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.

Again the issue is in that the wording of GW's player code puts the burden of seeking permission on the person with unpainted models as if the expectation and requirement is fully painted armies and so you need your opponents permission to use your unpainted minis. That notion is rather repugnant as it puts a very high barrier to entry (and can breed elitism) just for somebody to be able to sit down and play a game of plastic army men wars using what passes for game rules from GW.

What is should be is that both parties coming to an agreement to play the game, period. Either party can decline a game for whatever reason they want to and that is as simple as it needs to be.

The criticism isn't about so much about how people interact with each other (just be kind, don't be a jerk) but about GW acting more and more like the arbiter of standards and pushing their agenda of people using only GW products to play GW games with those models being painted with GW paints.

 Vankraken wrote:
The criticism isn't about so much about how people interact with each other (just be kind, don't be a jerk) but about GW acting more and more like the arbiter of standards and pushing their agenda of people using only GW products to play GW games with those models being painted with GW paints.

I'm one of those people - those "elitists" - that genuinely prefers GW units to be represented by the correct GW model. If I don't own the thing I want to bring, then I don't bring it.

But if someone wants to show up with their Pipe Cleaner Khorne army, or their Spruecrons, then more power to them. Mother fether went to the trouble to make those armies, so why should I get to deny them that?

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

BrianDavion wrote:
so In other words, "yes I reckongize people play differantly and want differant things, but I'm not going to attempt a modicium of communication I'm just going to show up and insist they play with me on my terms?" because thats what it sounds like.

Only if you read it through the reflection of a fun-house mirror. To put it another way, your assessment is about as backwards/reductive as one can get.

I see it the other way around: I'm not going to insist on any terms (outside of what impacts the game itself - mission, forces, set-up, etc.). It's the same reason why I hate the 10 points for painted armies. That's not part of the actual game itself (hobby yes, game no - let's be very clear on that distinction), and thus I don't see it should affect the outcome of the game.

BrianDavion wrote:
Look personally I think insisting on only playing painted mini's is silly (that said I appreciate when someone attempts an effort simply because I appreciate painting minis ain't easy) but I'm going to make sure the people I sit down with also don't have an issue if I'm gonna be bringing unpainted mini's. I mean it's common sense to communicate these things.

Maybe it's because I've literally never come across someone who's said "You have to have painted minis or I is walkin' out that door!". Maybe I've just been lucky to have never encountered someone like that in real life.

Thank Christ.

yeah neither have I, everytime I've used unpainted minis and mentioned it they've always said "yeah cool man go ahead" hell the last time I did it, was a game of kill team, where the guys response was quite literally "no not and all, and hey I love how you put together that intercessor, can I look at it up close?" (I'd used some MK III bits and a studded shoulder pad, it was one of my most distinct looking intercessors)

but yeah asking about it is fine because chances are it won't be an issue. *shrugs*

BrianDavion wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

BrianDavion wrote:
so In other words, "yes I reckongize people play differantly and want differant things, but I'm not going to attempt a modicium of communication I'm just going to show up and insist they play with me on my terms?" because thats what it sounds like.

Only if you read it through the reflection of a fun-house mirror. To put it another way, your assessment is about as backwards/reductive as one can get.

I see it the other way around: I'm not going to insist on any terms (outside of what impacts the game itself - mission, forces, set-up, etc.). It's the same reason why I hate the 10 points for painted armies. That's not part of the actual game itself (hobby yes, game no - let's be very clear on that distinction), and thus I don't see it should affect the outcome of the game.

BrianDavion wrote:
Look personally I think insisting on only playing painted mini's is silly (that said I appreciate when someone attempts an effort simply because I appreciate painting minis ain't easy) but I'm going to make sure the people I sit down with also don't have an issue if I'm gonna be bringing unpainted mini's. I mean it's common sense to communicate these things.

Maybe it's because I've literally never come across someone who's said "You have to have painted minis or I is walkin' out that door!". Maybe I've just been lucky to have never encountered someone like that in real life.

