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.

 Grimtuff wrote:
GW want you to paint your models.

They want you to buy their paints.

Those two statements are not mutually exclusive though now are they?

 Grimtuff wrote:
Those two statements are not mutually exclusive though now are they?

Not really when it's listed right next to their paints.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
In fact, I'd put money on, if GW could figure out how to do it, they'd ban you from their official tournaments for both third party models AND paints.

I seem to recall a story that said that someone in or associated with GW just never painted his army. The rest of the studio dubbed his army "Grey Knights" and thus the new faction of Imperial Space Marines were named in his army's honor.

My point being that if GW employees were willing to play against unpainted figures then why should anyone else have a problem with it.

 JNAProductions wrote:

I guess my point is that, does the rule actually make the game BETTER for anyone?

If it means more painted models/armies on the table, then very much 'yes'.

And if it encourages people to paint models when they otherwise wouldn't, and they come to enjoy painting because of it, then also 'yes'.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Leo_the_Rat wrote:
I seem to recall a story that said that someone in or associated with GW just never painted his army. The rest of the studio dubbed his army "Grey Knights" and thus the new faction of Imperial Space Marines were named in his army's honor.

I question the validity of that since there were no grey plastic models back then. They'd be either metal or beige.

But even so, GW obviously shows us a strong preference for painted models.

 Polonius wrote:
This is one of those things that seems complicated, but is actually pretty clear. Unless you are prepared to argue that painting your army has no value to others, it's pretty much a given that painting your army is a good thing. It enriches the play experience, it can excite new players to try the hobby, etc. it's a good thing! It's not a big thing, in that the moral value of the act is pretty small compared to the time spent on the act.

However, that doesn't change the fact that not painting your minis has a moral component. If you acknowledge that painting minis is good for the hobby and your opponents, and you don't do so, you are choosing not to do something that could benefit others.

And we all (or nearly all) get it! Painting is a huge commitment of time and resources, and most people (myself included) will happily play you.

but... and this is the rub.. your opponents showing grace and kindness doesn't change that you're not doing what you can do to give them the best games. Look at the responses, and how many are boiled down to "I paint my stuff, and I prefer my opponents do the same, but I'm not that picky." Do not confuse people saying they are okay with you not painting with not painting being okay.

What pretentious Bull .

Look, I don't paint minis for other people (unless they're paying me). I don't paint "for the good of the Hobby". I certainly don't paint because the company that sells paint tells me to.
Wether or not/when/how slow or fast I paint has no moral component. If someone attaches some value to the stuff I've painted? Well, OK. But that's on them as I don't owe them anything & I didn't do it for them.
I did it for me.

^Well gosh that sounds a little selfish.

Paintlets, when will they learn?

 Insectum7 wrote:
^Well gosh that sounds a little selfish.

Apparently you are selfish either way because I’ve been told I’m selfish for not painting.

I think he means "not caring about other's feelings whatsoever" means you are selfish, which is what it means.

The post above used "feth you, got mine" as a retort to "painting is at least a little bit morally better than not painting because it increases the enjoyment of others"

 Polonius wrote:
This is one of those things that seems complicated, but is actually pretty clear. Unless you are prepared to argue that painting your army has no value to others, it's pretty much a given that painting your army is a good thing. It enriches the play experience, it can excite new players to try the hobby, etc. it's a good thing! It's not a big thing, in that the moral value of the act is pretty small compared to the time spent on the act.

However, that doesn't change the fact that not painting your minis has a moral component. If you acknowledge that painting minis is good for the hobby and your opponents, and you don't do so, you are choosing not to do something that could benefit others.

And we all (or nearly all) get it! Painting is a huge commitment of time and resources, and most people (myself included) will happily play you.

but... and this is the rub.. your opponents showing grace and kindness doesn't change that you're not doing what you can do to give them the best games. Look at the responses, and how many are boiled down to "I paint my stuff, and I prefer my opponents do the same, but I'm not that picky." Do not confuse people saying they are okay with you not painting with not painting being okay.

I'm one of those. Let me be clear: Not painting is okay.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
I think he means "not caring about other's feelings whatsoever" means you are selfish, which is what it means.

