People Who make no attempt to paint their models?

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.

**ChocolateGork**

I came because i was called.

**Kaldor**

whitedragon wrote:
Kaldor wrote:
helium42 wrote:How exactly do you come to the conclusion that people who choose not to paint their armies have a self-entitled attitude? :facepalm.

People can choose to do whatever they want with their 'armies' And I use the term loosely, because I want to cover not just painting, but proxying and counts-as.

But the instant they get indignant and self-righteous because someone else doesn't want to play against them because of their choice to field a crap army, they become self entitled.

This doesn't just apply to painting, it applies to everything. Don't waste your time playing against armies/gamers that you don't want to.

Once again, your "reasoning" means exactly the same thing in reverse. The instant people get indignant and self-righteous because they won't play against a non-painted army, they become self-entitled.

Uh, yeah. I said exactly that. If someone doesn't want to play you, just shrug and move on. Don't get your panties in a twist because they want you to paint your toy soldiers / not use proxies / bathe more often / whatever.

It applies to everyone, for everything.

And for reference, I quoted platuan4th because he was the one demonstrating the self-entitled attitude I mentioned. Also helium42.

**helium42**

And you know what? From seeing this thread, I give up. If wanting to play with and against painted miniatures makes me a snob, so be it. If offering to paint my friend's miniatures so I can do so makes me elitist, then that's what I am. If holding the hobby to a higher standard makes me a jerk, hey, then I guess I'm that too.

You're either missing the point over and over again or simply ignoring it. I don't think that somebody who only plays with and/or against unpainted armies is a snob. I believe that you are every bit as entitled to enjoy the game in the manner that you desire as I feel I am. What makes some people in this thread snobs is that they refuse to see that some people might enjoy the hobby in a way different to their own and then they go on to throw insults toward those people. Play the way you like, just don't call me lazy/childish/self-entitled/etc. for doing the same. There are a lot of 40k players, plenty for all of us to find like-minded opponents.

**inquisitorlewis**

helium42 wrote:
And you know what? From seeing this thread, I give up. If wanting to play with and against painted miniatures makes me a snob, so be it. If offering to paint my friend's miniatures so I can do so makes me elitist, then that's what I am. If holding the hobby to a higher standard makes me a jerk, hey, then I guess I'm that too.

You're either missing the point over and over again or simply ignoring it. I don't think that somebody who only plays with and/or against unpainted armies is a snob. I believe that you are every bit as entitled to enjoy the game in the manner that you desire as I feel I am. What makes some people in this thread snobs is that they refuse to see that some people might enjoy the hobby in a way different to their own and then they go on to throw insults toward those people. Play the way you like, just don't call me lazy/childish/self-entitled/etc. for doing the same. There are a lot of 40k players, plenty for all of us to find like-minded opponents.

I actually agree with this statement 100%.

**Stoupe**

Stoupe wrote:Is it just me but are there a lot of nonpainters getting Pissy about the way people word things.

Being called lazy and self-entitled, and accused of ruining the hobby for those who are doing it the 'right' way tends to have that effect on people.

My point was, simply, I see more people. Claiming we painters are saying these things than painters who actually are. Are grey armies typically fotm armies unpainted to hold some resale value? No, the majority isn't. But the minority is a significant number.. Are grey armies typically less fun to play? Well add in the random game factor, them yes.

The fact is, I don't know you. A grey army is harder to comment on and therefore harder to make into a conversation. Add in the I don't know you factor and it creates more often then not an awkward game. (If you feel you are the exceptin here, by all means. But everyone I know knows how bad socially awkward games can be.)

If I don't know you and you wanna play a game. Be painted. Conversations become much much easier to start that way.

I hate silent games.

**funkyh**

I have been playing the game since september. I bough the battle force and just went to building. I still have sprue chunks on a model here and there because I wasn't into the whole cleaning all the lines off. I proxied models and amongst my local group, it was acceptable as long as it was well explained. I built my force up fast using ebay and a lot of birthday and christmas money... I went from the battle force to near 3000 pts by January. I am past 4000 as I type this.

Up until the first week of June, my army was anything but wysiwyg. After some help of one of my groups founders and veterans of 40k, we took some of his extra bits and made my army wysiwyg. I now have 2 2000 pt armies ( Death company list and normal list.)

Once all that was done I drove a couple hours back home and began to prime my models and build the remaining minis. I have just now started painting my force, I have about 15 models done.

