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.

I think the key is, how many glamour shots of models have them bare vs painted?

On the GW site:
First images you see are fully painted
Select a model kit, first you see are fully painted, only when you cycle thru the pics do you get bare plastic(along w sprue pics).
When they post to WHC, fully painted
In GW Store:
Walk in, all box art is fully painted
Demo game area is fully painted
Display case has fully painted minis in it.
For some reason, I can't remember a time when I saw any non-painted stuff in promo shots(not teasers).

It just seems like building & painting are cornerstones and disingenuous to think otherwise.

Now, I play against bare plastic quite often and don't care, it's just not 100% what I want when I spend my time playing.

Just don't look down on anyone not enjoying the hobby the same ways I(you) do. How much of a pedant do you need to be to give a feth about what another person does/doesn't do in the hobby.

 Thadin wrote:
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.

I see your point, and I do think (like all morality topics) there is a huge amount of context (especially here, where the moral weight is comparatively tiny).It's

A new community starting out absolutely does not need a paint mandate, and indeed shouldn't have one. Instead, painted armies should be seen as an exciting aspiration, a "wow, cool, I someday want my stuff to look like that!" moment. That's what got me into painting! The spectacle should be an inspiration and an aspiration, not a grudging mandate!

Threads like these make me not want to paint anymore.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:


I see your point, and I do think (like all morality topics) there is a huge amount of context (especially here, where the moral weight is comparatively tiny).It's

A new community starting out absolutely does not need a paint mandate, and indeed shouldn't have one. Instead, painted armies should be seen as an exciting aspiration, a "wow, cool, I someday want my stuff to look like that!" moment. That's what got me into painting! The spectacle should be an inspiration and an aspiration, not a grudging mandate!

New players will find the same thing every time. They find people who painted their armies an edition or two ago, who get 10VP for a full army painted. They see how much time and money painting takes up, and how long it take comperativly to how much you play and they drop out before they reach 2000pts. And it is very lucky, if they instead pick up a skirmish game or some other table top. And shop owners love the army has to be painted rule, because it drives the sale of paints otherwise they would not be selling. So it is a win for them, and people who already are established. Which imo is a wonderful lesson on how things go on in real life.

Unit1126PLL wrote: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.

But doesn't the same work both ways? That someone who "wants" someone to paint their minis is weighing the priority of their desire to fight against a painted army against the freedom and leisure of the other person, and finds their desire to play against a painted army being "more important"?

Sure, we can call the person with the unpainted army "selfish" for wanting their own leisure time, but then can't we also call the person who wants to fight a painted army "selfish" for expecting that input out of someone else's time?

Why is the weighing of priority only being done from the un-painter's side?

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.

I'm not sure I entirely agree with this definition of selfishness, because it creates a situation where self-care and personal boundaries are de-incentivised and stigmatised as being "selfish", and I really don't like that.

I think I erred in using the term morality. Not because it was wrong, but because it afforded a weight and heft to my point that I didn't intend, and even tried to explain wasn't intended.

but we can look at it in terms of sportsmanship, or fair play, right? Social games inherently have unwritten social contracts, and part of that is to give your opponent a good time. After all, we're generally looking to spend some pleasurable time. And for most players, their preference, albeit not a requirement, is for painted armies.

I suppose you could look at that and say you have zero obligation to meet anybody else's preferences. Which is, I suppose, fair. in the same way, famous athletes can argue they have no obligation to sign autographs, but don't we sort of judge the ones that don't?

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
But doesn't the same work both ways? That someone who "wants" someone to paint their minis is weighing the priority of their desire to fight against a painted army against the freedom and leisure of the other person, and finds their desire to play against a painted army being "more important"?

Sure, we can call the person with the unpainted army "selfish" for wanting their own leisure time, but then can't we also call the person who wants to fight a painted army "selfish" for expecting that input out of someone else's time?

Why is the weighing of priority only being done from the un-painter's side?

Well, because in this situation, one party has already performed their half. They have a painted army. that, presumably, imparts some benefit on their opponent in terms of unit recognition and aesthetics. If you sit down next to me at the bar, and we chat, and I buy you a round, and then a half hour later you buy yourself a round but don't include me, you haven't done anything wrong, per se, but that feels wrong, right?

And again, what exactly are we talking about here? the occasional refused game and mildly judgment? I have a newborn, and there are things at my job that I've missed or gotten wrong. I don't lose a lick of sleep if anybody thinks I'm not doing a great job, because I know I'm doing, if not the best I can, at least darn close to it. But I don't for a second ask them to change what being good at my job means because I'm super busy. I know I've got stuff going on, so does my boss and my regional office. Everybody is cutting me slack, but that doesn't change my performance.

Painting an army is a trifle compared to a job, and I don't want to seriously conflate the two. but I do think it's important to illustrate the difference between everybody being cool with you not doing something they'd like, and them not actually wanting you to do it.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

Unit1126PLL wrote: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.

But doesn't the same work both ways? That someone who "wants" someone to paint their minis is weighing the priority of their desire to fight against a painted army against the freedom and leisure of the other person, and finds their desire to play against a painted army being "more important"?