The post above used "feth you, got mine" as a retort to "painting is at least a little bit morally better than not painting because it increases the enjoyment of others"

Yah, that's what I meant.

I picked 7. 5 for me (I only field painted, very nearly exclusively), and 2 for my opponent.

The 2 represents a desire to make the game look nice. It doesn't even have to be painting *per say* (though painting is the easiest part of it). But there are other basic things people can do - woodland terrain on an urban mat is just weird, if there is urban terrain available. Or actually pointing your models at the enemy, instead of just having your Land Raider facing backwards because it was easier that way.

Spectacle is important to me, and my enjoyment increases as the spectacle of the game increases. I will play against unpainted minis (just did last Saturday in fact, against a new player). But I will still emphasize that I have a preference for playing opponents with painted armies, because they are materially improving my enjoyment of the game.

If you want to make a moral argument, you shouldn't play 40k at all-that money could be much better spent helping charities. And even if you play for free, with chits and whatnot, that time could be better spent at a soup kitchen, or other forms of volunteering.

 JNAProductions wrote:
If you want to make a moral argument, you shouldn't play 40k at all-that money could be much better spent helping charities. And even if you play for free, with chits and whatnot, that time could be better spent at a soup kitchen, or other forms of volunteering.

Yaay extremes!

If there's one thing I know, it's that "I prefer when someone takes a bit of time to help out my enjoyment of the game" is equivalent to "every human including me should be a literal saint" /s

Imagine if actual ethics arguments went that way.
"It is ethical to pick up litter"
"Oh yeah? Well I don't see you travelling to Africa and adopting all the orphaned children there to improve their lives! Pssh. Lecture me about ethics. Pssh."

ccs wrote:

 Polonius wrote:
This is one of those things that seems complicated, but is actually pretty clear. Unless you are prepared to argue that painting your army has no value to others, it's pretty much a given that painting your army is a good thing. It enriches the play experience, it can excite new players to try the hobby, etc. it's a good thing! It's not a big thing, in that the moral value of the act is pretty small compared to the time spent on the act.

However, that doesn't change the fact that not painting your minis has a moral component. If you acknowledge that painting minis is good for the hobby and your opponents, and you don't do so, you are choosing not to do something that could benefit others.

And we all (or nearly all) get it! Painting is a huge commitment of time and resources, and most people (myself included) will happily play you.

but... and this is the rub.. your opponents showing grace and kindness doesn't change that you're not doing what you can do to give them the best games. Look at the responses, and how many are boiled down to "I paint my stuff, and I prefer my opponents do the same, but I'm not that picky." Do not confuse people saying they are okay with you not painting with not painting being okay.

What pretentious Bull .

Look, I don't paint minis for other people (unless they're paying me). I don't paint "for the good of the Hobby". I certainly don't paint because the company that sells paint tells me to.
Wether or not/when/how slow or fast I paint has no moral component. If someone attaches some value to the stuff I've painted? Well, OK. But that's on them as I don't owe them anything & I didn't do it for them.
I did it for me.

I think I agree with ccs here. While it's nice to have your army painted up and does add to the game (as Polonius says), I don't think it's unethical to value your own enjoyment/free time/spare cash enough to refrain from painting if that's not something you enjoy. There are a million things we could all be doing right now that would brighten someone's day, but trying to do all of those things is unhealthy and impractical. You have to choose where to invest your energy. It's not unethical to decide your energy is better invested in recharging by watching some television rather than spending spoons to paint up an army for Polonius's enjoyment.

Polonius, spending all of your hobby money and spare time to buy armies for new players and then building/painting those models for them would be good for the hobby/your opponents. I assume you're doing that right? Or are you being immoral?

I think Polonius's point wasn't that it was axiomatically unethical and people should feel ashamed.

Rather that people should know and accept that not painting their minis affects others and therefore has some ethical weight, and if they choose to prioritize other things that's a choice they are definitely allowed to make if adding that extra weight to the scale doesn't affect it at all.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Gods above, with the extremes, lol, you people.

"I won't make a token effort to be slightly better until you literally move mountains to be better yourself!"

If you don't enjoy playing against unpainted minis, you shouldn't have to.
If you don't enjoy painting your minis, you shouldn't have to.
This is a hobby that we engage in for fun-unless it's literally your job or something, engage with what's fun for you, and you don't need to do more.