I have played over 20 games with a bare plastic/primed army. I play this game because it is fun. Yes painting is another cog in the machine of 40k/tabletop gaming, but its not an essential one for these great games to be enjoyed. If I was shunned until I had a painted army, I doubt I would have spent so much money, time, and effort in this hobby. I wouldn't have the friends I have today if I was forced to have the painted army. So I ask, no I plead with you. Its just a game. If you don't want to play against an unpainted army, have fun playing the same old people and not make new friends.

Side note, I am also an avid golfer and seeing how some of the older members treat the new ones, I doubt the new golfers will enjoy the sport as much as I did. The future of this game is in our hands ladies and gentlemen. Treat people as you would like to be treated. Grow this hobby. I welcome new players. I was there once, heck, I'm just now on the upslope of becoming a better hobbiest.

**insaniak**

Stoupe wrote:But the minority is a significant number..

Is it? How many would you say makes up that 'significant number'?

And, really, so what? I want to play a game. I don't much care why my opponent chose the army he has.

The fact is, I don't know you. A grey army is harder to comment on and therefore harder to make into a conversation. Add in the I don't know you factor and it creates more often then not an awkward game. (If you feel you are the exceptin here, by all means. But everyone I know knows how bad socially awkward games can be.)

If I don't know you and you wanna play a game. Be painted. Conversations become much much easier to start that way.

I hate silent games.

To be honest, conversation based around the army generally takes place over the first couple of minutes while we're setting up, and from there on in tends to revolve around the actual game in progress. I'm not at my most comfortable socially with people I don't know... but generally have little trouble keeping game-related conversation going on, painted armies or no.

**infinite_array**

helium42 wrote:
And you know what? From seeing this thread, I give up. If wanting to play with and against painted miniatures makes me a snob, so be it. If offering to paint my friend's miniatures so I can do so makes me elitist, then that's what I am. If holding the hobby to a higher standard makes me a jerk, hey, then I guess I'm that too.

You're either missing the point over and over again or simply ignoring it. I don't think that somebody who only plays with and/or against unpainted armies is a snob. I believe that you are every bit as entitled to enjoy the game in the manner that you desire as I feel I am. What makes some people in this thread snobs is that they refuse to see that some people might enjoy the hobby in a way different to their own and then they go on to throw insults toward those people. Play the way you like, just don't call me lazy/childish/self-entitled/etc. for doing the same. There are a lot of 40k players, plenty for all of us to find like-minded opponents.

Gimme till morning. I've got this whole response thought out, with examples of what 'expectations' are in this hobby and example from other hobbies I have. I just don't want it to sound like it's coming from a frothing maniac.

In short: I'm ignoring that point because that's not the point I'm trying to combat. I'm fighting against the conception of 'my hobby' vs. 'the hobby at large' and that painting isn't an expected part of the miniature gaming hobby.

Also, I noticed you ignored my request.

**Crimson-King2120**

it takes a lot of effort and energy to paint even a single model not to mention time not really an excuse i know and my Helghast IG are almost fully painted but i understand why people dont do it

Automatically Appended Next Post:
not to mention that any models i do paint look crap compared to GW painted minis

**brettz123**

Kaldor wrote:
helium42 wrote:How exactly do you come to the conclusion that people who choose not to paint their armies have a self-entitled attitude? :facepalm.

People can choose to do whatever they want with their 'armies' And I use the term loosely, because I want to cover not just painting, but proxying and counts-as.

But the instant they get indignant and self-righteous because someone else doesn't want to play against them because of their choice to field a crap army, they become self entitled.

This doesn't just apply to painting, it applies to everything. Don't waste your time playing against armies/gamers that you don't want to.

The problem is now you are starting to make things up and change your argument. This isn't what you have been saying during this thread at all. You have been calling people lazy and entitled because they don't paint not because they get mad people won't play against them. Make up your mind and stick with a position but don't try and change your position and then pretend you were right all along.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Stoupe wrote:

Stoupe wrote:Is it just me but are there a lot of nonpainters getting Pissy about the way people word things.

Being called lazy and self-entitled, and accused of ruining the hobby for those who are doing it the 'right' way tends to have that effect on people.

My point was, simply, I see more people. Claiming we painters are saying these things than painters who actually are. Are grey armies typically fotm armies unpainted to hold some resale value? No, the majority isn't. But the minority is a significant number.. Are grey armies typically less fun to play? Well add in the random game factor, them yes.

