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.

Gornall wrote:

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.

If that's how you'd like to read it, you're more than welcome to

But, to everyone else who might be confused, no, that's not what I meant, nor what I was saying. Being a 40k Hobbyist requires more than just playing the game, which can be done by anyone with a rulebook and something to represent their models, as I said before. Might it be required to pay out the nose for expensive models and invest a lot of time painting them? Yes, some hobbies require your time and money. Collecting and restoring is a hobby, and that requires a lot of money and a lot of time, way more than 40k actually (even a starter car will cost more than most any 40k army). But just buying antique cars isn't much of a hobby, that's shopping. I wouldn't say going to the mall is a hobby either.

EDIT : Fixed quote issue.

Skinnattittar wrote:@ 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.

what silly about this is it still isn't true, because its still all RANDOM, you can have the best tactics (and use those tactics correctly) and have the best list contruction, and some 12 year old shows up with whatever his allowence can buy him and kicks your butt because you can't roll a 2 and all he seems to roll is a 6. I've been on both ends of that and it all boils down to luck.

@ Paint proponents
We will have to disagree on what constitutes a "hobby". I tend more towards the merriam-webster dictionary deifinition, "a pursuit outside one's regular occupation engaged in especially for relaxation"; if someone doesn't enjoy painting but very much enjoys the gaming aspect, they're pursuing a hobby, by definition.

I know, I know, we'll get all into the levels of involvment in the hobby but if a casual gamer likes the game and fluff but doesn't have the inclination to paint, that doesn't mean they aren't "hobbyists".

Personally, I paint as well as do most of the people I play. Those that don't like to paint generally pay someone at the FLGS to help them out. That said, I wouldn't refuse to play someone or otherwise denigrate them simply because their little army men aren't painted.

hcordes wrote:

Skinnattittar wrote:@ 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.

what silly about this is it still isn't true, because its still all RANDOM, you can have the best tactics (and use those tactics correctly) and have the best list contruction, and some 12 year old shows up with whatever his allowence can buy him and kicks your butt because you can't roll a 2 and all he seems to roll is a 6. I've been on both ends of that and it all boils down to luck.

Yes, that happens, and that will factor into the average, because that person that rolled all 2s one game has the same chance as rolling all 6s the next game. That's why its called an average, and not a one sample conclusion.

BTW... if you're going to argue that 40k gamers aren't "hobbyists", at least change your equation to truly reflect that. As it stands now, you can still get a reasonable "Hobbyist" score even if you get a 0 for your modeling.

agnosto wrote:@ Paint proponents
We will have to disagree on what constitutes a "hobby". I tend more towards the merriam-webster dictionary deifinition, "a pursuit outside one's regular occupation engaged in especially for relaxation"; if someone doesn't enjoy painting but very much enjoys the gaming aspect, they're pursuing a hobby, by definition.
I know, I know, we'll get all into the levels of involvment in the hobby but if a casual gamer likes the game and fluff but doesn't have the inclination to paint, that doesn't mean they aren't "hobbyists".
Personally, I paint as well as do most of the people I play. Those that don't like to paint generally pay someone at the FLGS to help them out. That said, I wouldn't refuse to play someone or otherwise denigrate them simply because their little army men aren't painted.

Ah, now we're debating over what hobby someone is pursuing. One can still be a hobbyist and only play the game. Then their hobby would be as a gamer, of Gamer Hobbyist. However to qualify as a 40k Hobbyist, you would have to meet the standards that would make you a 40k Hobbyist.

In my opinion, and many others or so it seems, that means painting your army. 40k isn't that unique as a gaming experience, it's actually pretty generic d6 game (the devil being in the details). So what makes it different? Well you don't need the fluff to play the game, and fluff doesn't really make it to the table all that much, fluff is more of a sportsmanship thing (being able to discuss the hobby and trying to work it into the game as background material). Then what? Well the models, really.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Gornall wrote:BTW... if you're going to argue that 40k gamers aren't "hobbyists", at least change your equation to truly reflect that. As it stands now, you can still get a reasonable "Hobbyist" score even if you get a 0 for your modeling.

You're right, but that's an abstraction, a joke. I'll write a more complicated one, if that makes you happy? But I don't actually use an equation like that in real life.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Oh, and I'm not agruing that gamers aren't hobbyists, just not explicitely 40k Hobbyists. A gaming hobbyist who is interested only in gaming 40k would be more like a 40k Gaming Hobbyist, rather than a 40k Hobbyist. Which, again, is different rather than positive or negative.

Skinnattittar wrote: Oh, and I'm not agruing that gamers aren't hobbyists, just not explicitely 40k Hobbyists. A gaming hobbyist who is interested only in gaming 40k would be more like a 40k Gaming Hobbyist, rather than a 40k Hobbyist. Which, again, is different rather than positive or negative.

And that's perfectly reasonable and something I can pretty much agree with. To each their own.

beard102479 wrote:I don't like playing people who haven't taken time to paint their army. Anyone can glue some "Nids" together and show up. Is it wrong that if I am not in a tournament that I refuse to play someone with an unpainted army? 1 or 2 models I can handle but an entire army with not one drop of paint on in? Come on people get your act together and take some pride in the hobby!!! Opinions welcome, please explain why you haven't painted your army or why you agree that it is very annoying to go up against a grey plastic Leman Russ?

Your an elitest snob. *shrug*

Everyone approaches the game differently. SOme people like the all around. Some people like to paint. Some like to convert. SOme like to play.

Just because you approach it as "pride" to get something painted, doesnt mean that folks dont take pride in something in the hobby. Back when I was a young whippersnapper, basing the models was optional. Wasnt even a requirement. No one did it. Now its a standard thing.

