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.

Polonius wrote: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?

There are many problems with your attempt to tie painting to morality. The post here is trying to reframe things a little but I think it comes down to the same flawed argument.

Firstly, you seem to assign no agency to the opponent. There are lots of reasons someone may not enjoy a game against a certain player. Under those circumstances it's fine to decline the game. Players need to be responsible for their own enjoyment when it comes to how painting or game type affect their own fun.

If we accept people have more fun playing against painted armies (and I don't think that's a universal truth at all) then we also need to accept that anyone not painting an army to the absolute best of their ability is impacting someone else's fun. I'm a thoroughly average painter. I paint to an acceptable tabletop standard. I could improve the look of my models fairly significantly if I increased the time spent on each one by around 20%. Is it immoral for me not to do so? If not, why not?

Finally, there are plenty of players who don't care about their opponent's army. Some don't even care if the models are built or the correct model in the first place, though that's rarer. Some models can be painted so badly they might negatively impact someone's enjoyment of the game. It's simply not a universal truth that painted models make the game more fun for everyone. I can't control what my opponent sees as fun, or impacting on their enjoyment. That's for them to advocate for. There are certain standards of behaviour that are almost universally accepted as making the game more enjoyable (don't cheat, don't be a jerk, etc) but I think having a fully painted army is a long way from being one of those standards.

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

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

Why? At no point when I'm painting my models does my opponent's enjoyment enter into my thinking. I paint because I like the spectacle of a fully painted army on the board. Sometimes I paint to relax. Sometimes I'm inspired to convert and paint something after reading or seeing something hobby related. I'm not doing any of those things for my opponent's benefit. That's not through selfishness. It's simply because I can't control my opponent's opinion, or what they find enjoyable. We all do many things purely for ourselves, not out of selfishness, but because we're the only ones affected, or the only ones who are impacted in ways we can control.

Since this topic continues with a high degree of hyperbole and toxicity im going to break the bank... If you paint your minis to a high standard (surely just to show your financial and/or moral superiority) or if you just play with unpainted minis (surely to trol the "elitist", after all you actually assemble the models just so you can measure LOS from antena and spikes)... You are most probably a ******* person that deserves *******.

Vatsetis wrote:
Since this topic continues with a high degree of hyperbole and toxicity im going to break the bank... If you paint your minis to a high standard (surely just to show your financial and/or moral superiority) or if you just play with unpainted minis (surely to trol the "elitist", after all you actually assemble the models just so you can measure LOS from antena and spikes)... You are most probably a ******* person that deserves *******.

I paint my models to a high standard and play with unpainted minis. Two negatives cancel each other out, right?

Well I’m a 10 and so is the small group of friends I play exclusively with.

But that’s just our bag and people should play the way that they’re happy with - no judgment here.

 Jidmah wrote:

Vatsetis wrote:
Since this topic continues with a high degree of hyperbole and toxicity im going to break the bank... If you paint your minis to a high standard (surely just to show your financial and/or moral superiority) or if you just play with unpainted minis (surely to trol the "elitist", after all you actually assemble the models just so you can measure LOS from antena and spikes)... You are most probably a ******* person that deserves *******.

I paint my models to a high standard and play with unpainted minis. Two negatives cancel each other out, right?

In this case you are double **** up!

 Insectum7 wrote:

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.

Gee, I didn't know that this was a court of law. There's no burden of proof in a discussion. You can ask for proof but you can't demand it and I'm under no obligation to present it. Get your head out of your rectum. But since you are so sure of yourself, here: http://www.solegends.com/citcat1991a/index.htm?fbclid=IwAR1ydK1wE-rdTLKIl7NpT4l2K228CGm9es8-gEccqOv8h4ckd7hUSRZk69w take your pick of all of these catalogs. Sure there are some pictures on the covers of some of them but there are no painted models on the inside. And with that I rest my case.

You are ussing a 30 year old catalog as proof of anything?????

Yes sir what a solid case in favour of playing with unpainted minis!!!!

 Insectum7 wrote:

Voss wrote:

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

Did you really?

Yep. Did you miss some of the definitions of selfishness in this thread?

define selfishness as ACTIVELY refusing to do something, or to explicitly reject doing something for someone.

If you don't buy them the six pack they want, you're explicitly rejecting doing something for someone. and Actively refusing as well. That's apparently selfish.