Thank Christ.

yeah neither have I, everytime I've used unpainted minis and mentioned it they've always said "yeah cool man go ahead" hell the last time I did it, was a game of kill team, where the guys response was quite literally "no not and all, and hey I love how you put together that intercessor, can I look at it up close?" (I'd used some MK III bits and a studded shoulder pad, it was one of my most distinct looking intercessors)

but yeah asking about it is fine because chances are it won't be an issue. *shrugs*

I think these discussions where mostly already happening, and GW has made the discussion worse. Just by the way they have framed it in both games.

That's the core point.

The problem is that GW has framed the discussion as if the unpainted army is in the wrong and needs to seek permission.

Although it seems that's actually a common opinion amongst the community now!

In my own experience I'd even say that unpainted minis were the default, with nicely painted armies being common but far from universal.

Yes, I think they should include the players code as it has some very helpful tips for those just starting out. 40K is clearly a tournament focused game( for better or worse ) so it makes sense to include a rough guide to gaming etiquette rather than have newcomers blunder in. For example, handling other players models can easily be taken for granted and can be met with more than just a frown...

Also, it takes its rightful place in the core rule book. This makes far more sense than the mostly unnecessary fluff that bloats the core books these days. Its not like we don't have codices and supplements for all that stuff...

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 DarknessEternal wrote:
HBMC is the kind of person who this code is directed at but can never follow

Uh huh.

We have people in this thread telling everyone that if they're not painting they're just not trying hard enough, all the way up to Seabass screaming in all caps because he got caught out telling someone with disabilities to eat gak, and yet I'm the bad guy? Give me a break...

Seabass wrote:
So no, I am NOT taking that statement back. You are standing on the shoulders of people with disabilities to win an internet argument about a game of toy fething soliders.

The only one screaming, again, in all caps, about toy soldiers is you.

I'm not standing on anyone's shoulders. I'm not using anyone as a shield. You (and others) continue to belittle anyone who chooses (or maybe can't chose) to interface with this hobby in a manner different to you. You (and others) are clinging onto this utterly asinine idea that everyone must engage in the hobby, in the same way, that (like a few others have stated) those who do not do what you do simply aren't trying 'hard enough' (or at all).

Putting a painting requirement in a 'code of conduct' is as stupid as putting in a points score in missions for having a painted army. You are specifically separating out - discriminating against, if you prefer - a sub-set of players who could have all kinds of reasons for not painting. I mean, putting aside disabilities, since that gets you all rankled up, what about if someone just doesn't want to? Doesn't care? Has no interest in painting.

Why is their choice any more or less valid than yours?
Why should they be treated any differently to someone who does care about painting?

If you can answer that with anything better than "Because painting is part of the hobby!", then I'm all ears.

Just a few things here.

If you think my rebuke of your completely asinine behavior is based on the game, then you have missed the point entirely, or are just willfully ignoring it because the focus of the statement is to not use disabled people as a shield. It really wouldn't matter if we were talking about WH40k, Videogaming, Welding, Nursing, or whatever activity you can insert here. The fact of the matter is you are hiding behind this "what if people are disabled" shield as an excuse to not do something. To be treated differently. While some reasonable restrictions do exist (again, no blind pilots, no paraplegic construction workers, etc) you are just propping that disability shield up and being like "see, because this exists this is stupid". That is an awful way to look at anyone with a disability, and instead of wanting to build them up, that kind of behavior just tears them down. If I was given my Masters's degree on lower standards because I suffered a stroke, I wouldn't have taken it. I went from cum laude to just managing to be a passing student in that time. I wouldn't EVER, and neither would any person I know, have accepted that honor if it had an asterisk by it.

The second point is that the expected societal norm of the game, speaking to the game specifically, is to paint your gak. If the game started off prepainted and all of a sudden you have to do it, then I *might* have a bit of sympathy for that position. But that's not the case. You knew what you were getting into. If you choose to not adhere to the established standards of a societal ingroup, then you cannot be too pissy if you don't get out of it what you feel you are entitled to. Don't want to paint, great, play another game, or accept the fact that painting is a part of the hobby and there could be adverse reactions to willfully ignoring part of the social hobby. It's that damn simple. If someone has a different way they want to enjoy the game, good for them, let them. But if someone chooses not to paint their stuff, and someone who really likes the spectacle of playing a miniatures game and wants to take pictures of cool moments in the game and such, well, if they don't want to play against your grey horde, then that's their choice too. (Shifting back to discussing life in general, now outside of just the hobby, for the sake of clarity) Now, if for some reason, you became disabled post joining the hobby, there might be a point to that, but...