The fact is, I don't know you. A grey army is harder to comment on and therefore harder to make into a conversation. Add in the I don't know you factor and it creates more often then not an awkward game. (If you feel you are the exceptin here, by all means. But everyone I know knows how bad socially awkward games can be.)

If I don't know you and you wanna play a game. Be painted. Conversations become much much easier to start that way.

I hate silent games.

1. You should probably actually read the thread and you will see that it is basically a small number of people who won't play against unpainted armies telling non-painters that they are lazy. This tends to annoy people because it isn't really all that logical and it also happens to be incredibly rude.

2. If your ability to hold a conversation revolves around someone having painted their army perhaps you need to broaden your horizons.

**orkybenji**

For most of us, the fun of the game is competing in a visually impressive spectacle. We like playing through the epic face off of an eldar craftworld and a space wolf company. Unpainted armies detract from that holistic experience. If you don't have an interest in painting why are you buying these
miniatures. They are so inflated in price because of the detail/paintability. I will not refuse to play against someone with unpainted armies, but I would rather play with someone else. A fully painted army reflects that this gamer has a similar respect and interest for the warhammer world. It shows we are on the same page as gamers. Skill is not an excuse. A badly painted army is better than an unpainted army. I started out with horrible painting skills. Now I am a lot better but still have a long way to go. You get no sympathy if you claim you don't paint bc you are bad. Anyone can basecoat wash and dry brush, I don't care who you are.

**LunaHound**

Stoupe wrote:

The fact is, I don't know you. A grey army is harder to comment on and therefore harder to make into a conversation. Add in the I don't know you factor and it creates more often then not an awkward game. (If you feel you are the exceptin here, by all means. But everyone I know knows how bad socially awkward games can be.)

If I don't know you and you wanna play a game. Be painted. Conversations become much much easier to start that way.

I hate silent games.

You know what that basically says? It says this.

"My comfort zone is painting, and discussing painting related topics.
Im not used to chatting about army, army builds, and army composition and synergy,
However, I expect everyone in the world to be just a painter like me, with no possibility of them been a gamer."

This thread that happens monthly always have one simple problem.
People only think their personal aspect of warhammer exists, and cannot tolerate other aspects.

**Kaldor**

brettz123 wrote:The problem is now you are starting to make things up and change your argument. This isn't what you have been saying during this thread at all. You have been calling people lazy and entitled because they don't paint not because they get mad people won't play against them. Make up your mind and stick with a position but don't try and change your position and then pretend you were right all along.

Not sure if trolling...

No, your reading comprehension leaves a little to be desired. Not painting is fine. Refusing to play against not painted armies is fine.

Getting upset because someone doesn't like your unpainted army is not fine.

That's been my line all through this thread.

**katfude**

I have 2 armies at 2k. My Necrons are 60% tabletop quality, 35% primed and 2 coats, and 5% primer. My Orks are 5% painted, 80% primed, and 15% skin painted.

I have so many things working against me.

Time: owning a house is time consuming. So is work. So is unwinding and family time.

Shiny new builder syndrome: I love models. I love buying them and putting them together and then smiling at how awesome they look, even with just some primer. Then I buy more.

Research and playvelopment: I love reading about lists and tactics and spend lots of time refining my lists and hunting for what new shiny will make my armies better. I also really really like playing this game too.

Painting is hard for me for these reasons and a few more (caution: first world problems ahead!) I don't have a dedicated paint area. I don't have a good space for one that would not near close to a TV (must have for when I am painting). To paint in the only area that fulfills my TV needs, I have to curl up my spine to hunch over the model and that gets painful quick.

I see too many awesome paint jobs on magical internet land that I feel bad about the paint jobs I do even though I get feedback that I'm doing well. Well doesn't cut it for me and I get frustrated.

The only thing that motivates me is there are a LOT of unpainted/very poorly painted armies in the area. After playing with/against/near them, I usually get the motivation to paint a few models.

**LakotaWolf**

seriously people it comes down to one simple point......play who you want and when you want.....everyone has that right to make that choice

**Xca|iber**

Da Butcha wrote:Not liking something should not equal not liking people who do it.

It's totally fine for you to like painting, prefer playing painted armies, or even refuse to play against unpainted armies. Those are your preferences, and you are entitled to them. There's nothing wrong with them, and there's nothing wrong with you for having them. Those preferences don't make you elitist, or a snob, or a douche.

Someone else might not want to play against WAAC gamers, or Tau players, or strangers. I have a lot of difficulty getting up the nerve to play strangers at stores/conventions.