Its not as creepy as the buying drinks for people to create obligation, but its so far down the philosophical navel gazing that I can't see daylight anymore.

Vatsetis wrote:
You are ussing a 30 year old catalog as proof of anything?????

Yes sir what a solid case in favour of playing with unpainted minis!!!!

For a more modern version of the same thing, just look at all the studios that advertise using 3D renders of their models.

Obviously the ideal scenario with a wargame like 40k is to have two fully painted, decent standard armies face off against each other - that's fairly indisputable. I also personally find it hard to imagine why anyone would get into a game that has unpainted miniatures if they didn't, to some degree, want to reach that scenario and had a reasonable confidence that they could or would do so.

HOWEVER

The idea of having a 'required' level of painting that your prospective opponent has to reach in order for you to play against them is ludicrous. Reality rarely matches up with the ideal scenario described above and people have lives, preferences, difficulties and families that can prevent them from reaching it. To say that those who do not meet this standard you have set are lazy, or immoral, or somehow damaging to you and the 'hobby' as a whole is remarkably elitist and can only serve to put people off, not encourage them. It's fine to *want* a fully painted spectacle of a game - indeed I think everyone should want that - but if you *demand* it it's going to cause a lot of unnecessary friction.

I still don't understand what the big deal is here. If someone just wants to play with both their own and their opponents models painted, great more power to them.

If someone plays with unpainted models, also great. Nobody has the right to tell you what you should or should not do with your own models (unless you start throwing them at people).

Also nobody has the right to tell you that you should have to play anybody, painted models or not. Though in reality I would honestly imagine that common ground can easily be found between two people engaging respectfully with each other.

The only thing I feel that is really uncalled for in this whole mess is if someone has a condescending, unfriendly or judgemental attitude towards someone for not having painted models.
The only sensible course is to positively engage people and encourage them to paint their armies if that is something you care about. Maybe share painting tips or specific techniques with them that they might not know about and would make the process more enjoyable and efficient. If they just don't care about painting at all...fine you can still go your seperate ways if your 40k hobby interests and expectations don't align at all.

I think, over the course of your post, you've successfully explained what 'the big deal' is.

The only thing I feel that is really uncalled for in this whole mess is if someone has a condescending, unfriendly or judgemental attitude towards someone for not having painted models.

This happened.

Though in reality I would honestly imagine that common ground can easily be found between two people engaging respectfully with each other.

This did not.

Ergo, the thread.

Slipspace wrote:

Vatsetis wrote:
You are ussing a 30 year old catalog as proof of anything?????

Yes sir what a solid case in favour of playing with unpainted minis!!!!

For a more modern version of the same thing, just look at all the studios that advertise using 3D renders of their models.

Which has what to do with GW?

Slipspace wrote:

Vatsetis wrote:
You are ussing a 30 year old catalog as proof of anything?????

Yes sir what a solid case in favour of playing with unpainted minis!!!!

For a more modern version of the same thing, just look at all the studios that advertise using 3D renders of their models.

If you are going to argue in such a bad faith you could simply quote a fake study that states that players that paint their miniatures have a 70,89% more chance of developing breast cancer.

 Gordy2000 wrote:
Well I’m a 10 and so is the small group of friends I play exclusively with.

But that’s just our bag and people should play the way that they’re happy with - no judgment here.

thats really what the only good answer is.

Doesn't matter what your standard is, as long as the people you play with are on the same wavelength

Vatsetis wrote:

Slipspace wrote:

Vatsetis wrote:
You are ussing a 30 year old catalog as proof of anything?????

Yes sir what a solid case in favour of playing with unpainted minis!!!!

For a more modern version of the same thing, just look at all the studios that advertise using 3D renders of their models.

If you are going to argue in such a bad faith you could simply quote a fake study that states that players that paint their miniatures have a 70,89% more chance of developing breast cancer.

I'm obviously not just talking about GW here, though I believe even they have used the same technique for recent releases, including the LoV and World Eaters models. If you're going to be so literal-minded about everything I think the bad faith arguing isn't coming from me and there's not much point in debating further.

Curtesy of my bookshelf:


This one is just ~20 years old, which should match up perfectly with the last time the average dakkanaut managed to feel any joy related to the hobby.

Fun fact, it lists 16 ork boyz (4 sprues, no nob sprue) at 29.99€, which isn't that much cheaper than they are today.