The last point is that you are attempting to take an extremely small, and I mean extremely small subsect of the population, and extrapolate it to a much larger body and community. If/when the case of disability comes around, it can be treated as a one-off, as a case that requires an exception. But to take any general rules set (Game, employment, social club, athletics) and then demand an exception be carved out for disabled people, instead of attempting to include them, work with them, and build them up is one of the most awful and exclusionary things I've read lately. Yes, obviously there are times when exceptions need to be made, it's why the ADA exists, however, just putting up the "they're disabled so they can't" is disgusting, exclusionary, and demeaning. If you truly do have disabilities, as you stated, then you already know this, but again, winning an argument about painting toy soldiers is more important than treating people with disabilities as actual people.

I'm not a good painter. there is a reason why I don't post my models. Hell, your mechanics painted terrain looks better than my blood angels army as a whole (something I'm still scratching my head about), But I'll be damned if I let that stop me from doing the things that need to be done, for the hobbies I enjoy, for the life I live, and for the work I do.

So, yeah, I do get indignant, and I do get aggressive about those behaviors. No, I absolutely will not apologize or take back what I've said, and using disabled people as a shield, even if you have a disability, is disgusting and exclusionary, and serves only to hurt people with disabilities.

Playing with painted miniatures is part of the miniatures game hobby.

It's what sets it apart from a hobby that uses paper cutouts on stands, or cardboard chits, or little steel shoes or whatever.

I equate painting and assembling. The only difference between the two is that "modeling for advantage" (under which just having empty bases or unbuilt hulls lives) is still a stigma and unpainted miniatures aren't.

But I don't understand why someone who plays a miniatures wargame, instead of some other wargame type, would be so opposed in actually making the miniatures look nice. The hobby is about spectacle.

This only seems to be a problem with GW games (and WM/H). I've never ever seen a historicals game where someone uses unpainted minis on purpose over a deliberately long period of time. It's just so strange.

Furthermore, I'd like to add that I do play against unpainted armies and miniatures all the time. Even in historicals. The difference is that I just want people to try to have painted armies. To have made some progress in the last year of playing on the units they bought 12 months ago. But it seems like people are simply satisfied to forever Play the Grey, and that, for me, defeats the purpose. I might as well let them use empty bases or overturned cardboard boxes for tanks, because it looks just as "cinematic" - which is to say, not at all.

The thing I've taken away from this is that apparently in the United States there are those that see it as some kind of violation to consider the impact on persons with disabilities in advance of a decision.

Which is wild. Accommodations are all good and fine but there's a reason accessibility is a moving target as we improve our ability to anticipate and mitigate problems before they become exacerbated.

Why wait to add a colour-blind mode? A ramp? In fact, the easier the change the less reason not to do it pre-emptively... like removing a pointless line for an unenforceable code of conduct, for example.

This is entertaining reading about potential perceived insults that have literally never happened (by their own admission!) to the person complaining the most about them.

This is why dakka has the reputation it has lol. People like that keep dominating otherwise rational discussions that are based in actual reality and not non-existent hyperbolic worst case scenarios, without ever a moderator intervention to curtail trolling.

In my mind I picture Gerald Broflivsky a.k.a. Skankhunt42 gleefully typing away in a dimly lit room and giggling every time he generates an enraged response.

I don't think people are saying "Don't consider the impact". I think they're saying "make accommodations where necessary, but those accommodations should be exceptions rather than the rule"

There are theatre accomodations for deaf people - including glasses that show captions to the individual, as an example. The accommodations are done by exception, though - they don't just put open captions across the entire breadth of the screen for everyone.

A general policy/expectation can exist, and that is not incompatible with the idea that exceptions and adjustments to that policy/expectation can be made in cases where an individual is disabled.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
There are theatre accomodations for deaf people - including glasses that show captions to the individual, as an example. The accommodations are done by exception, though - they don't just put open captions across the entire breadth of the screen for everyone.