Moving from having your own preferences to making assumptions about other people based on your preferences is what turns someone into an elitist, snob, or douche. If someone doesn't paint their army, guess what? All you can tell is that they don't paint their army. They might be lazy; they might be physically impaired; they might not like painting; they might have an entirely painted army in the case and just prefer to assemble a force before painting ANY of it. You can't tell. If you think you can tell just by the fact that their are unpainted, you are a douche.

I'm uncomfortable and nervous playing strangers. That's my own personal situation. If I then say that strangers are dangerous rapists, I'm a douche (or demented).

I'm sure that it is true that some people with unpainted armies are lazy. However, you just can't make that blanket assumption by the presence of an unpainted army, unless you are a douche.

I like to buy and assemble my armies based much more on appearance and fluff than effectiveness. That means that I tend to lose, hard, when playing people with well-designed, optimized lists chosen for their effective build. Given that I don't particularly enjoy getting a butt-whupping, I tend to seek out other gamers who also don't create 'killer' lists. I don't assume, however, that the person with a well-constructed list is a jerk, or an egotist, or trying to prove something. I have my preferences, and I act on my preferences, but I don't make prejudicial assumptions about people based on my preferences. That is being a douche.

Also, life isn't perfect. I'd enjoy the game most if both armies were painted to a high standard, the terrain was modeled and painted well, my army and my opponent's army were both well-designed and well-constructed, and my opponent was an attractive, flirtatious lady who brought barbecue to the game. Sadly, I'm not going to get many games like that (so far, none). Having preferences and standard, even demanding preferences and standards, is totally acceptable, but it also might mean that you miss out on a game/person that might be worthwhile (I'm willing to lower my standards for an attractive lady gamer---she can have an unpainted army, and could even just bring burgers

If you are someone who feels they can look down, criticize, or dislike people who don't paint their models because they aren't participating completely in 'the hobby', think about this:

All around you, any where you go, there could be other people who don't participate completely in 'the hobby'. Those strange and unlikable people buy, assemble and paint models, but never play games with them. You'll never see them at the gaming table! How will you know to look down on them? How will you know who you should shun and hate? Maybe you should avoid associating with anyone in case they are a hidden incomplete hobbyist!

I wasn't going to join in on this thread, but this is very insightful, and worth re-reading.

On topic: Some people have said that the non-painters are getting hung up on wording, which I think is true to a certain extent. However, I don't think that invalidates their points. If someone asks me about their painted army and I don't like the color-scheme, I could say: "Wow, your army is really ugly." Of course, that comes off as extraordinarily rude. On the other hand, I could say, "well, the color scheme is not my cup of tea, but..." and find something to compliment. In the second case, I've voiced my opinion without making an (implied) attack on the painter.

I think the same is true of this issue here. For someone to say "You're ruining the hobby for everyone" as opposed to "I'd prefer not to play against unpainted armies," that person is making a value judgment on the way non-painters enjoy their hobby, which leaves non-painters feeling justifiably insulted. True, if a person believes that unpainted armies are ruining Warhammer 40k, they are free to voice that opinion, but attributing that opinion to players (e.g. you are ruining the hobby) makes that person sound like a jerk (in my opinion, of course).

For the record, my stance is basically the same as Da Butcha's, though I'd wager I'm a bit more competitive

Also, slightly off topic: I thought I was the only one who gets really uncomfortable playing against strangers.

**whitedragon**

Kaldor wrote:
whitedragon wrote:
Kaldor wrote:
helium42 wrote:How exactly do you come to the conclusion that people who choose not to paint their armies have a self-entitled attitude? :facepalm.

People can choose to do whatever they want with their 'armies' And I use the term loosely, because I want to cover not just painting, but proxying and counts-as.

But the instant they get indignant and self-righteous because someone else doesn't want to play against them because of their choice to field a crap army, they become self entitled.

This doesn't just apply to painting, it applies to everything. Don't waste your time playing against armies/gamers that you don't want to.

Once again, your "reasoning" means exactly the same thing in reverse. The instant people get indignant and self-righteous because they won't play against a non-painted army, they become self-entitled.

Uh, yeah. I said exactly that. If someone doesn't want to play you, just shrug and move on. Don't get your panties in a twist because they want you to paint your toy soldiers / not use proxies / bathe more often / whatever.

It applies to everyone, for everything.

And for reference, I quoted platuan4th because he was the one demonstrating the self-entitled attitude I mentioned. Also helium42.