Sure, we can call the person with the unpainted army "selfish" for wanting their own leisure time, but then can't we also call the person who wants to fight a painted army "selfish" for expecting that input out of someone else's time?

Why is the weighing of priority only being done from the un-painter's side?

Because painting your minis is the default assumption. Again, it's like a host not offering to get guests drinks - a minor thing that really isn't that important in the grand scheme of things, but also against the expected social norms of the setting.

40k is a social setting with socially normative guidelines, one of which is that minis are painted. This isn't a question of "painted preference" versus "unpainted preference". It's "painted preference and default social norms" vs "unpainted preference". If it were the other way around, and unpainted was the default and painted was an outlier, I'd agree that the player who prefers playing a painted army is the one being selfish.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

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.

I'm not sure I entirely agree with this definition of selfishness, because it creates a situation where self-care and personal boundaries are de-incentivised and stigmatised as being "selfish", and I really don't like that.

I think that's a misreading of what I am saying. If self-care and personal boundaries are what is preventing someone from painting, that's totally fine. If someone needs a mental break and can't paint, or just wants to be alone for a few moments, that's also fine. I'm not suggesting they should paint all times forever.

But I am suggesting that a bit of work could be done at other times. Leisure time is not solely self-care or personal boundary enforcement. It's sometimes also just kinda hanging around and doing whatever. If "whatever" is watching YouTube or playing videogames or whatever that's fine, but it could also be painting.

I think suggesting that people have 0 time for painting has already been debunked in this thread, so I'm surprised to see it crop up again.

It doesn't matter what reason someone has for not painting their minis, if they don't have time or if they don't want to.

Your social norm is painted armies. My experience in the hobby does not have that social norm, it treats it as two different parts of the umbrella hobby, where painting doesn't need to be done to play a normal game.

 Polonius wrote:
but we can look at it in terms of sportsmanship, or fair play, right? Social games inherently have unwritten social contracts, and part of that is to give your opponent a good time. After all, we're generally looking to spend some pleasurable time. And for most players, their preference, albeit not a requirement, is for painted armies.

If we're talking sportsmanship, I don't think it's particularly sporting that we guilt people by using terms assigning "moral" value to painting (and you're not the only person to have done so, although your clarification is welcome). This coming from someone who has actually won Sporting awards in WHW events.

Yes, we're there to give our opponent a good time - and that should apply the other way around, to people who don't want their good time to require them to paint.

I should say - I am a big believer of "don't like it, don't play it", and that extends to both painters and non-painters alike.

I suppose you could look at that and say you have zero obligation to meet anybody else's preferences. Which is, I suppose, fair. in the same way, famous athletes can argue they have no obligation to sign autographs, but don't we sort of judge the ones that don't?

I mean, I don't, and signing a single autograph takes even less time than painting.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
But doesn't the same work both ways? That someone who "wants" someone to paint their minis is weighing the priority of their desire to fight against a painted army against the freedom and leisure of the other person, and finds their desire to play against a painted army being "more important"?

Sure, we can call the person with the unpainted army "selfish" for wanting their own leisure time, but then can't we also call the person who wants to fight a painted army "selfish" for expecting that input out of someone else's time?

Why is the weighing of priority only being done from the un-painter's side?

Well, because in this situation, one party has already performed their half. They have a painted army. that, presumably, imparts some benefit on their opponent in terms of unit recognition and aesthetics. If you sit down next to me at the bar, and we chat, and I buy you a round, and then a half hour later you buy yourself a round but don't include me, you haven't done anything wrong, per se, but that feels wrong, right?

But that's not how the round system works for drinks. Plus, you having "done your bit" is something that the other person might not have wanted or appreciated. If you're painting your army, you should do so for yourself primarily, not to please your opponent, yes? You paint the army because YOU want to, therefore you haven't done anything "for" them, unlike actually getting them a drink they appreciate*.

*And I say that, because if it's a case of you've just gotten a drink for someone who didn't actually want one, you're putting a moral weight on them. Did you ask them if they wanted a drink? Did you get it without asking, and expect that the next drink would be on them? Yeah, it sucks if you did, but if you didn't check that with them, that's also on you. When I buy a friend a drink, I'm not expecting them to pay it forward unless we agree to it.

So, ultimately, no I disagree that they've "played their part", because the part they're playing might only be to their own appreciation. If the thing you've done isn't something that your opponent expected or wanted to be done, you haven't done anything "for them", and thus there should be no obligation to match it.

And again, what exactly are we talking about here? the occasional refused game and mildly judgment?

As I said, I've no objection to people refusing a game - but let's not act like that's solely because someone had an unpainted army, it's that you have decided that playing against a painted army is something you value more than their freedom to do with their time and models as they wish. That's no condemnation, it's just stating a fact - you would have been putting your own "wants" above theirs, and therefore, by the definition presented above, been "selfish".

As I said, I don't like that definition, but if it's going to be used, let's make sure it's used fairly.

 Thadin wrote:
It doesn't matter what reason someone has for not painting their minis, if they don't have time or if they don't want to.