I think the theater is a good example because you could easily make the case that there's nothing wrong with subtitles being run on everything - and anyone who has ever watched anything in another language knows this hardly compromises the experience. It's not a hill I'd die on because I don't care (who goes to theaters anymore?) but if the powers that be decided to run subs on every movie, to the annoyed able-bodied I guess I would say "Tough".

A tangible example of how accessibility practices should and do precede specific accommodations wherever possible is accessibility guidelines for websites. They prohibit all sorts of implementations that designers might otherwise love to put in. In some places it's enshrined in law. Everyone is expected to make do with the pre-implemented accessibility-friendly UX, you don't get to see the designer's original version that was shot down because it didn't meet requirements.

And really, do these people who refuse to play against grey plastic because it ruins their experience actually exist? Refuse to field it, sure, but play against it? I don't think I've seen anything approaching that outside of events, and those usually want it because it means they can advertise the pictures more easily.

 Ventus wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
There are theatre accomodations for deaf people - including glasses that show captions to the individual, as an example. The accommodations are done by exception, though - they don't just put open captions across the entire breadth of the screen for everyone.

I think the theater is a good example because you could easily make the case that there's nothing wrong with subtitles being run on everything - and anyone who has ever watched anything in another language knows this hardly compromises the experience. It's not a hill I'd die on because I don't care (who goes to theaters anymore?) but if the powers that be decided to run subs on every movie, to the annoyed able-bodied I guess I would say "Tough".

A tangible example of how accessibility practices should and do precede specific accommodations wherever possible is accessibility guidelines for websites. They prohibit all sorts of implementations that designers might otherwise love to put in. In some places it's enshrined in law. Everyone is expected to make do with the pre-implemented accessibility-friendly UX, you don't get to see the designer's original version that was shot down because it didn't meet requirements.

And really, do these people who refuse to play against grey plastic because it ruins their experience actually exist? Refuse to field it, sure, but play against it? I don't think I've seen anything approaching that outside of events, and those usually want it because it means they can advertise the pictures more easily.

I've mentioned before I won't refuse (unless I have other reasons like the player is a jerk or something).

But if it goes on and on and on, staying grey for years? I'll judge, even if silently, and I'll try to seek other players first and avoid playing the Grey as much as possible, because it really does suck.

And perhaps you don't mind subtitles on everything, but there's a reason those accommodations are provided individually and it's because some people do, whatever your personal opinion, and their expectation is important too. There's no reason to compromise what they want, so long as accommodations for the disabled can still be provided. That's my point.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
I don't think people are saying "Don't consider the impact". I think they're saying "make accommodations where necessary, but those accommodations should be exceptions rather than the rule"

There are theatre accomodations for deaf people - including glasses that show captions to the individual, as an example. The accommodations are done by exception, though - they don't just put open captions across the entire breadth of the screen for everyone.

A general policy/expectation can exist, and that is not incompatible with the idea that exceptions and adjustments to that policy/expectation can be made in cases where an individual is disabled.

It's annoying when people post stuff like this, but...

I'm gonna do it...

-FIN-

Spot on.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
There's no reason to compromise what they want, so long as accommodations for the disabled can still be provided. That's my point.

Yes and it's a good point. I think win-wins are great where possible. And like I said I wouldn't die on the hill of the subtitles thing just an example of how I at least believe the able suffering a marginal reduction in quality of life can be a worthwhile trade if it greatly improves that of the differently-abled. But that's getting far away from the topic.

Basically I don't think demanding painted miniatures is worth even one awkward conversation about disability. I've never been asked for permission to play grey plastic (and I've played more grey plastic than not over the years) and I've never done it myself, and I don't see any compelling reason to start.

 Ventus wrote:
The thing I've taken away from this is that apparently in the United States there are those that see it as some kind of violation to consider the impact on persons with disabilities in advance of a decision.

Which is wild. Accommodations are all good and fine but there's a reason accessibility is a moving target as we improve our ability to anticipate and mitigate problems before they become exacerbated.

Why wait to add a color-blind mode? A ramp? In fact, the easier the change the less reason not to do it pre-emptively... like removing a pointless line for an unenforceable code of conduct, for example.

