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.

Manchu wrote:

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.

That doesn't mean he's lazy though...

Monster Rain 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.

And... scene.

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

Not really.

Bruce Lee's point was that the style of martial art doesn't matter, its the practitioner. If we were discussing whether or not a painted army plays better than an unpainted one this would be true. Putting some color on the models doesn't really change their stats or how you use them really. If we were talking about ones enjoyment of playing 40k this would also be true. If we were talking about painting before assembling models or assembling after painting, it would be applicable.

But we're not talking about those things. The current topic is whether or not people who paint their models can be called better hobbyists. The metaphor in that case is not only misapplied, its misleading. There's a defined difference between a Judo practitioner who is fully dedicated to his art and a lazy (or a really pumped up aggressive) Karate practitioner who just wants to spar but not train form or kata.

The real question here is how do we define 40k as a hobby. Do you really only need to participate in 2 of the 3 areas of 40k to be a hobbyist? Is someone who does all three better than someone who just does two? In these questions this metaphor is meaningless.

Gornall wrote:

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

That doesn't mean he's lazy though...

But he also wasn't claiming to be a medicine man.

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

Gornall wrote:That doesn't mean he's lazy though...

But he also wasn't claiming to be a medicine man.

Touche'... kind of.

My argument is that certain painters classifying all non-painting 40k players as lazy is simply an unfair label. The same way certain non-painters label parts of the pro-painter crowd as elitists. Lazy does not mean "You don't choose to focus your efforts in the same area as I do." If people want to call themselves better "hobbyists" that's fine. Whatever floats their boat and lets them sleep at night. Just don't be calling people lazy if they focus on a different aspect of 40k. That's the thing that burns my grits.... making character judgements about someone because they prioritize certain aspects of a game of toy soldiers differently.

(Not directed at you, personally, Manchu)

Someone who paints all of their models is objectively a better hobbyist than someone who does not. Again, I am saying this as someone who does not get his gak painted on any kind of schedule. As to value judgments: I think you'll agree (since you've said as much before and I agreed with you when you said it) that these terms "lazy" and "elitist" have more traction on the internet than in real life. If someone were to call me lazy because I didn't paint my miniatures, it could indeed be a mistake--after all, I could have been busy doing many other things. Whether I could have made time for painting or not is beside the point. The definition of "lazy" is not "does not paint Games Workshop models," after all. But I think we should accept that by "lazy" what is meant in this thread is something like "less committed to the hobby."

augustus5 wrote:
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?

Of course it does. You make it sound like it's so hard to determine that one thing is better than another. But the Golden Demon judges do it, several times a year. At some levels, you'll be comparing apples to oranges, such as whether the impact of green stuff sculpting within a conversion makes a piece better or worse than the freehand painting on the second piece. That's not an easy call, and yet somehow we end up with Golden Demon winners and second places.

At lower levels of competency, it is even easier to tell what's better or worse. Did you bother trying is a big step... If one person has a nicely painted army that involves many conversions and another has a nicely painted army that has no conversions, is it really that much of a stretch to say that the one with the conversions required more skill? Anyone who has been to a tournament where appearance is judged can follow this.

I'm not the best hobbyist out there. I'm pretty good, but I can point to other people's work and say, without a doubt, that they've done a better job than I have. I don't feel any shame because of this, it's just a fact. Look at the P&M blogs around here, and you'll see people who have scratch-built gargants and titans that look awesome, and you'll probably see a couple where people glued together their cereal boxes too. Is it that hard to point out that one is better than the other?

This doesn't mean that those who don't paint are bad human beings, or that their reasons for not painting are invalid. But you cannot objectively look at a painted army and an unpainted army and say that the person with the unpainted army is as much of a hobbyist.

so the moral is we agree to disagree?

crazykiwi wrote:so the moral is we agree to disagree?

I disagree

LordofHats wrote:

crazykiwi wrote:so the moral is we agree to disagree?