Polonius, obviously, values painted minis quite highly-they're free to only play with and against other painted armies. But it's not immoral for me to not like painting, but still like to game. It's against other people's preferences, but it's doing them any real harm, especially since if they don't want to play against an unpainted army, they can just not play with me. I won't be offended-I've had people at my local GW do that, and while there's a moment of "Aw man, that stinks," it's not causing me real harm either.

Don't bring morality in to this, it's stupid. It's not morally correct to paint your minis. It's not morally incorrect to not paint your minis.

Don't make this any deeper than it really is. You prefer painted armies. Some people prefer to not put the time in to that part of the hobby. One stance is not ethically superior to the other stance.

 JNAProductions wrote:
If you don't enjoy playing against unpainted minis, you shouldn't have to.
If you don't enjoy painting your minis, you shouldn't have to.
This is a hobby that we engage in for fun-unless it's literally your job or something, engage with what's fun for you, and you don't need to do more.

Polonius, obviously, values painted minis quite highly-they're free to only play with and against other painted armies. But it's not immoral for me to not like painting, but still like to game. It's against other people's preferences, but it's doing them any real harm, especially since if they don't want to play against an unpainted army, they can just not play with me. I won't be offended-I've had people at my local GW do that, and while there's a moment of "Aw man, that stinks," it's not causing me real harm either.

Right. The ethical weight is rather tiny.

"I will enjoy this game a bit less because you didn't paint your minis" is a tiny tiny issue that all of us can overcome I am sure.

But to claim that it has no weight whatsoever is what is being hedged against - it is less selfish to say "sorry buddy, I get it, but I don't like painting" than it is to say "OMG HOW RUDE YOU NEED TO RESPECT MY UNWILLINGNESS TO PAINT HOW DARE YOU LET IT IMPACT YOUR ENJOYMENT!!!!!!!"

The first one is an acknowledgement of the (itsy bitsy teeny tiny) moral weight, while still simultaneously saying that it wasn't enough to tip the scales into painting. All one can say is "fair enough".

The second is suggesting that a person's enjoyment is actively unimportant to the player and they should feel bad for even expressing their preferences.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Thadin wrote:
Don't bring morality in to this, it's stupid. It's not morally correct to paint your minis. It's not morally incorrect to not paint your minis.

Don't make this any deeper than it really is. You prefer painted armies. Some people prefer to not put the time in to that part of the hobby. One stance is not ethically superior to the other stance.

Selfishness is a moral state (ethical egoism). On the face of it, completely disregarding another person's concerns in favor of your own is selfish (ethically egotistical).

It's a tiny, tiny weight, as "a person's enjoyment" is not nearly as heavy as "a person's life and limb" or "a person's mental wellbeing" or something. But it isn't 0.

Alright, let's have at it.

The Hypothetical "you" expect "me" to do non-required work on a hobby, utilizing my free time in a way that "you" expect "me" to use to satisfy your expectation of this hobby. That is the same level of selfishness that would come from "me" hindering "your" enjoyment of the game by not painting.

Again-if you don’t want to play an unpainted army, just don’t play it. It’s that easy.
No one is forcing you to play.

 Thadin wrote:
Alright, let's have at it.

The Hypothetical "you" expect "me" to do non-required work on a hobby, utilizing my free time in a way that "you" expect "me" to use to satisfy your expectation of this hobby. That is the same level of selfishness that would come from "me" hindering "your" enjoyment of the game by not painting.

I don't expect anything of you. But I would appreciate it if you did.

Just like I don't "expect" my wife to cook, but when she does it's always wonderful. And she likes making me happy!

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Thadin wrote:
Alright, let's have at it.

The Hypothetical "you" expect "me" to do non-required work on a hobby, utilizing my free time in a way that "you" expect "me" to use to satisfy your expectation of this hobby. That is the same level of selfishness that would come from "me" hindering "your" enjoyment of the game by not painting.

I don't expect anything of you. But I would appreciate it if you did.

Just like I don't "expect" my wife to cook, but when she does it's always wonderful.

I should have been more clear. The use of "you" in my comment was not directed at YOU, but the idea of a person who expects others to paint their armies to satisfy their own expectations of the game.