Well, yes it does. If they don't have time (truly; I am generally skeptical of this claim but it's possible I suppose), then I will judge them less.

 Thadin wrote:
Your social norm is painted armies. My experience in the hobby does not have that social norm, it treats it as two different parts of the umbrella hobby, where painting doesn't need to be done to play a normal game.

That's not how social norms work.

The whole reason it is social is there isn't a "yours" or a "mine". There's how the hobby is advertised to people, how the hobby is talked about by people, how the hobby events guide expectations of people, etc. There's painted armies everywhere - events that mandate them greatly outnumber events that don't, and even among ones that don't you often see "painting is encouraged but not required." All the photos in the rulebo- wait we've had this post before...

Racerguy180 wrote:
I think the key is, how many glamour shots of models have them bare vs painted?

On the GW site:
First images you see are fully painted
Select a model kit, first you see are fully painted, only when you cycle thru the pics do you get bare plastic(along w sprue pics).
When they post to WHC, fully painted
In GW Store:
Walk in, all box art is fully painted
Demo game area is fully painted
Display case has fully painted minis in it.
For some reason, I can't remember a time when I saw any non-painted stuff in promo shots(not teasers).

It just seems like building & painting are cornerstones and disingenuous to think otherwise.

Now, I play against bare plastic quite often and don't care, it's just not 100% what I want when I spend my time playing.

Just don't look down on anyone not enjoying the hobby the same ways I(you) do. How much of a pedant do you need to be to give a feth about what another person does/doesn't do in the hobby.

This is true about other wargames as well, not just GW ones. Painted models everywhere!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

And again, what exactly are we talking about here? the occasional refused game and mildly judgment?

As I said, I've no objection to people refusing a game - but let's not act like that's solely because someone had an unpainted army, it's that you have decided that playing against a painted army is something you value more than their freedom to do with their time and models as they wish. That's no condemnation, it's just stating a fact - you would have been putting your own "wants" above theirs, and therefore, by the definition presented above, been "selfish".

As I said, I don't like that definition, but if it's going to be used, let's make sure it's used fairly.

Your mistake here is assuming that the other person is entitled to a game. They are not. They have the freedom to offer a game to anyone they wish, but they cannot and should not force anyone to play.

Declining to accept an offer because what is offered is not valuable is not selfishness. Expecting someone to NOT decline despite you not offering them anything of value IS selfishness.

If I offer you 10 seashells in trade for your car, are you being selfish when you decline?

If I steal your car (I deserve it after all, I offered you 10 seashells!) and when you catch me I feel fully justified in saying "well I left 10 seashells!" am I being selfish?

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

Unit1126PLL wrote: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.

But doesn't the same work both ways? That someone who "wants" someone to paint their minis is weighing the priority of their desire to fight against a painted army against the freedom and leisure of the other person, and finds their desire to play against a painted army being "more important"?

Sure, we can call the person with the unpainted army "selfish" for wanting their own leisure time, but then can't we also call the person who wants to fight a painted army "selfish" for expecting that input out of someone else's time?

Why is the weighing of priority only being done from the un-painter's side?

Because painting your minis is the default assumption. Again, it's like a host not offering to get guests drinks - a minor thing that really isn't that important in the grand scheme of things, but also against the expected social norms of the setting.

I disagree that it's the default (default largely depends upon localised play groups), or that the "default" means it *should* be matched.

So, I'm afraid that doesn't really answer my question - why does the player who wants their opponent's army being painted prioritising that over the wants of someone else not also seen as selfish?
On my end, I regard people's right to their own happiness irrespective of others as more "default", so I side with the choice of someone not painting on this matter, like how I also side with the choice of someone to refuse a game should they not like it.

40k is a social setting with socially normative guidelines, one of which is that minis are painted.

Again, disagree. Socially normative guidelines depend on the standards of specific play groups.
As a social setting, I would also emphasise that the most important feature be that everyone enjoy themselves how they like, which includes not painting.

This isn't a question of "painted preference" versus "unpainted preference". It's "painted preference and default social norms" vs "unpainted preference". If it were the other way around, and unpainted was the default and painted was an outlier, I'd agree that the player who prefers playing a painted army is the one being selfish.

Unfortunately, 40k is too big to actually have a "default" social norm that actually has relevance. I mean, we're looking at how many countless thousand play groups with their own attitudes, customs, and expectations. How can we ever meaningfully say "this is the default"? Should we be even saying that? Why should we point at groups that are different and implicitly say that they're improper for not being "default"?

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

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.

I'm not sure I entirely agree with this definition of selfishness, because it creates a situation where self-care and personal boundaries are de-incentivised and stigmatised as being "selfish", and I really don't like that.

I think that's a misreading of what I am saying. If self-care and personal boundaries are what is preventing someone from painting, that's totally fine. If someone needs a mental break and can't paint, or just wants to be alone for a few moments, that's also fine. I'm not suggesting they should paint all times forever.

But I am suggesting that a bit of work could be done at other times. Leisure time is not solely self-care or personal boundary enforcement. It's sometimes also just kinda hanging around and doing whatever. If "whatever" is watching YouTube or playing videogames or whatever that's fine, but it could also be painting.