I disagree

to disagree? so you agree

crazykiwi wrote:

LordofHats wrote:

crazykiwi wrote:so the moral is we agree to disagree?

I disagree

to disagree? so you agree

I agree that I disagree with your agreement... wait... what?

LordofHats wrote:

crazykiwi wrote:so the moral is we agree to disagree?

I disagree

mind lol

the way I see it though to each there own and the way you either play against painted or non painted armie is for your judgement only

Manchu wrote:But I think we should accept that by "lazy" what is meant in this thread is something like "less committed to the hobby."

I think "lazy" and "elitist" are both loaded words with fairly bad connotations to them and should be avoided. They tend to hack people off and escalate the discussion... and not in a good way. I agree with what you said but for one minor quibble: Not painting is being less committed to the "hobby" side of the 40k hobby. I still argue that gaming is a very important part of 40k hobby and that the people who pour their effort into that should not be looked down upon as "lazy or less-committed", but maybe less "well-rounded." They still put a lot of time, money, and effort into 40k... but it's mostly on the gaming side.

No doubt 40k has more than one facet as a hobby. I was speaking of the "hobby" aspect, as you put it.

Manchu wrote:No doubt 40k has more than one facet as a hobby. I was speaking of the "hobby" aspect, as you put it.

And I agree with you completely on that. I just get hacked when I see people saying things such as "If you're not going to paint you should find a different hobby." as that view completely ignores the gaming side of 40k.

Yes, but I understand their perspective (if not why it must be expressed rudely) to some extent given that there are games out there that don't require painting.

Manchu wrote:Yes, but I understand their perspective (if not why it must be expressed rudely) to some extent given that there are games out there that don't require painting.

And in many venues (mine included) 40k is one of those games that doesn't require painting. In all seriousness though, I do understand that view. However, I have to polietly disagree. If people enjoy 40k without painting, who's to argue against that. In some ways it is no different than playing Space Hulk without painting the models.

Actually, I would think it a bit strange if someone collects all this plastic and yet has NO intention whatsoever to paint it, not that month, not 10 years later. Or even pay someone else to paint it?

I would say that thier (for want of a better word) laziness is making them miss out on an important aspect of the game. And who could argue that two fully painted armies pitted against each other on the field looks SO much more enjoyable than one big mess of grey?

Skinnattittar wrote:

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!

why oh why can i not stay away?????

I actually kinda like this rating system you've come up with, although in your gaming scale it shouldn't just be the guy that everyone looses too, cuz there is that guy that generally always looses but still has fun and everyone wants to play him because he is a good sport (yes that guy is me.) its not his fault his dice likes to roll ones all the time. so really [small edit] that last line should read, "win or loose everyone still wants to play him"

using your system of ranking, based on personal and general opinion from others i play with, my ranking comes out right around a 6

based on your rankings where would you say the "true hobbiest" should fall?

Emperors Faithful wrote:Actually, I would think it a bit strange if someone collects all this plastic and yet has NO intention whatsoever to paint it, not that month, not 10 years later. Or even pay someone else to paint it?

I would say that thier (for want of a better word) decision not to paint is making them miss out on an important aspect of the game. And who could argue that two fully painted armies pitted against each other on the field looks SO much more enjoyable than one big mess of grey?

I removed the loaded word.

I agree that painted on painted battles look better. But from a pure gaming aspect, having paint on the models doesn't have a big impact. I personally enjoy using my painted army, but it doesn't affect how I play or the outcome of the game. For those who play 40k purely for the gaming aspect, painting isn't a concern. Yeah... you might think that is silly, but obviously they don't, and that's what matters. To each their own.

True, it doesn't really affect the tactics or actual gameplay itself, but it does add a good deal of awesomeness to it.

You can't help but think that they ARE missing out on some of the hobby aspects.

And really, I call starting a whole new army which would cost $250 or more, yet not painting (or getting someone to paint) their ready-made army just a little bit lazy.