Because there is no reason to treat anyone with a disability any differently or hold them to any different expectations than you would anyone else until there literally is a disability so significant that it is not feasible to do so. The first thing psychology/health care practice teaches us when dealing with individuals with disabilities is to not treat them differently. So, no, it really isn't a violation to accommodate someone with a disability, and I don't think anyone is advocating for that. What people are saying (other than me saying to not use people with a disability as a shield) is that it is so rare, in terms of the population of miniature gamers, that reasonable accommodations can be made on a case by case basis but the rule itself is not exclusionary by its design.

Seabass wrote:
What people are saying (other than me saying to not use people with a disability as a shield) is that it is so rare, in terms of the population of miniature gamers, that reasonable accommodations can be made on a case by case basis but the rule itself is not exclusionary by its design.

Rare... by what metric? I have encountered FAR more persons with disabilities in miniatures games than I have, just as an example, people who refuse to play against grey plastic.

The hypocritical screed about using disability as a shield doesn't really bear responding to.

 Ventus wrote:
A tangible example of how accessibility practices should and do precede specific accommodations wherever possible is accessibility guidelines for websites. They prohibit all sorts of implementations that designers might otherwise love to put in. In some places it's enshrined in law. Everyone is expected to make do with the pre-implemented accessibility-friendly UX, you don't get to see the designer's original version that was shot down because it didn't meet requirements.

I've worked in UX design for the US government, where there are hard-coded legal requirements for accessibility. I used to work with a web design office, and we did not present the disability-friendly, plain HTML, no-animations-or-audio accessibility alternative as the default case.

If you put an image on a webpage, you include alt text that a screen reader can pick up. If you use smaller than 12pt font, you make sure it will scale up if the browser is resized. You don't avoid using all images, animations, audio, or small text across all websites forever to accommodate all potential disabilities; you ensure that they are already accommodated with readily-available alternatives so they don't have to send an email to the webmaster asking for help.

All else being equal, it's better to use the more accessible implementation; but when accessibility would come at the cost of the experience of non-disabled users, you provide separate accommodation.

What people in this thread are suggesting is more along the lines of refusing to return their cart at the grocery store, and saying 'but what if I were disabled?' as an excuse. Well, if you're disabled then you're not expected to return your cart; but if you're not disabled and are just being lazy, you don't get to use their existence as a shield. And the general societal expectation that you return your cart can persist alongside exceptions for people who actually have a legitimate reason why they can't.

This is generally how accommodation works. Not throwing out any expectation, rule, or design that isn't suitable for 100% of the population and all forms of disability.

That's a super reasonable take on the disability stuff, but the shopping cart example kinda underlines what I believe is the ridiculous expectation that people have finished armies and need an excuse if they don't have one.

Which I think is rubbish. I wonder where these clubs are where everyone only brings painted minis, I've certainly never visited one.

The issue I have with any official code is that it will be twisted by somebody in such a way to be used for something bad like warmachine page 5 for example. Imo the spirit of the players code is simple and doesn't need to be codified when you can just gatekeep anybody who doesn't adhere to them. You shouldn't complain, you should know the rules, and your models should be modeled/painted to a good standard that clearly represents your army; the stuff about politeness is the most basic human behavior so it doesn't even warrant mentioning. Problems only arise when you try to mix people who follow this with those that don't.

My theory is that keeping costs high helps resolve some of this because there's a correlation between money and conscientiousness.

 Ventus wrote:

Seabass wrote:
What people are saying (other than me saying to not use people with a disability as a shield) is that it is so rare, in terms of the population of miniature gamers, that reasonable accommodations can be made on a case by case basis but the rule itself is not exclusionary by its design.

Rare... by what metric? I have encountered FAR more persons with disabilities in miniatures games than I have, just as an example, people who refuse to play against grey plastic.

The hypocritical screed about using disability as a shield doesn't really bear responding to.

sure but of those people with disabilities how many fall into the very small catagory of "are capable of taking tinsy bits of plastic and glueing them together, but are literally incapable of grabbing a spray can, spraying a mini, tossing some leadbletcher on the guns, and then maybe hitting the whole thing with a shade?"

I'm not saying "your minis must be painted" but I suspect the number of people who can't do a token quick paint job yet can still assmble their minis are a absolutely tiny number of people.