I think suggesting that people have 0 time for painting has already been debunked in this thread, so I'm surprised to see it crop up again.

I'm not saying they have 0 time for painting. I'm saying that why should we be expecting people to spend their leisure time to do something that brings them no happiness? To match some social obligation? Why? Why does the social obligation trump their own free time? Surely it's a little... selfish, on the part of those who enforce that social obligation?

If someone wants to watch Youtube, they should. I don't think it's very appropriate to say "hey, that thing you like doing? How about you don't, and do this instead. You don't like that? You're being selfish."


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

And again, what exactly are we talking about here? the occasional refused game and mildly judgment?

As I said, I've no objection to people refusing a game - but let's not act like that's solely because someone had an unpainted army, it's that you have decided that playing against a painted army is something you value more than their freedom to do with their time and models as they wish. That's no condemnation, it's just stating a fact - you would have been putting your own "wants" above theirs, and therefore, by the definition presented above, been "selfish".

As I said, I don't like that definition, but if it's going to be used, let's make sure it's used fairly.

Your mistake here is assuming that the other person is entitled to a game. They are not. They have the freedom to offer a game to anyone they wish, but they cannot and should not force anyone to play.

I haven't ever claimed anyone's "entitled" to a game. I'm just saying, let's not act like it isn't also on the person declining it in that they have chosen what they are willing to play against.

Declining to accept an offer because what is offered is not valuable is not selfishness. Expecting someone to NOT decline despite you not offering them anything of value IS selfishness.

Likewise, choosing to do things that actually excite and entertain you isn't selfish. Expecting someone to drop what they enjoy doing to do something that they don't, just because it makes you personally happy, is selfish. (And that applies both ways!! If you don't want to play against an unpainted army, you SHOULD feel welcome to decline! If one of you can't compromise, then you shouldn't play eachother!)

If I offer you 10 seashells in trade for your car, are you being selfish when you decline?

I don't know. According to your logic, I'm putting my wants above yours, therefore I'm selfish.

If I steal your car and when you catch me I feel fully justified in saying "well I left 10 seashells!" am I being selfish?

You stole my car, actually breaking the law. Not painting models doesn't break the law.

It's exactly how social norms work. They're not a massive all encompassing rule. Your lived experience with Wargaming communities is not the same as mine. I haven't been to events where all-painted armies is a must, I haven't been to stores where that's a must, and I haven't been turned away from a game because it's a must. The only time I have seen someone decline a game was because that person was a cheater.

The community I started in my town for AoS does not have the social norm of needing to paint if you don't want to.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

Unit1126PLL wrote: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.

But doesn't the same work both ways? That someone who "wants" someone to paint their minis is weighing the priority of their desire to fight against a painted army against the freedom and leisure of the other person, and finds their desire to play against a painted army being "more important"?

Sure, we can call the person with the unpainted army "selfish" for wanting their own leisure time, but then can't we also call the person who wants to fight a painted army "selfish" for expecting that input out of someone else's time?

Why is the weighing of priority only being done from the un-painter's side?

Because painting your minis is the default assumption. Again, it's like a host not offering to get guests drinks - a minor thing that really isn't that important in the grand scheme of things, but also against the expected social norms of the setting.

I disagree that it's the default (default largely depends upon localised play groups), or that the "default" means it *should* be matched.

So, I'm afraid that doesn't really answer my question - why does the player who wants their opponent's army being painted prioritising that over the wants of someone else not also seen as selfish?
On my end, I regard people's right to their own happiness irrespective of others as more "default", so I side with the choice of someone not painting on this matter, like how I also side with the choice of someone to refuse a game should they not like it.

40k is a social setting with socially normative guidelines, one of which is that minis are painted.

Again, disagree. Socially normative guidelines depend on the standards of specific play groups.
As a social setting, I would also emphasise that the most important feature be that everyone enjoy themselves how they like, which includes not painting.

This isn't a question of "painted preference" versus "unpainted preference". It's "painted preference and default social norms" vs "unpainted preference". If it were the other way around, and unpainted was the default and painted was an outlier, I'd agree that the player who prefers playing a painted army is the one being selfish.

Unfortunately, 40k is too big to actually have a "default" social norm that actually has relevance. I mean, we're looking at how many countless thousand play groups with their own attitudes, customs, and expectations. How can we ever meaningfully say "this is the default"? Should we be even saying that? Why should we point at groups that are different and implicitly say that they're improper for not being "default"?

I mean, if you don't think the social norms of wargaming emphasize painted models, then we'll never agree. I think you're not really in alignment with reality, but if you genuinely think that painted models aren't how wargames are advertised, talked about, photographed, played at events, etc. then providing all the evidence that they are won't budge you.

Our realities are too divergent for agreement, I fear, if you think painting is not the standard way wargames are enjoyed. All I have left is to dump all the pictures, event requirements, advertisements, youtube videos, etc. from various games that involve painted minis - but you can already see those yourself, and if you still think that painted minis are the exception and the rule is that minis are unpainted, then there's no traction to be had in continued discussion.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

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.