I quoted you because you are showing the exact self-entitled attittude as well. Because as you've agreed before, the door swings both ways. The solution is to live and let live, not chastise people that don't agree with you, that's what I said. Don't get your panties in a twist because someone doesn't want to paint their toy soldiers.

Kaldor wrote:
brettz123 wrote:The problem is now you are starting to make things up and change your argument. This isn't what you have been saying during this thread at all. You have been calling people lazy and entitled because they don't paint not because they get mad people won't play against them. Make up your mind and stick with a position but don't try and change your position and then pretend you were right all along.

Not sure if trolling...

No, your reading comprehension leaves a little to be desired. Not painting is fine. Refusing to play against not painted armies is fine.

Getting upset because someone doesn't like your unpainted army is not fine.

That's been my line all through this thread.

Btw, that hasn't been your "line" through this thread, because just above this, you say you should not play against people you don't want to. The part we are disagreeing about is your comment that you shouldn't get upset because someone doesn't like unpainted armies. By reverse, you should also not get upset about someone having a non-painted army.

**-Loki-**

whitedragon wrote:I quoted you because you are showing the exact self-entitled attittude as well. Because as you've agreed before, the door swings both ways. The solution is to live and let live, not chastise people that don't agree with you, that's what I said. Don't get your panties in a twist because someone doesn't want to paint their toy soldiers.

This.

Your toy soldiers are your hobby. Someone elses toy soldiers are their hobby. What they do with them has zero effect on you. If they don't want to paint them, and that kills your fun, you simply don't include them in your hobby by not playing them, just like if someone is a complete douchebag to play against, you don't include them in your hobby by not playing them. Let them have their hobby, there's no reason for you get upset over it. Life has plenty of other real things to get worked up about.

**carmachu**

Da Mediokre Painta wrote: Painting is a key part of it and contributes to its overall success.

How does it contribute to the overall success of the game? It doesnt make you a better player, it doesnt make you a better person at the table. It doesnt make your rules knowelege better.

It just makes the table prettier.

**Pacific**

The thing I find most odd about this is that most of the non-painted armies you see are for 40k. Now I think this is a great shame, because a lot of the models are incredible stylish and there are few sights as cool in wargaming as a well painted 40k army on some good terrain.

But, if you lose that aesthetic appeal, then what do you have?

A tactical experience? Not really, while moving models on a board will always be fun, there isn't the depth within the game mechanics to have a truly tactical experience.

A strategic experience? Namely list building - while this isn't really my thing, I know that a lot of people enjoy this and while the game itself is lacking in tactical complexity, this is where the more enthusiastic and committed 40k players can find their focus. But, with the 6th edition ally rules creating something of a free-for-all in terms of army composition, will this still be a draw for the game?

Speaking personally, I have become jaded to 40k partly because it was so difficult to find opponents with painted/assembled armies, who wanted to do more than just set up 24" apart every week and repeat the same rather vacuous gaming experience week after week. By contrast, some of my favourite ever wargaming experiences (and this includes the entire hobby and non-GW games) have been from themed campaign and tournament weekends. Namely, some Pre-Heresy events that had a dozen or so guys, each with amazingly-realised armies that they had obviously spent a great deal of time preparing. Combined with a narrative for the games (actually had one written by Graham McNeil in one case) and it was a stunning experience. Now you could say that this set an unreasonable benchmark for my subsequent playing experiences, but to me having a pair of disembodied legs on a base, a WFB movement tray representing an Orc-War buggy, or any other number of examples makes the game damn near unplayable - there just isn't the 'meat' in the game itself for it to be able to be carried on the game mechanics alone. As far as I am concerned it needs attention lavished on it - be it through campaigns and narrative, or with pretty armies to set up on the tabletop.

**Squidmanlolz**

Pacific wrote:The thing I find most odd about this is that most of the non-painted armies you see are for 40k. Now I think this is a great shame, because a lot of the models are incredible stylish and there are few sights as cool in wargaming as a well painted 40k army on some good terrain.

40k is one of the most popular games in this niche hobby. It can be expected that this would be the case due to popularity alone. The farther you get into the niche, there are less players but the players themselves generally become more devoted, due to this it is less common to see unpainted armies that are less popular than 40k.

**Stoupe**

LunaHound wrote:
Stoupe wrote:

The fact is, I don't know you. A grey army is harder to comment on and therefore harder to make into a conversation. Add in the I don't know you factor and it creates more often then not an awkward game. (If you feel you are the exceptin here, by all means. But everyone I know knows how bad socially awkward games can be.)