So far this week(and past weekend), my wife and I have basecoated, painted, and clearcoated 8 Dark Eldar Raiders. We're incredibly proud of how much we've done. The tournament I went to this past weekend, I had 2 raiders painted and one model. We're up to 10 painted raiders now....still haven't gotten to work on the actual army yet because vehicles are probably more important.

They were all primed black, basecoated purple, and given arctic blue highlights - not professional grade painting, but they look pretty good. The lance gunners have red or white hair, and the dark lances have their plasma tank painted green. The gunner and driver were left primed black, but have arctic blue highlights.

Now, the morale of the story: We've spent probably 24 hours in the last four days converting and painting. I do more building, she does more painting. If I took my half painted army to a store for a game and someone declined to play with me because of how they looked, I would be incensed.

There are too many parallels to list here, but this is no different than church-goers frowning at other congregation members for not wearing their Sunday best, or for kids in school to make fun of another kid for having thick glasses or shoes that aren't brand name.

I realize that its human nature to try elevating yourself, but I will *always* detest, despise, and revile people who elevate themselves at someone elses' expense. People who demand that classes exist so that they can feel that they are better than someone else. This is a hobby for super-nerds who get suckered into spending far too much money on molded plastic that we have to assemble ourselves and paint ourselves. We're all suckers. This is the LAST place....at the bottom of the pile of the super nerds where one nerd needs to turn to another nerd and express elitism. It is absolutely sickening.

No, refusing to paint your army (or refusing to spend time painting it) and demanding to still be considered a 40k Hobbyist is lazy. In the same way refusing to go to work but demanding all the labels and benefits as someone who does is lazy. Is it that extreme of a comparison? No, not exactly, but the main work of 40k is the painting. And not doing that while someone of comparable gaming/playing status does, make one an inferior 40k Hobbyist. Ones reasons for not painting their army might vary, but in the end, yes, it is on you to manage your time to participate in the hobby.

Gaming is only one part of the 40k Hobby, and in all honesty, it's the easiest part. Painting and modeling, that's where there really is a difference between playing 40k or all those other table top games that come with painted models, or playing any turn based RTS game.

My mathematical system is mostly a joke. Painting and Modelling would be one category, but we were talking a lot about modeling at the time. Really I would just have as a basic equation:

[ (Modeling Level) + (Gaming Level) ] = (Hobbyist Level)

Where Modeling includes conversions, assembly, paintings, basing, etc... And Gaming include sportsmanship, achievements, etc....

The reason I put the guy that always wins, or never loses considering how easy it is to tie, as the number 10 rating is because they have mastered not only sportsmanship, but also the actual gaming aspect (yes, gamers who win are better gamers than those that lose, all else being equal).

@ Dashofpepper : Um, welcome to reality?

If someone goes to a hobby shop looking for a game with someone with a painted army, or an army of a certain caliber, that's their decision, that's what they are there for. How dare YOU try and tell them that the HAVE to play YOUR army because YOU want them to.

Painters aren't elevating themselves at someone else's expense, they are elevating themselves at THEIR expense of time and money, not yours.

Emperors Faithful wrote:True, it doesn't really affect the tactics or actual gameplay itself, but it does add a good deal of awesomeness to it.

You can't help but think that they ARE missing out on some of the hobby aspects.

And really, I call starting a whole new army which would cost $250 or more, yet not painting (or getting someone to paint) their ready-made army just a little bit lazy.

I agree that you miss out by not painting your army, but that doesn't mean everyone shares that view. Once again, it depends on your focus of the game. Some people like having really nice, fancy chess sets and some like playing with the basic black and white pieces.

Painting is only one part of the 40k Hobby, and in all honesty, it's the easiest part. Army list construction and playing, that's where there really is a difference between playing 40k or all those other artistic activities such as painting and pottery.

See what I did there? Don't get me wrong, as I know painting to a high standard is difficult and time consuming. However, playing at a tournament-caliber level is just as difficult and time consuming.