I'm not sure I entirely agree with this definition of selfishness, because it creates a situation where self-care and personal boundaries are de-incentivised and stigmatised as being "selfish", and I really don't like that.

I think that's a misreading of what I am saying. If self-care and personal boundaries are what is preventing someone from painting, that's totally fine. If someone needs a mental break and can't paint, or just wants to be alone for a few moments, that's also fine. I'm not suggesting they should paint all times forever.

But I am suggesting that a bit of work could be done at other times. Leisure time is not solely self-care or personal boundary enforcement. It's sometimes also just kinda hanging around and doing whatever. If "whatever" is watching YouTube or playing videogames or whatever that's fine, but it could also be painting.

I think suggesting that people have 0 time for painting has already been debunked in this thread, so I'm surprised to see it crop up again.

I'm not saying they have 0 time for painting. I'm saying that why should we be expecting people to spend their leisure time to do something that brings them no happiness? To match some social obligation? Why? Why does the social obligation trump their own free time? Surely it's a little... selfish, on the part of those who enforce that social obligation?

If someone wants to watch Youtube, they should. I don't think it's very appropriate to say "hey, that thing you like doing? How about you don't, and do this instead. You don't like that? You're being selfish."

I don't think it is selfish to expect someone to adhere to social norms in a social setting. I'm not worried that my best man will show up to my wedding in a t-shirt and raggedy shirts, even though he's technically free to, because the assumption is that he'll go along with social norms and wear what I request. I'm not worried the woman on the bus is going to lick the top of my head, because the assumption is that she'll go along with social norms and not randomly lick people on the bus.

And I don't think it's appropriate either, which is why I would never say that to someone. But in this context - on a miniatures wargaming discussion forum in a thread specifically about painting? Yeah, I'll mention that I think it is a slightly selfish, very minor violation of social norms to expect people to play you even if you don't paint your minis.

 Thadin wrote:
It's exactly how social norms work. They're not a massive all encompassing rule. Your lived experience with Wargaming communities is not the same as mine. I haven't been to events where all-painted armies is a must, I haven't been to stores where that's a must, and I haven't been turned away from a game because it's a must. The only time I have seen someone decline a game was because that person was a cheater.

The community I started in my town for AoS does not have the social norm of needing to paint if you don't want to.

Exactly.

Yes, we can all point to GW's marketing, but if we're going to do that, should we not also point at their marketing of how armies are built and be emulating that? Should we not also then decry tables of home-made terrain, because GW sell their own terrain?
If we treat what GW do as gospel, then I think most people on their forum are probably hypocritical to some degree, and I don't think that's very productive.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

And again, what exactly are we talking about here? the occasional refused game and mildly judgment?

As I said, I've no objection to people refusing a game - but let's not act like that's solely because someone had an unpainted army, it's that you have decided that playing against a painted army is something you value more than their freedom to do with their time and models as they wish. That's no condemnation, it's just stating a fact - you would have been putting your own "wants" above theirs, and therefore, by the definition presented above, been "selfish".

As I said, I don't like that definition, but if it's going to be used, let's make sure it's used fairly.

Your mistake here is assuming that the other person is entitled to a game. They are not. They have the freedom to offer a game to anyone they wish, but they cannot and should not force anyone to play.

I haven't ever claimed anyone's "entitled" to a game. I'm just saying, let's not act like it isn't also on the person declining it in that they have chosen what they are willing to play against.

And their choice isn't selfish, because the experience as advertised to them (painted models on both sides) isn't being lived up to. The offer of a game did not meet their desires, so they declined it.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

Declining to accept an offer because what is offered is not valuable is not selfishness. Expecting someone to NOT decline despite you not offering them anything of value IS selfishness.

Likewise, choosing to do things that actually excite and entertain you isn't selfish. Expecting someone to drop what they enjoy doing to do something that they don't, just because it makes you personally happy, is selfish. (And that applies both ways!! If you don't want to play against an unpainted army, you SHOULD feel welcome to decline! If one of you can't compromise, then you shouldn't play eachother!)

We agree a hundred percent on this point... so why are people who are saying it is a normative standard to paint your models being vilified?

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

If I offer you 10 seashells in trade for your car, are you being selfish when you decline?

I don't know. According to your logic, I'm putting my wants above yours, therefore I'm selfish.

I don't think you understand my logic, then. My bad for not explaining it well.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

If I steal your car and when you catch me I feel fully justified in saying "well I left 10 seashells!" am I being selfish?

You stole my car, actually breaking the law. Not painting models doesn't break the law.

We were having a discussion about morality/normativity, not legality. Try to ignore the law for a bit and consider the thought experiment (the law is not always moral).


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

 Thadin wrote:
It's exactly how social norms work. They're not a massive all encompassing rule. Your lived experience with Wargaming communities is not the same as mine. I haven't been to events where all-painted armies is a must, I haven't been to stores where that's a must, and I haven't been turned away from a game because it's a must. The only time I have seen someone decline a game was because that person was a cheater.

The community I started in my town for AoS does not have the social norm of needing to paint if you don't want to.

Exactly.