I mean I enjoy fighting a painted army, it looks good, but obviously one shouldn't expect every painted army to be worthy of a golden deamon winner

BrianDavion wrote:

 Ventus wrote:

Seabass wrote:
What people are saying (other than me saying to not use people with a disability as a shield) is that it is so rare, in terms of the population of miniature gamers, that reasonable accommodations can be made on a case by case basis but the rule itself is not exclusionary by its design.

Rare... by what metric? I have encountered FAR more persons with disabilities in miniatures games than I have, just as an example, people who refuse to play against grey plastic.

The hypocritical screed about using disability as a shield doesn't really bear responding to.

sure but of those people with disabilities how many fall into the very small catagory of "are capable of taking tinsy bits of plastic and glueing them together, but are literally incapable of grabbing a spray can, spraying a mini, tossing some leadbletcher on the guns, and then maybe hitting the whole thing with a shade?"

I'm not saying "your minis must be painted" but I suspect the number of people who can't do a token quick paint job yet can still assmble their minis are a absolutely tiny number of people.

I mean I enjoy fighting a painted army, it looks good, but obviously one shouldn't expect every painted army to be worthy of a golden deamon winner

Not everyone wants to just throw paint on and be done with it, if only a short time for the hobby of painting then it cannot be wasted on half thought painting I would be unhappy with.
GW has entire put that on one group of people, and then players are trying to push those people into that place.

I was wondering this as well. How are you having issues painting the miniature, but you could assemble it? I don’t have a disability, but recent models have so many tiny detailed bits that fit in tiny spots. I would 100% rather paint than assemble. Quick easy paint job- rattle can black primer, rattle can white zenithal, contrast paint (5-10 colors). Battle ready - keep your 10 VPs.

I prefer not to play with/against unpainted armies due to one experience. Guy told me he didn’t care about painting so his army wouldn’t be painted. I said no issue. He then PROCEEDED TO DUMP A PILE OF BROKEN MINIATURES AND BASES OUT OF A TACKLE BOX. After finding enough bases with tau and kroot legs he set them up in his area. Nothing was represented on the miniature. Sometimes it seemed like he gave and took upgrades where he could. After the battle was over he just used his forearm to sweep them into his box. My experience with this individual painted in my mind that many people who leave their miniatures grey don’t really care about them. Tools for a game vs the hobby experience. He tried to pick up some of my guys and I don’t know if I’ve ever been so rude during a game before.

My experience with this individual painted in my mind that many people who leave their miniatures grey don’t really care about them.

So... if I give you a blue lemur, you'll be convinced forever that all lemurs are blue?

It does colour ones perception now doesn't it.

I have seen players do the dump n sweep before at our flgs & have proceeded to not play them. If you don't give enuff feths to care for your minis, how are you gonna care about our mutual experience playing the game, together?

This is only talking about dump n sweep and not painted/whatever.

 Jammer87 wrote:

Spoiler:

BrianDavion wrote:

 Ventus wrote:

Seabass wrote:
What people are saying (other than me saying to not use people with a disability as a shield) is that it is so rare, in terms of the population of miniature gamers, that reasonable accommodations can be made on a case by case basis but the rule itself is not exclusionary by its design.

Rare... by what metric? I have encountered FAR more persons with disabilities in miniatures games than I have, just as an example, people who refuse to play against grey plastic.

The hypocritical screed about using disability as a shield doesn't really bear responding to.

sure but of those people with disabilities how many fall into the very small catagory of "are capable of taking tinsy bits of plastic and glueing them together, but are literally incapable of grabbing a spray can, spraying a mini, tossing some leadbletcher on the guns, and then maybe hitting the whole thing with a shade?"

I'm not saying "your minis must be painted" but I suspect the number of people who can't do a token quick paint job yet can still assmble their minis are a absolutely tiny number of people.

I mean I enjoy fighting a painted army, it looks good, but obviously one shouldn't expect every painted army to be worthy of a golden deamon winner

I was wondering this as well. How are you having issues painting the miniature, but you could assemble it? I don’t have a disability, but recent models have so many tiny detailed bits that fit in tiny spots. I would 100% rather paint than assemble. Quick easy paint job- rattle can black primer, rattle can white zenithal, contrast paint (5-10 colors). Battle ready - keep your 10 VPs.

