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.

So it was run by GW, but they wouldn't allow people with unpainted armies to play? What a dumb manager, that's bad for bussiness.

It used to be a general GW rule, IIRC.

Interesting. Is it still so?

Nope. I don't think Luna said that it was a rule there (unless I misread) but rather that the general attitude of the regulars there was one of expecting armies to be painted.

*shrug* Fair enough.
Sound like a bunch of TFG's though.

Emperors Faithful wrote:Sound like a bunch of TFG's though.

Why so? I think it's pretty reasonable to foster an atmosphere of encouragement regarding painting. This is especially so at a GW. BUT we've been over all of this before in this thread, I guess, so whatever.

nintendoeats wrote:We agree that people who do really good paintjobs are more dedicated. We agree that competently painted armies are more fun to play and play against.

Do we? It was my impression that people were saying that they enjoyed "the game" itself and the painting was effectively immaterial to them, the opinion that people who paint armies they play with are in any way more dedicated or better was described as being elitist.

To quote one person...

Painting is probably one of the smallest factors in my enjoyment of the game. Honestly, when I play, I don't even notice whether units are painted are not as I'm focusing on the tactical situation.

and another

i have said it several times now, some folk simply do not like to paint and it does not make them any less of a hobbyist because of it.

It was disagreeing to these sorts of claims that eventually led to cries of elitism.

It is interesting than in the poll from the Miniature Page website, a much broader cross section of this hobby, there was a much lower tolerance of unpainted armies, this has been my observation of wargaming too. The insistance on being able to play with unpainted armies is suprisingly pronounced with GW gamers. I don't know why it is myself, but I think it's to do with GWs "quick fix" approach to selling. Selling to younger players and always pushing the latest item as the coolest and most powerful thing. If you tell people they have to wait a month or more to field their new army or however long it takes for them to paint it, it'll put them off impulse buying the latest cool awesome thing, because by the time they get to field it it'll be old hat. GW have seen requesting people to paint stuff as a barrier to sales and thus have allowed unpainted models to be used in shop and at tournaments. The problem is that this may have initially been thought of as a way to remove an obstacle from people getting to play straight away with their latest purchase, but has been latched onto by people who have no intention of ever painting their army, in part because there's no compulsion in order to play. Undoubtedly GW would like more people to paint because it improves the image of the hobby and they make money on paints and other supplies, but at the end of the day they'd prefer a person to buy miniatures and not paint than simply not buy anything. That's why GW allow unpainted miniatures. Yet again the gamers allow GW to set the house rules, the community should take the hobby back, the wider hobby largely doesn't allow unpainted miniatures to be played with, that's normal not elitist.

@Manchu: Meh, I guess it's becuase we're so laid back over here.


Ozzy!
Ozzy!
Ozzy!

Oi!
Oi!
Oi!

We'll know GW have caved in completely to instant gratification when they allow you to play in official tournaments with models still in box.

Kilkrazy wrote:We'll know GW have caved in completely to instant gratification when they allow you to play in official tournaments with models still in box.

While not a GW allowed thing, I did once see someone cut the Space Marines off the front of a box of Space Marines they just bought and glue them upright to the bases, and used them instead of assembling the Marines in the box they just bought.... I would have been annoyed if it wasn't so epically silly!

I still propose my mathematical ranking system for hobbyists;

[ (Painting Level) + (Modeling Level) + (Gaming Level) ] / 3 = (Hobbyist Level)

Where the "Levels" are based on a 0 through 10 rating system.

For Painting, 0 is awarded to chronic non-painting, 1 is awarded to chronic base coating, 3 for minimum number of reasonably applied colors (three), and 10 for Golden Daemon level painting.

For Modeling, 0 is awarded for just the "core" of a model applied, 1 is for fully assembled (including bad conversions), 3 for reasonable effort, and 10 for, again, golden Daemon Level painting.

For Gaming, 0 is awarded for non-participation, 1 for basic participation (actually playing), 3 for competent participation, 5 for experienced participation, and 10 is that guy at your store that nobody can complain about playing, even though everyone loses to him, but he is so fun to play everyone wants to!

I think the 'Ard Boyz tournaments had a lot to do with the epidemic of non-painted armies.

A lot of people's only motivation for getting their models painted quickly was tournament participation. 'Ard Boyz removed this requirement, and it seems that around here this attitude has spread to every other tournament.