If I don't know you and you wanna play a game. Be painted. Conversations become much much easier to start that way.

I hate silent games.

You know what that basically says? It says this.

"My comfort zone is painting, and discussing painting related topics.
Im not used to chatting about army, army builds, and army composition and synergy,
However, I expect everyone in the world to be just a painter like me, with no possibility of them been a gamer."

This thread that happens monthly always have one simple problem.
People only think their personal aspect of warhammer exists, and cannot tolerate other aspects.

You know what it says to me? I don't give a fething gak about army builds, composition and synergy. I'd rather looks at an army as a reflection of ones self, which opens a whole possibility of new topics. Oh your theme is what? How come? Did you write your own personal story or did you take it from gw/pp/history? Out of all the armies on the wall made you pick that one and paint it in that way? What was your inspiration? More often hen not these questions can lead to conversations about life and philosophy in general. Talking about army lists and everything is just boring drivel to me. I'd rather shoot myself.

Note I didn't say that it was necessary to create a conversation, it does help.

brettz123 wrote:

Stoupe wrote:

Stoupe wrote:Is it just me but are there a lot of nonpainters getting Pissy about the way people word things.

Being called lazy and self-entitled, and accused of ruining the hobby for those who are doing it the 'right' way tends to have that effect on people.

My point was, simply, I see more people. Claiming we painters are saying these things than painters who actually are. Are grey armies typically fotm armies unpainted to hold some resale value? No, the majority isn't. But the minority is a significant number.. Are grey armies typically less fun to play? Well add in the random game factor, them yes.

The fact is, I don't know you. A grey army is harder to comment on and therefore harder to make into a conversation. Add in the I don't know you factor and it creates more often then not an awkward game. (If you feel you are the exceptin here, by all means. But everyone I know knows how bad socially awkward games can be.)

If I don't know you and you wanna play a game. Be painted. Conversations become much much easier to start that way.

I hate silent games.

1. You should probably actually read the thread and you will see that it is basically a small number of people who won't play against unpainted armies telling non-painters that they are lazy. This tends to annoy people because it isn't really all that logical and it also happens to be incredibly rude.

2. If your ability to hold a conversation revolves around someone having painted their army perhaps you need to broaden your horizons.

1. I see more non painters claiming we are calling them these things than painters who actually are. I've read the thread. More often the. Not people are twisting words, picking and choosing what to reply to and claiming offense when there nothing offensive.

2. It doesn't. It merely assists diverting the conversation to something more meaningful the. Lists, synergy, rules, etc. which for me creates a game that isn't mere boring drivel.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

insaniak wrote:
Stoupe wrote:But the minority is a significant number..

Is it? How many would you say makes up that 'significant number'?

And, really, so what? I want to play a game. I don't much care why my opponent chose the army he has.

Enough that I made the ruling for my own self not to play armies that arent at least half painted. You want to play? I want to hang out with friends and paint and maybe just maybe I'll play 1-2 games a week. I'm not complaining about my number of games per week am I? More often then not I just use it as an excuse not to play at all.

Don't like it? Oh well.

The fact is, I don't know you. A grey army is harder to comment on and therefore harder to make into a conversation. Add in the I don't know you factor and it creates more often then not an awkward game. (If you feel you are the exceptin here, by all means. But everyone I know knows how bad socially awkward games can be.)

If I don't know you and you wanna play a game. Be painted. Conversations become much much easier to start that way.

I hate silent games.

To be honest, conversation based around the army generally takes place over the first couple of minutes while we're setting up, and from there on in tends to revolve around the actual game in progress. I'm not at my most comfortable socially with people I don't know... but generally have little trouble keeping game-related conversation going on, painted armies or no.

In your experience maybe. I find painted armies easier to talk about themes and influences which leads to other interests which leads to more entertaining conversations.

I don't play unpainted armies and all this complaining just makes me prouder of the fact that I don't.

**Grot 6**

" Are grey armies typically fotm armies unpainted to hold some resale value?"

Yes. This is what I said back in the beginning. Little johnny goes online, prints off the tourney killer, then finds that he wasted his money when he doesn't table all comers when he plays his first couple of games. I have seen this more then a few times, then the conversation revovles around what little johnny needs to get to do the do...

Rinse and repeat, until either little johnny comes to terms with the game, and its inherent lack of balence, or he says the heck with it, and puts it back up on Fee bey and tries his hand at whatever everyone else is into at the time.

