in the hobby not to require paint.

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

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

So, because I think being told not be so heated is an internet dode, I'm now taking this too seriously and being irrational.

By the way, "you're taking this too seriously" is way of allowing a person to act in a superficially proper way by not allowing an in depth discussion of motives and ramifications. Pretty much exactly what is being done here.

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

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

I can distinguish Hard boys from those events, however. All of the other events start as national or regional events. Hard boys begins at a local level, with the idea that basically every 40k player that wants to can easily play at least in the qualifiers. As such, decisions about attendence are made later, people may get off work or whatever with more ease, or may simply make a decision later.

Because of the travel and space issues at the events you list, people need to decide before hand if they are going. Given even six weeks, and given that travel events draw from the most dedicated hobbyists (as opposed to just player), having a paint requirement is far less of a barrier than, say, the cost in money and time to attend. The local qualfiers, OTOH, have no barrier to entry. They are free and local. With such low barriers, having the paint requirement becomes the major barrier, aside from scheduling, to people attending.

At, say, the adepticon Gladiator, nobody doesn't go because of paint. They're going regardless, and the paint score doesn't change the field. Hard Boys would suffer a drop in attendance and a drop in list quality, as there would be, inevitably, some people that couldn't field a fully painted army for whatever reason. That is the difference.

Now, if the topic is focused solely on the national event, there is more of an argument, as travel/cost is still the main limiting factor to attendance (or at least attendance by the actual winners), but I still think there is value to allowing every possibility to field the hardest lists, at this one specific event.

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

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

It's a little silly, but this is an exact quote from Killkrazy:
"I don't believe the hobby is that big a tent. The hobby is about playing games with painted military miniatures. If you don't paint your figures, you aren't inside the tent, you are in a different tent next door where they play games with unpainted miniatures. It is in many ways a similar hobby, but it is different to the painted figures hobby and it has more in common with map and computer based wargames. I don't look down on map games, I used to play loads of map games."

How am I supposed to react to that statement, other than to realize that he doesn't consider the people that don't paint in "his" hobby. Yes, I'm making a big deal of it, but it's pretty nasty, IMO.

I've also asked a couple of times for people to clarify their points, and they ducked the questions. I'm being a bit paranoid, admittedly, but there is a lot of moral posturing going on.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Redbeard wrote:I'm probably just rambling, but as sad as Polonius is about how elitist I may be, I'm just as sad to see our community values sold out to a multinational in pursuit of the almighty dollar, and how easily people have joined in to that mentality.

I don't know if I'm not being clear, but I don't think it's elitist to have painting standards. I like them for most tournaments.

I'm only going to the mat for Hard Boys because I think that there is a genuinely decent reason, other than simply allowing more people to attend. At a normal event, unpainted armies dilute the over all quality of the event. At hard boys, sure, unpainted stuff dilutes some of the fun, but with the upside of allowing stronger armies.

Kilkrazy wrote:

carmachu wrote:

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

That's fine, and you are welcome.

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

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

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

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

You'd onl;y play against it ifthats what I was in the mind to play. Right now I'm of the mind to play orks, which only has 66 models painted(2 squads). But hey, you lose out on the fun. I'm no different to play against with or without a painted army.

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

I just wanted to offer a counter-example to your observation at 'Ard Boyz. I think it's silly to try and draw conclusions of any sort based on a single datapoint. Nothing personal about that.

Redbeard wrote:

I'm probably just rambling, but as sad as Polonius is about how elitist I may be, I'm just as sad to see our community values sold out to a multinational in pursuit of the almighty dollar, and how easily people have joined in to that mentality.

One could say that happened AGES ago with GW, not just something recent, especially hardboyz.


*shrug* AT the club folks were discussing GW policy change a year or three back. WD is really where it started. The quality of armies shown deteriated. The painting articles werent master class or the like. Terrain featuring none existant anymore. GW stores focused more on kids and newbies and shoved vets off.

Your view of "sold out" isnt a new one.


*shrug* I'm an old fart in the game, where figures were crappy painted, didnt need to base them and you built things out of a deoteriant container. Its never going to change my view on playing and painting when you start playing like that.

Redbeard wrote:I'm just as sad to see our community values sold out to a multinational in pursuit of the almighty dollar, and how easily people have joined in to that mentality.