Dashofpepper wrote:There are too many parallels to list here, but this is no different than church-goers frowning at other congregation members for not wearing their Sunday best, or for kids in school to make fun of another kid for having thick glasses or shoes that aren't brand name.

I realize that its human nature to try elevating yourself, but I will *always* detest, despise, and revile people who elevate themselves at someone elses' expense.

So do I. But is that really what's going on here? Has anyone actually refused to play against your unpainted or partially painted stuff? Your dark eldar sound awesome and I'm guessing that you don't have any such problems.

If someone ever did refuse to play you with your partially painted stuff it does not mean they are looking down upon you like some self righteous church goer who's egotistical about their high-end suit. Miniature gaming really is a visual hobby and you need to understand that if someone has aesthetic standards that you don't meet, they are in no way judging you as a person (unlike the aforementioned self righteous church goer).

For some people, bringing unpainted models to the table is like showing up for a cocktail party in gym shorts. We need to take a chill pill and let people who are visually oriented enjoy their standards and stop judging them because we think they are judging us.

To be quite frank, I think you can see an example of the type of people Dash is refering to on this page.

Skinnattittar wrote:If someone goes to a hobby shop looking for a game with someone with a painted army, or an army of a certain caliber, that's their decision, that's what they are there for. How dare YOU try and tell them that the HAVE to play YOUR army because YOU want them to.

Painters aren't elevating themselves at someone else's expense, they are elevating themselves at THEIR expense of time and money, not yours.

QFT

Skinnattittar wrote:
The reason I put the guy that always wins, or never loses considering how easy it is to tie, as the number 10 rating is because they have mastered not only sportsmanship, but also the actual gaming aspect (yes, gamers who win are better gamers than those that lose, all else being equal).

this isn't fair reasoning, it all comes down to dice rolls. this is a game based on a chance roll. you can bring all the "math hammer" and probability you want into it, it all still boils down to a random roll. I can have every codex cover to cover, every rule and ruling down pat, I can have a golden daemon winning army, i can know all the tactics for every army, I can have the sportsmanship the planet has ever seen, and I can still loose every game i play because it all comes down to THE DICE and because I loose everygame doesn't make me any less a sports man or "good gamer" it just means i have sh y luck.

also where should be an "average" score on your "hobbiest level" so that we all know where a "real hobbier" needs to rank??

@ hcordes : First off, it's a hypothetical. In reality, you're right. No one can always win every game at their own level when you consider luck. But over time, you will get an average ability, and a better gamer will have a better average than those they are better than.

I'm not going to give you a number, hcordes, because it's not up to me to tell you if you should be a better hobbyist. That's up to you. Me, I would probably rank myself as a level 6 or 7. I have a well painted army with a bunch of simple conversions and special this and that. I win more often than I lose gaming, but I'm not really good at putting together lists, and I play IG, so tournament flexibility is limited.

@ Gornall : No, I don't see what you did there. It looks like you just changed my words, which means nothing. Gaming is easy to do. Anyone with a rule book and something that can count as units (coins, bits of paper, empty bases, pieces of lint from your pocket, etc...) can play 40k. Buying, assembling, modeling, painting, etc... That is what takes real time and really sets 40k apart from other games.

It isn't wrong to want to play with painted armies.

Kilkrazy wrote:It isn't wrong to want to play with painted armies.

Nope... there isn't. Likewise, there is nothing wrong if someone wants to play with a non-painted army as long as they don't try to force games with people who prefer playing painted armies.

Skinnattittar wrote:Gaming is easy to do. Anyone with a rule book and something that can count as units (coins, bits of paper, empty bases, pieces of lint from your pocket, etc...) can play 40k. Buying, assembling, modeling, painting, etc... That is what takes real time and really sets 40k apart from other games.

So painting at a high caliber is hard, takes a lot of skill, and requires a big investment of time while playing at a high caliber is easy, requires no thought or skill, and has no time investment associated with it. Got it. Glad to see that you're being reasonable and everything.