A good player thats a joy to play is a better opponent thena jerk with a beautifully painted army.

carmachu wrote:
A good player thats a joy to play is a better opponent thena jerk with a beautifully painted army.

+1, i concur!!

carmachu wrote:A good player thats a joy to play is a better opponent thena jerk with a beautifully painted army.

What about a player that's a jerk with an unpainted army compared to a player with a wonderfully painted army that's a joy to play? Or how about two jerks one with a painted army and the other with an unpainted army? What about two wonderful players, one with an unpainted army and the other a painted army?

carmachu wrote:

beard102479 wrote:I don't like playing people who haven't taken time to paint their army. Anyone can glue some "Nids" together and show up. Is it wrong that if I am not in a tournament that I refuse to play someone with an unpainted army? 1 or 2 models I can handle but an entire army with not one drop of paint on in? Come on people get your act together and take some pride in the hobby!!! Opinions welcome, please explain why you haven't painted your army or why you agree that it is very annoying to go up against a grey plastic Leman Russ?

Your an elitest snob. *shrug*

Everyone approaches the game differently. SOme people like the all around. Some people like to paint. Some like to convert. SOme like to play.

.

And some people like to play painted armies.


You're*

Exactly... I haven't seen a relationship between painting and jerkness. And if a person politely declines playing because they don't want to play against a grey army, that's not being an elitist snob. That same person talking down to someone for not painting might deserve that label, but someone who prefers painted armies and is polite about it does not.

Gornall wrote:Exactly... I haven't seen a relationship between painting and jerkness. And if a person politely declines playing because they don't want to play against a grey army, that's not being an elitist snob. That same person talking down to someone for not painting might deserve that label, but someone who prefers painted armies and is polite about it does not.

It is very much elitest. On the converse side, there really is no relation between a painted army and a good game.

You can decline it politely or rudely, it makes no difference. You're still turning your nose up at actually playing the game. It doesnt make the OP a bad person. But elitest, most certainly.

Ultimately its about how the game is played. Not whether it looks pretty or not. A painted army is a bonus.

carmachu wrote:Ultimately its about how the game is played. Not whether it looks pretty or not. A painted army is a bonus.

And I'm going to argue the same thing I've been arguing this entire time (previous in favor of non-painters): To you it's how the game is played. To others it is more important to them how the game looks. Neither side is wrong... trying to impose your views on the other side is.

Skinnattittar wrote:

carmachu wrote:A good player thats a joy to play is a better opponent thena jerk with a beautifully painted army.

What about a player that's a jerk with an unpainted army compared to a player with a wonderfully painted army that's a joy to play? Or how about two jerks one with a painted army and the other with an unpainted army? What about two wonderful players, one with an unpainted army and the other a painted army?

You illustrate my point exactly. Its not about the army thats painted. So limiting your options playing, you limit the fun you have.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Gornall wrote:

carmachu wrote:Ultimately its about how the game is played. Not whether it looks pretty or not. A painted army is a bonus.

And I'm going to argue the same thing I've been arguing this entire time (previous in favor of non-painters): To you it's how the game is played. To others it is more important to them how the game looks. Neither side is wrong... trying to impose your views on the other side is.

Except of course, I'm not the one imposing my views. I play anyone anywhere anytime anyarmy. The OP and yourself are the ones imposing them, just like now. Just by limiting yourself.

He asked, I asnwered. As I said, doesnt make hima bad person, but he most certainly hits the ranks of elitest.

carmachu wrote: Except of course, I'm not the one imposing my views. I play anyone anywhere anytime anyarmy. The OP and yourself are the ones imposing them, just like now. Just by limiting yourself.

He asked, I asnwered. As I said, doesnt make hima bad person, but he most certainly hits the ranks of elitest.

Read back through my posts and you'll see that I have no problem with unpainted armies. I've actually been on of the people defending them, even though I do run a fully painted army.

I argue that you are imposing your views on people because you're basically saying that people who play to have visually stunning/fluffy games should have to play people that don't have painted armies. That's putting the painter in a position where he has to play a game that isn't fun for him (as his focus is less on the game itself but the visual experience). That's basically equivelent to TFG walking up and saying "You have to play me even if it limits your fun because otherwise you're being an elitist."

So if someone shows up to the hobby shop with a Flames of War army, and I have a 40k army, and I know how to play Flames of War, but I say no because I don't want to play Flames of War, I want to play 40k, I'm an elitist?

Also, no Carmachu, you just strawmanned my question. You didn't actually answer or address it.

People who go around claiming a moral high ground by slapping offensive labels on others are elitists. This includes calling others elitists.

I don't mind playing un-painted armies. Granted, it looks a lot better to play painted ones and you should have them painted but i think its fine for casual games.

Manchu wrote:People who go around claiming a moral high ground by slapping offensive labels on others are elitists. This includes calling others elitists.

Be quiet you elitist!

Skinnattittar wrote:So if someone shows up to the hobby shop with a Flames of War army, and I have a 40k army, and I know how to play Flames of War, but I say no because I don't want to play Flames of War, I want to play 40k, I'm an elitist?

Also, no Carmachu, you just strawmanned my question. You didn't actually answer or address it.

So...you use a strawman bad example to counter what is an elitest stance? Thats a apples and oranges example and has no bearing on the matter.

Your not in an eltiest in that example. Your an idiot.

i don't mind when someone turns up for a game without some models painted, but a whole army is going a tad too far for my liking.

Modquisition on. This thread has been reported again, and at 14 pages its getting beyond its shelf life. Closing at this time.