I think you're attributing a lot more control to GW than they actually have. 'Ard Boyz seems like GW's response to the facts about how most people (people that are far less interested in 40k than the average dakkaite) already want to do things or actually do things rather than creating/encouraging some new, anti-hobby behavior. As you yourself recognize, GW qua corporation is supposed to be responsive to their consumer basis by implementing effective marketing strategies, i.e., selling to the customer that's already out there not the one you'd prefer was going to buy. (I hear a lot of self-described veterans around here, for example, quip that they don't even buy GW stuff anymore.) That said, it does seem a bit defeatist to go from "you can play if you're making honest progress on painting" to "you can play as long as the army is assembled" but how is a tournament organizer supposed to know if you're making honet progress? Now, it's certainly clear if you show up without any paint on any models . . . but we don't need to go down that tangential road of all the possible ways to hoodwink an organizer into letting you play under the "honest progress" standard BECAUSE the main point of 'Ard Boyz is to give the rules a hard work out. If you want to see how badly a codex is broken, hand it over to the so-called WAAC Howler Monkeys. And so we find Polonius saying:

Polonius wrote:I'm only going to the mat for Hard Boys because I think that there is a genuinely decent reason, other than simply allowing more people to attend. At a normal event, unpainted armies dilute the over all quality of the event. At hard boys, sure, unpainted stuff dilutes some of the fun, but with the upside of allowing stronger armies.

What's unreasonable or community-destroying about that? If anything deserves complaint, it's the lack of support that has made 'Ard Boyz the only major official event in the US and not the particularities of that one event.

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

If I had the cash to hire an art student...

I mean, haven't you SEEN art students before? Wow.

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

I’d say that this is an unfair representation of the situation. I’d argue that the situation is more like this: There are some people playing their own version of basketball. For the analogies sake, let’s say they don’t use jerseys and have a slightly different penalty system. Well, this little offshoot gets popular, so the NBA decides to make a national tournament circuit for it. The circuit does well for a few years, but then things go drastically wrong; for unknown reasons, the NBA is forced to shut down their entire regular league system except for the little offshoot. Then, all the regular basketball players decide that the offshoot is morally WRONG and should be changed to standard basketball rules. That way, all the star basketball players can play and not sully themselves.

Mannahnin wrote: I honestly expect better from you.

Haha, that used to be a commonly recurring thought I had about certain moderators.

Killkrazy wrote: Way to polarise the debate, John!

The debate got polarized pages and pages ago. What thread have you been reading? I think this quote may have been in jest, but it does exemplify a certain blissful ignorance that I’ve been seeing in this thread.

Horst wrote: By allowing mouth breathers

How dare people think that the pro-painting side has been showing elitism and prejudice?!?! (Note, I understand that not all pro-painters are against the ‘ard boyz tournament, but I also can’t think of a better way of referring to those that want to remake ‘ard Boyz into a 2500 point GT)

Howard A Treesong wrote: Do some people have so little interest and pride in their armies that they don't want them to be painted?

A) I take some pride in my army, but it’s ultimately a bunch of plastic. I don’t really base my self-esteem on my army. I am highly interested in my army, but I’m more interested in the gameplay and fluff aspects than I am in the crappy paint job I’ll be able to give them. B)I want my army to be painted. I also suck, SUCK at painting and don’t want to make any of my minis FUBAR in order to appease someone else.

the_Armyman wrote: it's a real shame that honesty and integrity don't have a place in competition.

lolwut? Because I dislike painting, I lack honesty and integrity?

RustyKnight wrote:

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

I’d say that this is an unfair representation of the situation. I’d argue that the situation is more like this: There are some people playing their own version of basketball. For the analogies sake, let’s say they don’t use jerseys and have a slightly different penalty system. Well, this little offshoot gets popular, so the NBA decides to make a national tournament circuit for it. The circuit does well for a few years, but then things go drastically wrong; for unknown reasons, the NBA is forced to shut down their entire regular league system except for the little offshoot. Then, all the regular basketball players decide that the offshoot is morally WRONG and should be changed to standard basketball rules. That way, all the star basketball players can play and not sully themselves.

While you commented your local tournament cenario and the starter of this topic I just commented this thread behaviour issues... And its not the first time something that really bothers me appears again on your comment...
Morally wrong, morality... Do you guys, all of you, do really take things SO far that you think you can establish the moral grounds of one person by painting its figures or not?
That and all the name calling of elitist, snob, bigotry etc etc... What are you guys drinking? really? Im not joking here I assume we are all aged above these kind of coments because they show lack of logic and incapacity to dialogue your points witout being imature and offensive.

The only thing happening here is some people like to play the hobby in a unconventional/incomplete/not optimal way and others that keep the tradition alive just say (due to their positive and engaging experiences) -hey this game is better played the way it was designed for why not try it?... and others get defensive take offense and call names?

Its a perfect legit sugestion and anyone taking offense is someone not sure of the shaky grounds he is buiting his tent.
The fact that GW only supports this kind of event now screams for a major boicot... why? because the held the bastion of THE HOBBY COMPANY... they sold you paints brushes hobby materials at inflated prices, they bombarded years of painting armies culture to now trash it all? Well speaking of morality I think the company behaviour is Imoral in all of this.

Especially given the multiple easy techniques and tools (like drybrushing, washes, etc) that are out there.