I prefer not to play with/against unpainted armies due to one experience. Guy told me he didn’t care about painting so his army wouldn’t be painted. I said no issue. He then PROCEEDED TO DUMP A PILE OF BROKEN MINIATURES AND BASES OUT OF A TACKLE BOX. After finding enough bases with tau and kroot legs he set them up in his area. Nothing was represented on the miniature. Sometimes it seemed like he gave and took upgrades where he could. After the battle was over he just used his forearm to sweep them into his box. My experience with this individual painted in my mind that many people who leave their miniatures grey don’t really care about them. Tools for a game vs the hobby experience. He tried to pick up some of my guys and I don’t know if I’ve ever been so rude during a game before.

I cannot use spray cans today, or anytime again soon and I need to paint in bed most of the time now. The issues are that it’s very different and these rules don’t make it easier to discuss it, but create ways to avoid that discussion.
Even this guideline ignores real discussion to a degree, written by people who like a lot of players really need to deal with these issues.
If Players want GW to weigh in on these issues, then GW really should step up there game. Trial these rules and guidelines in places they can get feedback so we are not left discussing there failures for potentially years.

Apple fox wrote:

 Jammer87 wrote:

Spoiler:

BrianDavion wrote:

 Ventus wrote:

Seabass wrote:
What people are saying (other than me saying to not use people with a disability as a shield) is that it is so rare, in terms of the population of miniature gamers, that reasonable accommodations can be made on a case by case basis but the rule itself is not exclusionary by its design.

Rare... by what metric? I have encountered FAR more persons with disabilities in miniatures games than I have, just as an example, people who refuse to play against grey plastic.

The hypocritical screed about using disability as a shield doesn't really bear responding to.

sure but of those people with disabilities how many fall into the very small catagory of "are capable of taking tinsy bits of plastic and glueing them together, but are literally incapable of grabbing a spray can, spraying a mini, tossing some leadbletcher on the guns, and then maybe hitting the whole thing with a shade?"

I'm not saying "your minis must be painted" but I suspect the number of people who can't do a token quick paint job yet can still assmble their minis are a absolutely tiny number of people.

I mean I enjoy fighting a painted army, it looks good, but obviously one shouldn't expect every painted army to be worthy of a golden deamon winner

I was wondering this as well. How are you having issues painting the miniature, but you could assemble it? I don’t have a disability, but recent models have so many tiny detailed bits that fit in tiny spots. I would 100% rather paint than assemble. Quick easy paint job- rattle can black primer, rattle can white zenithal, contrast paint (5-10 colors). Battle ready - keep your 10 VPs.

I prefer not to play with/against unpainted armies due to one experience. Guy told me he didn’t care about painting so his army wouldn’t be painted. I said no issue. He then PROCEEDED TO DUMP A PILE OF BROKEN MINIATURES AND BASES OUT OF A TACKLE BOX. After finding enough bases with tau and kroot legs he set them up in his area. Nothing was represented on the miniature. Sometimes it seemed like he gave and took upgrades where he could. After the battle was over he just used his forearm to sweep them into his box. My experience with this individual painted in my mind that many people who leave their miniatures grey don’t really care about them. Tools for a game vs the hobby experience. He tried to pick up some of my guys and I don’t know if I’ve ever been so rude during a game before.

I cannot use spray cans today, or anytime again soon and I need to paint in bed most of the time now. The issues are that it’s very different and these rules don’t make it easier to discuss it, but create ways to avoid that discussion.
Even this guideline ignores real discussion to a degree, written by people who like a lot of players really need to deal with these issues.
If Players want GW to weigh in on these issues, then GW really should step up there game. Trial these rules and guidelines in places they can get feedback so we are not left discussing there failures for potentially years.

you're over thinking this... seriously this is basicly a guide to common ettiquite for a newbie, not some sort of iron clad rules. jesus christ

BrianDavion wrote:

Apple fox wrote:

 Jammer87 wrote:

Spoiler:

BrianDavion wrote:

 Ventus wrote:

Seabass wrote:
What people are saying (other than me saying to not use people with a disability as a shield) is that it is so rare, in terms of the population of miniature gamers, that reasonable accommodations can be made on a case by case basis but the rule itself is not exclusionary by its design.