Howard A Treesong wrote:
... The insistance on being able to play with unpainted armies is suprisingly pronounced with GW gamers. I don't know why it is myself, but I think it's to do with GWs "quick fix" approach to selling. Selling to younger players and always pushing the latest item as the coolest and most powerful thing. If you tell people they have to wait a month or more to field their new army or however long it takes for them to paint it, it'll put them off impulse buying the latest cool awesome thing, because by the time they get to field it it'll be old hat. GW have seen requesting people to paint stuff as a barrier to sales and thus have allowed unpainted models to be used in shop and at tournaments...

Yet again the gamers allow GW to set the house rules, the community should take the hobby back, the wider hobby largely doesn't allow unpainted miniatures to be played with, that's normal not elitist.

Ding ding ding. This is exactly it. GW, the company, knows that they'll sell more if they don't require painting. As the largest provider of game-space, and tournament support, people follow their lead when it comes to default house rules. The corporate interest defeated the long-standing community standard, in the name of making a buck, and suddenly anyone who believes in the community standard is considered an elitist bastard.

Redbeard wrote:

Howard A Treesong wrote:
... The insistance on being able to play with unpainted armies is suprisingly pronounced with GW gamers. I don't know why it is myself, but I think it's to do with GWs "quick fix" approach to selling. Selling to younger players and always pushing the latest item as the coolest and most powerful thing. If you tell people they have to wait a month or more to field their new army or however long it takes for them to paint it, it'll put them off impulse buying the latest cool awesome thing, because by the time they get to field it it'll be old hat. GW have seen requesting people to paint stuff as a barrier to sales and thus have allowed unpainted models to be used in shop and at tournaments...

Yet again the gamers allow GW to set the house rules, the community should take the hobby back, the wider hobby largely doesn't allow unpainted miniatures to be played with, that's normal not elitist.

Ding ding ding. This is exactly it. GW, the company, knows that they'll sell more if they don't require painting. As the largest provider of game-space, and tournament support, people follow their lead when it comes to default house rules. The corporate interest defeated the long-standing community standard, in the name of making a buck, and suddenly anyone who believes in the community standard is considered an elitist bastard.

Sorry my friend. people don't think someone is an elitist bastard by someone who believe in the communit standard. I think people say elitist, is when someone who is posting on the internet and by using a one sentence line, saying something like " I don't like unpainted armies, I am not playing you, because if I have time to do it so do you." See that sentence is all the person says, and is pretty rude. If the person cannot take the time to post politely his point, and just makes a one sentence rude comment, how else are people going to take it? Basically the peroson is saying what he wants and that's it. That in my eyes is saying he is right and everyone else is wrong and then comes back to post more without even considering other posibilities. If you can even consider and respect other posibilites, then yes that person is being elitist because he is putting himself above everyone else. I guess other words could be used, but I thought Elitist was being polite while others are still being rude.

Why are you getting upset the word elitist being used? Also nobody has used the word bastard, why are you putting words into peoples mouths? You don't have to be being so rude about it? You were making good points about your side of the argument, there is no need for harsh words that nobody has said before. Again, respect, kindness, and politely declince. There is no need to be rude about this my friend.

Because "elitist" infers a negative attribute to most people. Plus, wanting painted armies isn't an elitist feature to the painters, it's a minimum amount of effort.

If you (ambiguous you) want a hobby where you don't have to paint models to game, there are several systems out there that come with painted miniatures. Or one can accept that not painting your miniatures (or not wanting to paint your miniatures) just means one isn't part of the 40k Hobby, but part of the Gaming Hobby.

Yes I guess elitiest is a negatvie attribute to most people, but saying "If I have time, you should have time too" makes the person who said it better than someone else. That is pretty negative to most people as well.

I think that is why most of us are so upset, not because of painted armies, but because some people think they are better than others, be it people who have painted armies, or people who don't have painted armies.

Nobody is better than anyone else. I guess being on the internet and being faceless we can be more rude or pretend we are tougher than we are if we actually met face to face.

So let me be the first, if I was rude or being condesnding, I am sorry. I am not here to argue with anyone.

Davor wrote:
...
Nobody is better than anyone else.
...

What an absurd statement. Of course some people are better than others. Throughout human history people have tested themselves against others in order to find out who is better. Tiger Woods is a better golfer than I am. I am a better husband than he is. Joe Satriani is a better guitar player than I am.

These things are testable, objective facts. They're not value judgments about someone's worth as a human being, but within a given scope, it is ridiculous to say that no one is better than anyone else.

I am a better hobbyist than someone who doesn't bother to paint their miniatures. Dave Taylor is a better hobbyist than me. This isn't elitism, it's realism.