Those of you baying at the moon over this subject know what I'm talking about. SOmetimes, when it all comes down to it, its more about playing the game. Of course there is the half nelsons, and the TFG's with the three dots of paint on each grey faceless minion, but in the long term, we're talking playing a minis game.

I've found a few more other times then a few, that local peer pressure is the dictator of the painting game. A couple of good painters inspire a few others, then a couple of other guys get in, get some lessions, or they go see the "PAinters, and throw a few bucks thier way, and pretty soon, the games are really looking tight, and the communities are all the more better for it.

Let me put it out there though, it is entirly on the local game scene and the enthusiasm for the game.

These days, I'm seeing the enthusiasm for 40k waining, based on the GW corperate whore mode of retail. ( I don't care, Why should you!?!?!)

To me, this type of assclownery attitude and trying to push the "Shut up and Take my money" hype that just isn't there any more is one of the direct responses that the "Grey armies of the faceless" have become.

It boils down to keeping up with the joneses. Case in point- Valkries.

I saw a metric asston of valkries, and none were painted for the forst three months after they came out. eventually though- the pride came back for those that kept them, the others put them up on fee bey, and they went back to thier own particular feel of army.... until the next titan, rules book, or new unit came ot bear...

In the end, it comes down to your gameing community, and if you have an ingrown standard of how you all play there.

**CT GAMER**

Stoupe wrote:Is it just me but are there a lot of nonpainters getting Pissy about the way people word things.

I'm actually a painter, converter and terrain builder yet me thinks many of you sound like elitist pricks.

And lets not forget which camp started this thread and the hundreds more just like it that have cropped up in the past.

Someone mentioned earlier, bu it bears repeating: show me one thread like this started by a "non-painter being pissy aboout painters". I'd love to see the link...

Automatically Appended Next Post:

orkybenji wrote:For most of us, the fun of the game is competing in a visually impressive spectacle. We like playing through the epic face off of an eldar craftworld and a space wolf company. Unpainted armies detract from that holistic experience. If you don't have an interest in painting why are you buying these

And I would still argue this is bunk. If this was true thenthe setting should be just as important yet I see far more crappy looking tables with mismatched/unthemed and busted up terrain than unpainted armies...

**Grot 6**

I don't see it as a subject to get worked up about. personally. Interesting, the way in which its devolving, though.....

kinda scary in a car wreck sort of a way... You can't help but watch how it ends....

**Stoupe**

Honestly I see it the other way around CT. Yes some gak created the post but for every 1 painter complaining about it, there's 5 non painters offended. Most painters who like me are just saying "I won't play them". It's our choice. I can have it. I'm not complaining about the number of games I have to play or the difficulty in which it is to just get a game.

The fact of the matter is, if your complaining about the number of games your getting is too low, then maybe your standards is too high. I was getting too many games. Too many of them were unsatisfactory. So I raised my standards, which includes only playing half painted or better armies.

If that's elitist, then I'm an elitist.

**CT GAMER**

Stoupe wrote:Honestly I see it the other way around CT. Yes some gak created the post but for every 1 painter complaining about it, there's 5 non painters offended.

When you create a thread that targets a specific group attempts to paint them as lazy/entitled gits who arent playing the game right, are ruining the hobby and state they deserve contempt and exclusion(paraprhraasing the various statements), then is it really that hard to imagine that you will get a strong and numerous response from said target group?

Do you wanna take bets on how many tournament/competative players would respond in a thread if I started one bashing them using the same tone and terminology used here? I bet the ratio would easily meet your cited 5:1 ratio or higher.

When you attack people they respond...

IF it wasnt an attack and you are simply "not ging to play" any non-painted armies you encounter, then why the need for the thread to begin with? Why do I need to know that some random strangers on the interwebs are not going to play some other random strangers due to them not liking unpainted models?

Because it is more fun to stir up trouble and be an internet tough guy (as evidenced in this thread), thats why...

Pathetic.

**infinite_array**

CT GAMER wrote:
Stoupe wrote:Honestly I see it the other way around CT. Yes some gak created the post but for every 1 painter complaining about it, there's 5 non painters offended.

When you create a thread that targets a specific group attempts to paint them as lazy/entitled gits who arent playing the game right, are ruining the hobby and state they deserve contempt and exclusion(paraprhraasing the various statements), then is it really that hard to imagine that you will get a strong and numerous response from said target group?

Do you wanna take bets on how many tournament/competative players would respond in a thread if I started one bashing them using the same tone and terminology used here? I bet the ratio would easily meet your cited 5:1 ratio or higher.