Attaching words like ethically selfish to this makes the whole argument far more blown out than it really is, when it's clashing expectations and preferences for what one does in their free time. And my point was to point out that using an arguement of selfishness flies in both directions in equal measure, if you want to attach that word to it.

Well yes, but that is a caricature of a person - a straw man. People who prefer to play against unpainted armies are in the "I appreciate it when...." camp, not the "I expect you to..." camp. (Except for their own extremists of course haha)

Not doing something for someone else is selfish in a social setting where that is common - like not offering anything to drink to guests as a host because one prefers not to get up.

It isn't a big deal or a heavy, terrible sin, but it's still important to acknowledge that both armies being painted in a game has a small but nonzero value to some people, and by not painting one's minis, one is implicitly saying "I value whatever I did when I could have painted more than I value your slight increase in appreciation." So long as that is acknowledged, then fair enough.

I have no expectations on painting. I’m not here to mandate how other people enjoy their free time. I like seeing painted armies but I’ll gladly play any army.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Well yes, but that is a caricature of a person - a straw man. People who prefer to play against unpainted armies are in the "I appreciate it when...." camp, not the "I expect you to..." camp. (Except for their own extremists of course haha)

Not doing something for someone else is selfish in a social setting where that is common - like not offering anything to drink to guests as a host because one prefers not to get up.

It isn't a big deal or a heavy, terrible sin, but it's still important to acknowledge that both armies being painted in a game has a small but nonzero value to some people, and by not painting one's minis, one is implicitly saying "I value whatever I did when I could have painted more than I value your slight increase in appreciation." So long as that is acknowledged, then fair enough.

Why not value that someone chooses to use their free time in a different way? Taking the time to paint is a lot of time. Why can one be considered selfish, and the other considered the default? When appreciations/expectations of the game hinge on another person doing what you expect them to do with their free time?

I would rather not attach morality and ethics and words like selfish to either side of the arguement.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
If you don't enjoy playing against unpainted minis, you shouldn't have to.
If you don't enjoy painting your minis, you shouldn't have to.
This is a hobby that we engage in for fun-unless it's literally your job or something, engage with what's fun for you, and you don't need to do more.

Polonius, obviously, values painted minis quite highly-they're free to only play with and against other painted armies. But it's not immoral for me to not like painting, but still like to game. It's against other people's preferences, but it's doing them any real harm, especially since if they don't want to play against an unpainted army, they can just not play with me. I won't be offended-I've had people at my local GW do that, and while there's a moment of "Aw man, that stinks," it's not causing me real harm either.

Right. The ethical weight is rather tiny.

"I will enjoy this game a bit less because you didn't paint your minis" is a tiny tiny issue that all of us can overcome I am sure.

But to claim that it has no weight whatsoever is what is being hedged against - it is less selfish to say "sorry buddy, I get it, but I don't like painting" than it is to say "OMG HOW RUDE YOU NEED TO RESPECT MY UNWILLINGNESS TO PAINT HOW DARE YOU LET IT IMPACT YOUR ENJOYMENT!!!!!!!"

The first one is an acknowledgement of the (itsy bitsy teeny tiny) moral weight, while still simultaneously saying that it wasn't enough to tip the scales into painting. All one can say is "fair enough".

The second is suggesting that a person's enjoyment is actively unimportant to the player and they should feel bad for even expressing their preferences.

Except no. It all comes down to the players that value painting with their "immersion", which is why they're not the ones to listen to. The game itself is NOT immersive. Painting or not doesn't actually help with that.

Thadin wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Well yes, but that is a caricature of a person - a straw man. People who prefer to play against unpainted armies are in the "I appreciate it when...." camp, not the "I expect you to..." camp. (Except for their own extremists of course haha)

Not doing something for someone else is selfish in a social setting where that is common - like not offering anything to drink to guests as a host because one prefers not to get up.

It isn't a big deal or a heavy, terrible sin, but it's still important to acknowledge that both armies being painted in a game has a small but nonzero value to some people, and by not painting one's minis, one is implicitly saying "I value whatever I did when I could have painted more than I value your slight increase in appreciation." So long as that is acknowledged, then fair enough.