Yes, we can all point to GW's marketing, but if we're going to do that, should we not also point at their marketing of how armies are built and be emulating that? Should we not also then decry tables of home-made terrain, because GW sell their own terrain?
If we treat what GW do as gospel, then I think most people on their forum are probably hypocritical to some degree, and I don't think that's very productive.

You'll notice I expanded my point from GW into wargaming as a whole. And it's not marketing - even wargamers themselves (blog authors, video creators, photographers) emphasize painted miniatures.

Wargaming magazines, websites, youtube battle reports, events, EVERYTHING except assembly guides and unboxing videos depict painted models the vast majority of the time.

It's a social norm in wargaming of which 40k is a part, and yes some groups and individuals can diverge from social norms. But they shouldn't get defensive when someone points out that they're divergent from social norms.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
Unfortunately, 40k is too big to actually have a "default" social norm that actually has relevance. I mean, we're looking at how many countless thousand play groups with their own attitudes, customs, and expectations. How can we ever meaningfully say "this is the default"? Should we be even saying that? Why should we point at groups that are different and implicitly say that they're improper for not being "default"?

I mean, if you don't think the social norms of wargaming emphasize painted models, then we'll never agree. I think you're not really in alignment with reality, but if you genuinely think that painted models aren't how wargames are advertised, talked about, photographed, played at events, etc. then providing all the evidence that they are won't budge you.

Cheers for calling my lived experience a lie.

My reality is as real as yours. It's different, but real. If you don't believe that there's any groups out there which don't care about models being painted, I think you're delusional or ignorant.

Our realities are too divergent for agreement, I fear, if you think painting is not the standard way wargames are enjoyed. All I have left is to dump all the pictures, event requirements, advertisements, youtube videos, etc. from various games that involve painted minis - but you can already see those yourself, and if you still think that painted minis are the exception and the rule is that minis are unpainted, then there's no traction to be had in continued discussion.

I never said that they were the exception. I disagree that they're the rule, or that there IS a rule.

If you can't accept that, then yes, this discussion is pointless, and ends with you being unable to accept that unpainted communities exist and thrive. Your loss.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
I'm saying that why should we be expecting people to spend their leisure time to do something that brings them no happiness? To match some social obligation? Why? Why does the social obligation trump their own free time? Surely it's a little... selfish, on the part of those who enforce that social obligation?

If someone wants to watch Youtube, they should. I don't think it's very appropriate to say "hey, that thing you like doing? How about you don't, and do this instead. You don't like that? You're being selfish."

I don't think it is selfish to expect someone to adhere to social norms in a social setting.

Like I said, social norms are dependent on social setting, and 40k has no single set of social norms, like it or not.

I'm not worried that my best man will show up to my wedding in a t-shirt and raggedy shirts, even though he's technically free to, because the assumption is that he'll go along with social norms and wear what I request.

But that's not an unwritten "social norm", that's your requirement for your own private event. Failure to follow that is a failure to follow explicit instruction.

I'm not worried the woman on the bus is going to lick the top of my head, because the assumption is that she'll go along with social norms and not randomly lick people on the bus.

There are literally laws preventing people from doing that, not "social norms". You can't just go licking strangers, because that's harassment.

And I don't think it's appropriate either, which is why I would never say that to someone. But in this context - on a miniatures wargaming discussion forum in a thread specifically about painting? Yeah, I'll mention that I think it is a slightly selfish, very minor violation of social norms to expect people to play you even if you don't paint your minis.

And I also think that it's a slightly selfish minor violation of social norms in a wider context to expect people to paint their minis when they could be enjoying themselves doing something else. I don't just drop my social norms because this is a wargaming forum. As far as "social norms" are concerned, I think the social norm of "what people do in their free time, so long as it doesn't HURT someone else, should be free to them" applies too.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
If you can't accept that, then yes, this discussion is pointless, and ends with you being unable to accept that unpainted communities exist and thrive. Your loss.

I accept that unpainted communities exist.

What I don't accept is that they are the standard way wargames are played, advertised, popularized, photographed, videotaped, written about, etc. They are non-standard (the 'exception'), because miniatures wargaming has a gentle normative premise that the miniatures are painted.

So it may be my loss - maybe in 20 years I'll be an old grognard complaining about the good old days while youtube2.0 battle reports, magazine photographs, blogs, etc. are festooned with grey unpainted plastic... but I'm not sure I'd be that interested in the grey hordes wargaming culture when it becomes that anyways. So it's not really my "loss" so much.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
I haven't ever claimed anyone's "entitled" to a game. I'm just saying, let's not act like it isn't also on the person declining it in that they have chosen what they are willing to play against.

And their choice isn't selfish, because the experience as advertised to them (painted models on both sides) isn't being lived up to. The offer of a game did not meet their desires, so they declined it.

And likewise, the choice to not paint their models wasn't selfish, because the experience should be an enjoyable one for them, and not require them to paint if they don't want to!

Great! We can agree that neither party is selfish for prioritising their own enjoyment!

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
Expecting someone to drop what they enjoy doing to do something that they don't, just because it makes you personally happy, is selfish. (And that applies both ways!! If you don't want to play against an unpainted army, you SHOULD feel welcome to decline! If one of you can't compromise, then you shouldn't play eachother!)