The point I'm making is that painting hasn't always been "required" by GW. The whole basis of GW's philosophy was just have fun with your toys (and buy them from us). They ran painting tutorials in the White Dwarf not to say that you should or have to paint your models. The articles were there to help you enjoy your models by adding colors to them. All this is to say that painting models is meant for your enjoyment and if others enjoy them then that's just bonus points.

P.S. I didn't know that there was a single correct answer to the painted vs unpainted discussion. I thought that this was supposed to be a discussion board. The YMDC board is for correct vs incorrect answers to questions.

Slipspace wrote:

I'm obviously not just talking about GW here, though I believe even they have used the same technique for recent releases, including the LoV and World Eaters models. If you're going to be so literal-minded about everything I think the bad faith arguing isn't coming from me and there's not much point in debating further.

Does GW sell renders? Can you use a render in a game?

Boy howdy is this a weird thread. The painting threads always are but this one feels especially unhinged. Somehow, Jidmah's MLP showdown picture was too blase to attract attention beyond one comment, which says it all about the rest of the comments in here

ETA to not be totally an off topic donkeycave: I try to always bring painted models. I prefer to fight against painted models, or at the very least, see progress week by week from my opponents. The game itself is too crappy to stand on its own two feet without the immersion that painting brings. *Of course* I am perfectly polite and enthusiastic towards people with unpainted armies. As I'm sure are 99.99% of the other folks in this thread who prefer a painted fight. Fin?

Leo_the_Rat wrote:
The point I'm making is that painting hasn't always been "required" by GW. The whole basis of GW's philosophy was just have fun with your toys (and buy them from us). They ran painting tutorials in the White Dwarf not to say that you should or have to paint your models. The articles were there to help you enjoy your models by adding colors to them. All this is to say that painting models is meant for your enjoyment and if others enjoy them then that's just bonus points.

P.S. I didn't know that there was a single correct answer to the painted vs unpainted discussion. I thought that this was supposed to be a discussion board. The YMDC board is for correct vs incorrect answers to questions.

Is ussing actual miniatures a requirement or you could simply use bases and cupboard or something else with roughly the size of the miniatures?

Would you mind if your oponent rolls every hit, wound and save roll individually because he couldnt or didnt want to purchase more than a single die for whatever reason... And wont touch your dice since he has Covid concerns.

Would you be disturbed if your oponent not only didnt know any of your army rules but also demanded (politely) extensive explanations of every single rule interaction that took place during the game.

Ughh playing 40K with minatures and more than one die, or knowing the rules, is so elitist!!!!

You know painting your minis is just another social convention for playing a social game like 40K.

Being proud of not following it is like being proud of not understanding basic game mechanics... None of them prevents you from playing the game, but makes the experience poorer for everyone involved.

Stop the Paintriarchy!

Can't spell paint without pain.

 Jidmah wrote:
Can't spell paint without pain.

Malen? or is Bemalen better?

Vatsetis wrote:

Leo_the_Rat wrote:
The point I'm making is that painting hasn't always been "required" by GW. The whole basis of GW's philosophy was just have fun with your toys (and buy them from us). They ran painting tutorials in the White Dwarf not to say that you should or have to paint your models. The articles were there to help you enjoy your models by adding colors to them. All this is to say that painting models is meant for your enjoyment and if others enjoy them then that's just bonus points.

P.S. I didn't know that there was a single correct answer to the painted vs unpainted discussion. I thought that this was supposed to be a discussion board. The YMDC board is for correct vs incorrect answers to questions.

Is ussing actual miniatures a requirement or you could simply use bases and cupboard or something else with roughly the size of the miniatures?

Would you mind if your oponent rolls every hit, wound and save roll individually because he couldnt or didnt want to purchase more than a single die for whatever reason... And wont touch your dice since he has Covid concerns.

Would you be disturbed if your oponent not only didnt know any of your army rules but also demanded (politely) extensive explanations of every single rule interaction that took place during the game.

Ughh playing 40K with minatures and more than one die, or knowing the rules, is so elitist!!!!

You know painting your minis is just another social convention for playing a social game like 40K.

Being proud of not following it is like being proud of not understanding basic game mechanics... None of them prevents you from playing the game, but makes the experience poorer for everyone involved.