Why not value that someone chooses to use their free time in a different way? Taking the time to paint is a lot of time. Why can one be considered selfish, and the other considered the default? When appreciations/expectations of the game hinge on another person doing what you expect them to do with their free time?

I would rather not attach morality and ethics and words like selfish to either side of the arguement.

I don't value everything anyone ever does - and yeah, I probably would value however they spent their time if it truly was valuable to me. Heck, maybe instead of painting they came to hang out with me, or saved puppies, or prevented a nuclear war - I definitely would value those contributions above any painting they did to help my appreciation of the game, for sure!

But, as Polonius pointed out, there are often leisure times where someone does something other than painting that I don't value at all... and that's okay, because they weighed the priority of my appreciation versus whatever they wanted to do and decided that whatever they wanted to do is more important than what I appreciate. That's a valid decision for sure, but it's also a selfish one - because that's what selfish means: putting one's own wants over another's wants.

And the reason that painting is the default and not-painting is the deviation is because... that's exactly how it is. The default play experience of Warhammer 40k (and miniatures gaming in general) is to have painted miniatures on both sides. It's not super important (as we can see in this thread) and the moral weight of that deviation is small - but, again, nonzero.

EviscerationPlague wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
If you don't enjoy playing against unpainted minis, you shouldn't have to.
If you don't enjoy painting your minis, you shouldn't have to.
This is a hobby that we engage in for fun-unless it's literally your job or something, engage with what's fun for you, and you don't need to do more.

Polonius, obviously, values painted minis quite highly-they're free to only play with and against other painted armies. But it's not immoral for me to not like painting, but still like to game. It's against other people's preferences, but it's doing them any real harm, especially since if they don't want to play against an unpainted army, they can just not play with me. I won't be offended-I've had people at my local GW do that, and while there's a moment of "Aw man, that stinks," it's not causing me real harm either.

Right. The ethical weight is rather tiny.

"I will enjoy this game a bit less because you didn't paint your minis" is a tiny tiny issue that all of us can overcome I am sure.

But to claim that it has no weight whatsoever is what is being hedged against - it is less selfish to say "sorry buddy, I get it, but I don't like painting" than it is to say "OMG HOW RUDE YOU NEED TO RESPECT MY UNWILLINGNESS TO PAINT HOW DARE YOU LET IT IMPACT YOUR ENJOYMENT!!!!!!!"

The first one is an acknowledgement of the (itsy bitsy teeny tiny) moral weight, while still simultaneously saying that it wasn't enough to tip the scales into painting. All one can say is "fair enough".

The second is suggesting that a person's enjoyment is actively unimportant to the player and they should feel bad for even expressing their preferences.

Except no. It all comes down to the players that value painting with their "immersion", which is why they're not the ones to listen to. The game itself is NOT immersive. Painting or not doesn't actually help with that.

I don't really know what you're talking about here because your words don't flow logically, but there are multiple ways of being immersed in a situation.

For example, one could say a book isn't "immersive" because it doesn't have moving pictures. I think that person is silly - many books are incredibly immersive.
In this case, I agree that 40k isn't really immersive. The rulesset is crap at showing what would "Actually Happen" in the universe

At the same time, though, spectacle is important (which is what may have been meant when someone said immersion; I don't want to speak for them but hey ho). For example, people playing a World War II miniatures game are rarely "immersed" in the sense that they literally feel like lieutenants commanding troops on the battlefield in 1943 - on the other hand, historical gamers also highly value painting, more than any other community I have seen. That's my 2 cents on immersion and painting, which IDC as much about as spectacle.

Fair. Perhaps my own experience leaves me more blase towards it and questioning the attachment of morality, even a tiny little bit of it, to this. My experience with Wargaming was starting Warhammer with a friend, and playing our unpainted/poorly painted models. Then I seriously got in to wargames with Warmachine and Hordes, which, well, I'm sure more people know how the bulk of Warmachine players feel about painting and immersion. And now, for my small town, I worked to build the AoS Community up from not-existing, and to ensure we grew a sustainable community, I kept expectations on painting low. A low bar of entry to get in and start playing the game kept the people who find little time to paint in the group, they could work away slowly and play games.

Personally, my biggest motivator to paint and finish my army is getting to play the game. Rather than feeling like I have to paint to play the game.