Redbeard wrote:What an absurd statement. Of course some people are better than others. Throughout human history people have tested themselves against others in order to find out who is better. Tiger Woods is a better golfer than I am. I am a better husband than he is. Joe Satriani is a better guitar player than I am.

These things are testable, objective facts. They're not value judgments about someone's worth as a human being, but within a given scope, it is ridiculous to say that no one is better than anyone else.

I am a better hobbyist than someone who doesn't bother to paint their miniatures. Dave Taylor is a better hobbyist than me. This isn't elitism, it's realism.

QFT.

This ladies and gents is a life lesson. Learn it, because "not being any better than anyone else" won't get you into college, won't get you a job, and won't get you much of anything else in life either.

I'm in with the crowd who doesn't like to play against someone who doesn't paint their army. I have no problem with them as human beings, it simply takes a huge aspect of fun out of the game for me. I don't play a unit until I paint it. I really take a lot of pride seeing my fully painted army on the field of battle and don't feel any sense of accomplishment winning against (or defeat losing against) a bunch of plastic and metal. It's purely ritual, nothing logical about it. Painting the army marks it as yours in a way that no other strategy game I've come across offers.

LordofHats wrote:

Redbeard wrote:What an absurd statement. Of course some people are better than others. Throughout human history people have tested themselves against others in order to find out who is better. Tiger Woods is a better golfer than I am. I am a better husband than he is. Joe Satriani is a better guitar player than I am.

These things are testable, objective facts. They're not value judgments about someone's worth as a human being, but within a given scope, it is ridiculous to say that no one is better than anyone else.

I am a better hobbyist than someone who doesn't bother to paint their miniatures. Dave Taylor is a better hobbyist than me. This isn't elitism, it's realism.

QFT.

This ladies and gents is a life lesson. Learn it, because "not being any better than anyone else" won't get you into college, won't get you a job, and won't get you much of anything else in life either.

Semi-QFT.

I disagree with your assessment, because better is the comparative of good, and what is 'good' varies from person to person. For example I might consider a 'good' golfer to be one who goes out for a hit under the sunshine with his mates, then has a barbecue with his opponent after thoroughly enjoying the game and congratulating the winner, as opposed to Tiger, who prostitutes his ability on television for the massess and looses the spirit of the game. (Just an example, I have no real stance on golfing).

You could argue that your models are considered more aesthetically pleasing than your opponent's to the majority of people, but a blanket statement of being a 'better' is difficult to back up.

Redbeard wrote:

Davor wrote:
...
Nobody is better than anyone else.
...

What an absurd statement. Of course some people are better than others. Throughout human history people have tested themselves against others in order to find out who is better. Tiger Woods is a better golfer than I am. I am a better husband than he is. Joe Satriani is a better guitar player than I am.

These things are testable, objective facts. They're not value judgments about someone's worth as a human being, but within a given scope, it is ridiculous to say that no one is better than anyone else.

I am a better hobbyist than someone who doesn't bother to paint their miniatures. Dave Taylor is a better hobbyist than me. This isn't elitism, it's realism.

So you are a better "hobbyist" than those that choose not to paint their armies, according to your mathematical formula. ::claps hands::

Take a bow... Then consider for a moment that the game doesn't revolve around painted miniatures as much as you think. I know plenty of people who are happy to play with grey pieces. I was one of them at one time. When my painting level was very low I didn't want to paint my armies and take them to the FLGS because they looked worse than a grey army.

What about converting models? If one does not include conversions in his army is he considered less of a "hobbyist?" If you were to include conversions into your three part hobbyist formula would it carry the same weight as painting?

My main reasons I play 40k are now and always have been the interesting fluff and the cool models. Painting and converting my models is more like an added bonus. I have a higher painting ability now and have more time since I am no longer in school so I paint my figures now. I actually enjoy it most of the time. It gets tedious at times but whatever. However I really can't say that playing against a grey army lessens my experience. I've have had some great and memorable games against the grey tide.

@augustus5: you are confusing Redbeard's posts with those of Skinnattittar

Pika_power wrote:Semi-QFT.

I disagree with your assessment, because better is the comparative of good, and what is 'good' varies from person to person. For example I might consider a 'good' golfer to be one who goes out for a hit under the sunshine with his mates, then has a barbecue with his opponent after thoroughly enjoying the game and congratulating the winner, as opposed to Tiger, who prostitutes his ability on television for the massess and looses the spirit of the game. (Just an example, I have no real stance on golfing).