This guy gets it. There isn't anything "wrong" with not painting your miniatures. Just like there isn't anything "wrong" with proxying every model or not showing up with your own ruler. And for each of those examples, I've gladly played games against people for one reason or another, but there is also nothing "wrong" with refusing to play a game against someone for any of those reasons.

One of my best friends IRL just hates to not only paint but even build his models, he's had a half-finished tau force with nothing glued to his bases for about 10 years. We are currently halfway through a narrative campaign where we all agreed to start new armies and paint them as we increased points. He isn't playing in the campaign because obviously a lot of the opponents wouldn't want to play against grey riptides with no arms placed sideways on a base. Not one of the people in the campaign is a jerk for not wanting to play against that and he's not a jerk for not wanting to paint his tau.

Now on what I consider a really positive note he's still in our group chat for the campaign and obviously we all hang out. He's seen the beautiful pics of games and the narrative that gets to go along with it and he's determined to be in the next one and has started a low model count custodes army that he wants to have ready when we start a new one early next year. Once again if he just hates the painting and doesn't want to do it that's fine ill still play against his half-built army because he's one of my best friends, but I won't be allowing him into the narrative campaign. Because he's not a child he doesn't have the slightest issue with this because he would never demand that his fun trumps the entire group's fun.

TLDR: Still nothing wrong with turning down a game because you want to play against a painted army

Personally, I have absolutely no issues with playing the game against someone using proxies, as long as they work well for the game (about the right size, easily distinguishable gear).

A good number of my models are still grey, and probably will be for a while. Painting is something I am very, very, very rarely in the mood for, so my army is painted over a very, very, very long time.

So it's partially me not wanting to throw bricks from my glass house. It's also partially me being fine with distinguishing the war-gaming hobby aspect from the more fiddly completionist hobby aspects like painting, basing, scenting(!?!), etc.

I don't want to be a downer for someone else's experience, and I'd rather they not be a downer for mine. If the experience I have to offer (some good painting, some works in progress, some primed, and some grey) isn't what would bring them enjoyment, then they don't want to play with me, and I don't want to force lack of enjoyment on them. Conversely, I expect other prospective players to treat me the same - to avoid trying to force me to do things I don't enjoy, just so they can eek enjoyment out of things more.

If you don't like what I'm selling in terms of a gaming experience, don't buy it, and move on. Insult me for selling what I'm selling, and I'm probably going to be rude in return.

Because that's a natural result when you assume: You make an ass out of you and me.

I'm not really sure what the numbers represent in the poll. But I went with 8.

I try to paint all of mine but there is always that one model that isn't quite finished or has an undercoat only. Don't mind what my opponent brings but I don't really enjoy playing against a sea of unpainted grey or silver. As it: A: can be hard to see what is what and B: Doesn't look the best.

I like a nice field to battle over, but my expectations for that including my own are much lower.

..

Proxies need to at least vaguely resemble the thing you want to use or not be confusing. This beastman action figure equals the giant for my orc army or this necromunda bounty hunter is my commissar is fine.

These monopose orc warriors or this bunch of pebbles represents a sisters squad all with different weapons is not okay.

 Gene St. Ealer wrote:
I prefer to fight against painted models, or at the very least, see progress week by week from my opponents.

I think if i played with someone with this expectation I'd make an effort to get one model in a unit finished per week.
And then never actually include that unit in a list I fielded against them.

Yep, making progress....

ccs wrote:

I think if i played with someone with this expectation I'd make an effort to get one model in a unit finished per week.
And then never actually include that unit in a list I fielded against them.

Yep, making progress....

Ooh, sublimely passive aggressive. Way to fight the power, dude!

ccs wrote:

 Gene St. Ealer wrote:
I prefer to fight against painted models, or at the very least, see progress week by week from my opponents.

I think if i played with someone with this expectation I'd make an effort to get one model in a unit finished per week.
And then never actually include that unit in a list I fielded against them.

Yep, making progress....

I don't think you'd have to worry about that, buddy, given how you post on here

ccs wrote:

 Gene St. Ealer wrote:
I prefer to fight against painted models, or at the very least, see progress week by week from my opponents.

I think if i played with someone with this expectation I'd make an effort to get one model in a unit finished per week.
And then never actually include that unit in a list I fielded against them.

Yep, making progress....

Ho boy! Someone inform Copernicus he's wrong about what the world revolves around...