Techniques that you will get looked down upon for by serious painters if you rely on them too heavily...

its you that bought a miniature designed to paint for a game designed for painted miniatures that doesnt seem to understand the basics of this hobby activity...

So are board gamers just "doing it wrong" when they play with their green or orange plastic miniatures that came with the box? Am I supposed to paint the little guys in Risk, too?

lolwut? Because I dislike painting, I lack honesty and integrity?

I think he was referring to the recent Golden Demon fraud, the guy who entered minis that he commissioned someone else to paint...

I hope so anyway.

NAVARRO, it's been your side that's been trying to argue moral superiority. Your side IS showing elitism; someone already gave you the definition and explained why your side exhibited it. 'Ard Boyz was originally started to cater to a different group of players (and to sell miniatures). That other group had different standards. Why should they be held to your standards?

NAVARRO wrote: The only thing happening here is some people like to play the hobby in a unconventional/incomplete/not optimal way and others that keep the tradition alive just say (due to their positive and engaging experiences) -hey this game is better played the way it was designed for why not try it?...

This statement would be better if it didn't contain fundamental errors. Firstly, it seems ignorant of the fact that the pro-painting side hasn't been saying "hey, this is better, why not try it". Their message has more similar (in varying degrees) to "non-painters are undisciplined savages that do not deserve to be in our hobby; if they will not paint, they should GTFO. Thus, we should make their ONLY major tournament into our tournament. Because if we don't get our GT's (even though there are still RTT's all over that require painting), they shouldn't get their event." You also assume that playing with unpainted miniatures in 'Ard Boyz is unoptimal. That is incorrect. Playing 'ard Boyz without requiring unpainted miniatures is optimal. It spurs on impulse buying (good for GW) and it allows more people to participate (thus increasing the chance of good competition). I'm a slow painter, but 'ard boyz allows me to play with the most competative elements of my army even though they might not be painted yet. In addition, you also seem to think that 'ard Boyz is about the hobby. It isn't, it's about playing the game. The GT's were more in line with being about the hobby.

NAVARRO wrote:and others get defensive take offense and call names?

You do understand that your side has been doing the same thing AND they've been doing it without proof beyond prejudicial anecdotes. I don't think Horst had any explanation why all non-painters are mouth breathers.

A lot of pages on this topic. I've been involved in the hobby for 20 years now and pretty much play only with and against painted armies. Personally, it's a visual medium and a huge part of the visual medium is using painted models. Having said that:

-The Ard Boyz is one type of tourney. Most players will play 1 round, some 2 rounds, very few get to round 3. One tourney that doesn't require painting. To me, it's very obvious why this tourney exists and is promoted by GW: $$$$ I don't have an issue with it, but I'll call it as I see it. If there is one event a year w/o a painting standard, so be it; I have no issues. After participating in the Ard Boyz the past 2 years, I won't be participating again unless GW really looks to improve upon the event.

-I think this debate is in the same vein as folks complaing about events such as the Adepticon Gladiator. It's a once a year tourney for the folks who want to participate. What's the big deal? There are many tourneys being held. If the Ard Boyz isn't to your liking, don't participate.

-At this point, I'm not wiling to say GW is altering its focus on modelling. I believe it is stronger than ever. However, I think GW (in the US at least) is trying to accomodate another segment of their customer base.

RustyKnight wrote:NAVARRO, it's been your side that's been trying to argue moral superiority. .

See if you looked carefully i said

"Morally wrong, morality... Do you guys, all of you, do really take things SO far that you think you can establish the moral grounds of one person by painting its figures or not?
"

And this is were I see a big confict of mentality... its not black VS white... bad VS evil... painters VS non painters... MY SIDE VS YOUR SIDE... I was refering to ALL involved!
THese kind of argumentations based on extreme grosse generalizations and labelings and name calling is pointless to all .

Besides you should ignore a comment from one or two posters like i did but when a vast majority calls divergent sugestions and comments... snob or elitism, then theres a precedent that should be addressed and replied...

Just because painting is the optimal choice because of the hobby original designs, and I choose to say that to all that practice other hobbies modes, doesnt make me elitist bastard...

Jezz no one said continually
""non-painters are undisciplined savages that do not deserve to be in our hobby; if they will not paint, they should GTFO."
But maybe the clowded hears just wanted to hear that.
Yet it was told countless times " your a elitist "

At some point people should sit back take a deep breath and stop with the dramas... take divergent opinions for what they are and try to respect them. But when opinions disapear and generally all start calling names then theres nothing you can do to have a positive dialogue.
One troll can be ignored but when all start a major wagh trolling its just silly.

Forget childish imaginary radical SIDES and debate ideas and were they meet/separate... its not a war its a debate.

I think the issue has been fully explored. The two sides don't agree, and most likely never will.

The debate has been heated and not rude, and I thank everyone for their participation.

Probably best to lock the thread now.

If someone wants to continue, drop a PM to me or another mod.