When you attack people they respond...

IF it wasnt an attack and you are simply "not ging to play" any non-painted armies you encounter, then why the need for the thread to begin with? Why do I need to know that some random strangers on the interwebs are not going to play some other random strangers due to them not liking unpainted models?

Because it is more fun to stir up trouble and be an internet tough guy (as evidenced in this thread), thats why...

Pathetic.

You did read the beginning of the thread, correct?

**CT GAMER**

infinite_array wrote:
CT GAMER wrote:
Stoupe wrote:Honestly I see it the other way around CT. Yes some gak created the post but for every 1 painter complaining about it, there's 5 non painters offended.

When you create a thread that targets a specific group attempts to paint them as lazy/entitled gits who arent playing the game right, are ruining the hobby and state they deserve contempt and exclusion(paraprhraasing the various statements), then is it really that hard to imagine that you will get a strong and numerous response from said target group?

Do you wanna take bets on how many tournament/competative players would respond in a thread if I started one bashing them using the same tone and terminology used here? I bet the ratio would easily meet your cited 5:1 ratio or higher.

When you attack people they respond...

IF it wasnt an attack and you are simply "not ging to play" any non-painted armies you encounter, then why the need for the thread to begin with? Why do I need to know that some random strangers on the interwebs are not going to play some other random strangers due to them not liking unpainted models?

Because it is more fun to stir up trouble and be an internet tough guy (as evidenced in this thread), thats why...

Pathetic.

You did read the beginning of the thread, correct?

Go back. The first insult start being thrown around by the nonpainters.

The first insult is implied in the title of the thread...

Automatically Appended Next Post:

infinite_array wrote:
CT GAMER wrote:
Stoupe wrote:Honestly I see it the other way around CT. Yes some gak created the post but for every 1 painter complaining about it, there's 5 non painters offended.

When you create a thread that targets a specific group attempts to paint them as lazy/entitled gits who arent playing the game right, are ruining the hobby and state they deserve contempt and exclusion(paraprhraasing the various statements), then is it really that hard to imagine that you will get a strong and numerous response from said target group?

Do you wanna take bets on how many tournament/competative players would respond in a thread if I started one bashing them using the same tone and terminology used here? I bet the ratio would easily meet your cited 5:1 ratio or higher.

When you attack people they respond...

IF it wasnt an attack and you are simply "not ging to play" any non-painted armies you encounter, then why the need for the thread to begin with? Why do I need to know that some random strangers on the interwebs are not going to play some other random strangers due to them not liking unpainted models?

Because it is more fun to stir up trouble and be an internet tough guy (as evidenced in this thread), thats why...

Pathetic.

You did read the beginning of the thread, correct?

Nice edit.

**helium42**

Stoupe wrote:Honestly I see it the other way around CT. Yes some gak created the post but for every 1 painter complaining about it, there's 5 non painters offended. Most painters who like me are just saying "I won't play them". It's our choice. I can have it. I'm not complaining about the number of games I have to play or the difficulty in which it is to just get a game.

The fact of the matter is, if your complaining about the number of games your getting is too low, then maybe your standards is too high. I was getting too many games. Too many of them were unsatisfactory. So I raised my standards, which includes only playing half painted or better armies.

If that's elitist, then I'm an elitist.

The non-painters are not complaining about somebody saying that they choose not to play against them, but are rather complaining at the assertion that we are lazy/childish/self-entitled/etc. When you bring out insults like that, you should expect a large and intense response. Had the OP came out and asked why non-painters don't paint, or said he doesn't understand our point of view I seriously doubt that the response would have been so angry. But instead insults were thrown early and often. Condescending people offered tips on how to quickly paint an army, and others claimed that their hobby was being ruined by the self-entitled non-painters.

Tournaments, clubs, and individuals should all feel free to restrict or open up play as they see fit. Anyone feeling excluded, or feeling unsatisfied by their group can find other like-minded opponents. We're lucky in a sense that 40k is such a large hobby, it means that we don't really have to settle playing against people who share a different vision of how to enjoy the game than we do. There are plenty of players out there.

infinite_array wrote:Also, I noticed you ignored my request.

Of course I ignored your request. I chose not to engage in your straw man argument. But if you insist, here we go. Without looking, I know I won't find any pictures in the GW rulebook depicting unpainted miniatures on the table. My answer to that is that GW is in the business of selling paint, flock, hobby tools, and other bits to jazz up your models. That has nothing to do with some all-encompassing expectation of what the game should be or how it should be played though.