You could argue that your models are considered more aesthetically pleasing than your opponent's to the majority of people, but a blanket statement of being a 'better' is difficult to back up.

Arbitrary it may be societies have created their standards of what is "better." You are more likely to get that killer management job with the nice health benefits at the fortune 500 company if you show up with a college degree wearing a suit and with a polite professional attitude than you are with a high school diploma wearing jeans and talking with poor grammar. In this comparison the college grad will likely be viewed as the better applicant, because he better meets the common expectations of the individuals he is seeking to be employed by. If you want something you need to be "better" at it than those you compete with. That means educating yourself on not only the task at hand, but also knowing what the norms and expectations of the group you will work with are.

Better is defined by the norms and expectations your social group. In the case of painted armies, we can break this down naturally. Some groups won't think much of anything when you show up with unpainted models. Some will. In the broader 40k Hobby as everyone here is speaking of it one can actually say a player with painted armies is a better hobbyist than a player who doesn't paint their army at all. Thats harder to define though because its hard to look at everyone who plays 40k through a window. I would only say painting is important because GW encourages it so much, and most tournaments require you to bring models painted to a certain standard. Now, if most tournaments in turn did not have painting requirements, then the social dynamic could be analyzed differently. As far as I know though most tournaments do require painting.

Well, I'll propose this. Two people, exactly the same in every way. One guy paints his army, his clone (or is the other guy the clone?! Or are they both clones!!!) does not. Who do you think cares more about the hobby?

Shido was a Judoka and also a medicine man.
When Jet Li and him were having tea together, Shido was telling Jet Li about how there are many different kinds of tea in the world that can do different things to benefit the drinker.
Different teas like Earl Grey, green tea, black tea, jasmine tea, etc... (metaphor to different type of martial arts in the world )

Jet Li replied that even though there many different kinds of tea, it doesn't matter as long as the drinker is in a good mood.

*strokes massive goatee*

Very wise, Lunahound-san.

LunaHound wrote:Shido was a Judoka and also a medicine man.
When Jet Li and him were having tea together, Shido was telling Jet Li about how there are many different kinds of tea in the world that can do different things to benefit the drinker.
Different teas like Earl Grey, green tea, black tea, jasmine tea, etc... (metaphor to different type of martial arts in the world )

Jet Li replied that even though there many different kinds of tea, it doesn't matter as long as the drinker is in a good mood.

I like this story. I don't readily see it's application, however.

Manchu wrote:

LunaHound wrote:Shido was a Judoka and also a medicine man.
When Jet Li and him were having tea together, Shido was telling Jet Li about how there are many different kinds of tea in the world that can do different things to benefit the drinker.
Different teas like Earl Grey, green tea, black tea, jasmine tea, etc... (metaphor to different type of martial arts in the world )

Jet Li replied that even though there many different kinds of tea, it doesn't matter as long as the drinker is in a good mood.

I like this story. I don't readily see it's application, however.

Application? let the different individuals enjoy their different tastes for things.
You cant compare whats better or best because from the very start they might very well already have different purpose and priorities.

LunaHound wrote:Shido was a Judoka and also a medicine man.
When Jet Li and him were having tea together, Shido was telling Jet Li about how there are many different kinds of tea in the world that can do different things to benefit the drinker.
Different teas like Earl Grey, green tea, black tea, jasmine tea, etc... (metaphor to different type of martial arts in the world )

Jet Li replied that even though there many different kinds of tea, it doesn't matter as long as the drinker is in a good mood.

And... scene.

I don't think anyone could address the subject more artfully.

Monster Rain wrote:
And... scene.

I don't think anyone could address the subject more artfully.

*Curtsies *

Thank you <3
with that i shall leave this thread and go buy groceries -_-

LunaHound wrote:

Manchu wrote:

LunaHound wrote:Shido was a Judoka and also a medicine man.
When Jet Li and him were having tea together, Shido was telling Jet Li about how there are many different kinds of tea in the world that can do different things to benefit the drinker.
Different teas like Earl Grey, green tea, black tea, jasmine tea, etc... (metaphor to different type of martial arts in the world )

Jet Li replied that even though there many different kinds of tea, it doesn't matter as long as the drinker is in a good mood.

I like this story. I don't readily see it's application, however.

Application? let the different individuals enjoy their different tastes for things.
You cant compare whats better or best because from the very start they might very well already have different purpose and priorities.

One could also argue that Jet Li was no medicine man.