We agree a hundred percent on this point... so why are people who are saying it is a normative standard to paint your models being vilified?

Because it isn't a normative standard unless you're in a specific group!
Plus, you know what's also normative? Having your free time be YOUR free time.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

If I offer you 10 seashells in trade for your car, are you being selfish when you decline?

I don't know. According to your logic, I'm putting my wants above yours, therefore I'm selfish.

I don't think you understand my logic, then. My bad for not explaining it well.

All I'm repeating is your initial comment on what defined selfishness - you said that putting your own wants over someone else's was selfish - and that's why I disagreed with that definition of selfishness.

For me, I would define selfishness as ACTIVELY refusing to do something, or to explicitly reject doing something for someone. There are absolutely ways that both pro- and anti-painters can be selfish, but simply being pro- or anti-painter doesn't make you selfish.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

If I steal your car and when you catch me I feel fully justified in saying "well I left 10 seashells!" am I being selfish?

You stole my car, actually breaking the law. Not painting models doesn't break the law.

We were having a discussion about morality/normativity, not legality. Try to ignore the law for a bit and consider the thought experiment (the law is not always moral).

Absolutely agreed that the law is not always moral - in the same way that social norms aren't always moral! Perhaps using "social norms" isn't the best defence also. You've actually hit on a really important thing I wanted to raise but wasn't sure how: the idea that the social norm has to be maintained, and shouldn't/cannot be questioned, changed, or subverted. Why should the "norm" (not that one exists in 40k!) be upheld?

You'll notice I expanded my point from GW into wargaming as a whole. And it's not marketing - even wargamers themselves (blog authors, video creators, photographers) emphasize painted miniatures.

Wargaming magazines, websites, youtube battle reports, events, EVERYTHING except assembly guides and unboxing videos depict painted models the vast majority of the time.

It's a social norm in wargaming of which 40k is a part, and yes some groups and individuals can diverge from social norms. But they shouldn't get defensive when someone points out that they're divergent from social norms.

And like I've said coming back to the idea of social norms, why does it matter? Why should people be treated as if they're lesser for not meeting those norms? Why do the norms come before someone's enjoyment of the hobby?

Like I've said - people should do what makes them happy. That includes not playing an unpainted army, but should never come alongside requests that people paint theirs.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
If you can't accept that, then yes, this discussion is pointless, and ends with you being unable to accept that unpainted communities exist and thrive. Your loss.

I accept that unpainted communities exist.

What I don't accept is that they are the standard way wargames are played, advertised, popularized, photographed, videotaped, written about, etc. They are non-standard (the 'exception'), because miniatures wargaming has a gentle normative premise that the miniatures are painted.

I disagree that there is a "standard" that can, or should, be upheld, and I stand by that the most important rule is that people should enjoy themselves. If that cannot be reached within the same group, then the group should resolve that internally, or split.

*shrug*
It's not my place to justify the existence of the norm. Like I said, maybe the norms in 20 years will be that painters are weird outliers and unpainted miniatures will dominate the way of things. Norms shift, it's true.

That said, while norms exist, I do think it is polite to try to live up to them, and impolite to suggest that people who ask you to respect them are being unreasonable, oppressive tyrants of some kind.

If you don't think norms exist, then I'm both surprised (since the bulk of evidence, as mentioned, points to a single behavior - that of having painted models) and also can only shrug at you. Clash of cultures I guess.

Look back a few centuries-there were plenty of social norms involving minorities that are outright repugnant.

Painting isn’t the same as that, even in the slightest, but the defense of “That’s the way it is” lacks weight. Simply existing as it is isn’t justification for continuing to exist in the same way.

 JNAProductions wrote:
Look back a few centuries-there were plenty of social norms involving minorities that are outright repugnant.

Painting isn’t the same as that, even in the slightest, but the defense of “That’s the way it is” lacks weight. Simply existing as it is isn’t justification for continuing to exist in the same way.

Yep, and people have a right to fight against the norms as they see fit.

But having an unpainted minis blog or YouTube channel to compete with the ones that fully paint is a bit different from saying that the other side are evil "gatekeepers" and "supremacists" who are ruining the whole world while twirling their evil moustaches.

One of those things is trying to change the normal state of things, and the other is just being hostile.

 JNAProductions wrote:
Look back a few centuries-there were plenty of social norms involving minorities that are outright repugnant.

Painting isn’t the same as that, even in the slightest, but the defense of “That’s the way it is” lacks weight. Simply existing as it is isn’t justification for continuing to exist in the same way.

Seems pretty obvious why it is the way it is. Painted models (usually) look better. It's good for advertising, it's good for immersion and it's (again, usually) good for in-game clarity.

Racerguy180 wrote:
I think the key is, how many glamour shots of models have them bare vs painted?

On the GW site:
First images you see are fully painted
Select a model kit, first you see are fully painted, only when you cycle thru the pics do you get bare plastic(along w sprue pics).
When they post to WHC, fully painted
In GW Store:
Walk in, all box art is fully painted
Demo game area is fully painted
Display case has fully painted minis in it.
For some reason, I can't remember a time when I saw any non-painted stuff in promo shots(not teasers).