Rare... by what metric? I have encountered FAR more persons with disabilities in miniatures games than I have, just as an example, people who refuse to play against grey plastic.

The hypocritical screed about using disability as a shield doesn't really bear responding to.

sure but of those people with disabilities how many fall into the very small catagory of "are capable of taking tinsy bits of plastic and glueing them together, but are literally incapable of grabbing a spray can, spraying a mini, tossing some leadbletcher on the guns, and then maybe hitting the whole thing with a shade?"

I'm not saying "your minis must be painted" but I suspect the number of people who can't do a token quick paint job yet can still assmble their minis are a absolutely tiny number of people.

I mean I enjoy fighting a painted army, it looks good, but obviously one shouldn't expect every painted army to be worthy of a golden deamon winner

I was wondering this as well. How are you having issues painting the miniature, but you could assemble it? I don’t have a disability, but recent models have so many tiny detailed bits that fit in tiny spots. I would 100% rather paint than assemble. Quick easy paint job- rattle can black primer, rattle can white zenithal, contrast paint (5-10 colors). Battle ready - keep your 10 VPs.

I prefer not to play with/against unpainted armies due to one experience. Guy told me he didn’t care about painting so his army wouldn’t be painted. I said no issue. He then PROCEEDED TO DUMP A PILE OF BROKEN MINIATURES AND BASES OUT OF A TACKLE BOX. After finding enough bases with tau and kroot legs he set them up in his area. Nothing was represented on the miniature. Sometimes it seemed like he gave and took upgrades where he could. After the battle was over he just used his forearm to sweep them into his box. My experience with this individual painted in my mind that many people who leave their miniatures grey don’t really care about them. Tools for a game vs the hobby experience. He tried to pick up some of my guys and I don’t know if I’ve ever been so rude during a game before.

I cannot use spray cans today, or anytime again soon and I need to paint in bed most of the time now. The issues are that it’s very different and these rules don’t make it easier to discuss it, but create ways to avoid that discussion.
Even this guideline ignores real discussion to a degree, written by people who like a lot of players really need to deal with these issues.
If Players want GW to weigh in on these issues, then GW really should step up there game. Trial these rules and guidelines in places they can get feedback so we are not left discussing there failures for potentially years.

you're over thinking this... seriously this is basicly a guide to common ettiquite for a newbie, not some sort of iron clad rules. jesus christ

People learn from things like this, for newer players and younger players it’s even more important.
But it’s great you ignore it, isn’t. It funny how the people for the rule and the hobby throw that out and support painting in a way that isn’t enjoyable or to do something someone may hate for the hobby!
You can encourage people to engage in the parts of the hobby you enjoy, but when you push it you should only expect backlash.
It’s clear that so many players don’t engage in the panting aspect, points and this guideline are not a positive way to do that.
Guidelines are fine, but they need care and thought just as much as the rules they supposed to support.


Your post was extremely condescending and is honestly the toxicity that these rules promote.

Seems like the smarter thing for GW to do would have been to put in a section on how the game is designed to be played with painted miniatures and for that reason some people may only want to play against other people with painted miniatures, but at the same time, to be cognizant of being friendly towards newer players who are still in the process of painting, and/or those who cannot paint.

In other words, just...be kind and sensible? Something that I've found is very well represented across the hobby in real life, but very poorly represented on the internet.

yukishiro1 wrote:
Seems like the smarter thing for GW to do would have been to put in a section on how the game is designed to be played with painted miniatures and for that reason some people may only want to play against other people with painted miniatures, but at the same time, to be cognizant of being friendly towards newer players who are still in the process of painting, and/or those who cannot paint.

In other words, just...be kind and sensible? Something that I've found is very well represented across the hobby in real life, but very poorly represented on the internet.

I think painting expectations are important for the hobby, but in both cases GW has put one player above the other in the social aspect of the hobby.
Rather than push for a discussion and engagement in the painting hobby. They have pushed that players should just paint and forget about it so others are happy or you get your points. Potentially harming the hobby of the owners of the models themselves.
Also, it would probably be a lot less of a issue if some of the hard to paint factions didn’t need huge hordes to compete.
Our entire kill team campaign was painted by week two and everyone was engaged in the hobby