It just seems like building & painting are cornerstones and disingenuous to think otherwise.

Now, I play against bare plastic quite often and don't care, it's just not 100% what I want when I spend my time playing.

Just don't look down on anyone not enjoying the hobby the same ways I(you) do. How much of a pedant do you need to be to give a feth about what another person does/doesn't do in the hobby.

I can show you plenty of GW catalogs that show unpainted minis. So what does that mean. Nothing, just like what GW does now doesn't mean anything either. This thread seems to have developed into Philosophy 101 complete with lectures and rhetoric. Can someone please close it? It no longer is serving any purpose.

 TheBestBucketHead wrote:
Threads like these make me not want to paint anymore.

Its getting pretty creepy, yeah.

Today I learned that buying someone a drink creates an obligation on their part (which has... unfortunate implications)
and I also learned that not buying some kids a six pack if they ask is entirely selfish.

What any of this has to do with someone painting minis (or not), I'll likely never know.

Leo_the_Rat wrote:

I can show you plenty of GW catalogs that show unpainted minis. So what does that mean. Nothing, just like what GW does now doesn't mean anything either. This thread seems to have developed into Philosophy 101 complete with lectures and rhetoric. Can someone please close it? It no longer is serving any purpose.

Do it then! Post your evidence! Then we can examine it and grind it into the dust under a preponderance of painted-mini media! Mwuahaha!

Or you can propose to close the thread in order to run away from the burden of proof.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Voss wrote:

. . . I also learned that not buying some kids a six pack if they ask is entirely selfish.

Did you really?

Er, back to the actual question...

Personally, I would never field an unpainted miniature myself. Partially because assembly is often fairly late into the process for me; I'm one of those idiots who likes to get under the arms and paint inaccessible areas people aren't going to see from most angles, and I'd be a bit embarrassed to field an armless miniature. An unfinished paintjob also isn't sealer-sprayed for protection, either, so transporting it to a game potentially puts some of the work at risk.

But partially because to me it's an important part of what makes an army Your Dudes. Even a sprayed-on single color transforms a generic grey figure available anywhere (or a printed creation) into a Blood Angel; Pile on details and your own scheme and flair, and by the end you have Lieutenant Frackshaw Bumslice of the Imperial Molars, Hero of the Accidental Battle for Planet Whoops.

Plus it's about artistic expression; my work generally makes the statement "I like shiny objects," and I feel it's important people know, damnit.

Do I care if my opponent does? No. I'd certainly not refuse an available game on the basis that my opponent's miniatures aren't painted. It'll just let my middling-at-best painting skill look impressive as hell by comparison. And if my opponent brings a beautiful army, I get to look at a beautiful army. There's a win for me either way, I think.

I don't think for a second that my opponent is in any way disrespecting me by not painting, and I wouldn't go out of my way to shame them for that decision. I might curse with mockingly exaggerated frustration about getting my arse kicked by grey plastic if I lose big, though.

Seriously? What will I ACCEPT?

This is a social game. 2 or more people playing to have fun. I am not going to stand in judgement of someone else's skills, free time, tools and commitment.

And ask they extend the same courtesy to me.

Definitely "Don't care"

GW putting presenting painted models in their material/stores doesn't mean it's the social norm. It's advertising and akin to McDonalds advertising with unrealistic looking hamburgers.
No-one is saying painted models don't look better, which is why they are used to promote the product. No-one is complaining at McDonalds they are breaking the social norm when they give you the actual hamburgers.

ccs wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
What would happen if the top ranked 40k player in the world, say, the Rinaldo of 40k, tried to walk into a GW event with a grey army, that he painted, based, and primed and high lighted in full grey paint? Would GW ask them to leave?

yes because most tournaments require a painted army

But it is painted, it's just painted grey. If they're still doing the 3-colors-minimum it could be an issue.

Hilariously, while experimenting with spray-coloring terrain I've found a combination of chaos black, army painter metal spray and a no-name dark grey spray that looks almost exactly like GW's plastic color, especially when taking pictures in a well lit room.

Not good enough for my standards, but I guess for some people's immersion that faux plastic look will do wonders since it's three colors.

You should post the combo ratios etc + pics.
I've long joked about fielding an army done in grey-scale. Like a B&W movie put onto the table.

That big 'ead boss bunka and the GW ork terrain is actually painted in three colors this way despite looking like unprimed GW plastic. The DA speeder to the right is actual unprimed GW plastic, for comparison.

Not sure how to present ratios, I primed the terrain with AK color panzergrey, then did a quick pass with chaos black from below and a slightly less quick pass with the army painter gun metal spray from above at an angle. I was trying to create a skorched metally look, but clearly failed

The rainbow ork/unicorn/dinosaur army is fully painted in more than 3 colors by the way, I hope you guys feel properly immersed by the awesome paintjob.

I tried to immerse myself in that battlefield, Jidmah, and it was honestly one of the most terrifying images I’ve ever imagined. So job well done—very grimdark!