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.

Tygre wrote:
Maybe the code should be "inform" if you will be using unpainted and/or proxy, rather than "ask permission".

I think it’s more about both side having expectations, if you do care that a model may not be painted in a casual game. Ask first if they can even meet that requirement. Both players need to work to reach the best player experience expected.
In a casual environment they could be testing units, borrowed or otherwise. They may expect that no one cares about painting in such. Or even testing new painting styles.

BrianDavion wrote:
ok dude, how hard is it to say "My models aren't painted, I assume that's not a problem for you?" ?

Exceptionally. I shouldn't have to ask permission to use my models. What don't you get about that?

Unless, of course, new guidelines come out for painting competitions requiring painters who don't play to ask permission to put forth their entries despite not actually playing the game.

Or, as vipoid put it so succinctly:

"Games Workshop defines the hobby as Build, Paint Play, therefore anyone building and playing without painting is doing the hobby wrong and deserves to be punished. But someone building and painting but not playing is totally different in every conceivable way and definitely not doing anything wrong at all. Because it's fine for one section of hobbyists to ignore the aspect they don't enjoy but totally unacceptable for another section of hobbyists to ignore another section they don't enjoy (or even just to do it in a timeframe that suits them)."

I'm posting this every time we have this discussion and there's nothing anyone can do to stop me.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

Unless, of course, new guidelines come out for painting competitions requiring painters who don't play to ask permission to put forth their entries despite not actually playing the game.

I don't know how you think painting competitions work but I can't say I've ever heard of one which doesn't require all participants to ask permission to participate. You can't just show up, place your mini in the competition case and expect to win. There's like, usually an entry process.

Rihgu wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

Unless, of course, new guidelines come out for painting competitions requiring painters who don't play to ask permission to put forth their entries despite not actually playing the game.

I don't know how you think painting competitions work but I can't say I've ever heard of one which doesn't require all participants to ask permission to participate. You can't just show up, place your mini in the competition case and expect to win. There's like, usually an entry process.

Why it comes off a bit silly, I think it does kinda work. In a casual environment you don’t have to play any game, to show off or display a model to people.
Tournaments already had ways to deal with painted miniatures, just as a painting competition has requirements, GW has tried to push them further into casual play.

They also could have said to use appropriate miniatures, which is more Hobby positive. But they didn’t, and again put the hobby on the backseat. It’s hollow.

Rihgu wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

Unless, of course, new guidelines come out for painting competitions requiring painters who don't play to ask permission to put forth their entries despite not actually playing the game.

I don't know how you think painting competitions work but I can't say I've ever heard of one which doesn't require all participants to ask permission to participate. You can't just show up, place your mini in the competition case and expect to win. There's like, usually an entry process.

That isn't the parallel being drawn, and winning isn't even on the cards

He's suggesting the equivalent (for Thou Must Paint) is that to enter a painting competition, you _have to_ play games to enter into the painting competition.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

BrianDavion wrote:
ok dude, how hard is it to say "My models aren't painted, I assume that's not a problem for you?" ?

Exceptionally. I shouldn't have to ask permission to use my models. What don't you get about that?

Okay, so I gotta ask.

Say you start getting out an army of unpainted models.

Your opponent says 'Hey, I'd prefer a game against a painted army, is that okay?'

Are you saying your response would be 'Tough gak, I'm playing whatever I want'?

Serious question. Because what I'm hearing from the anti-asking-for-permission folks is that they just want their preferences respected- which I get- but outright demanding to use unpainted minis isn't respectful of the preferences of others.

And if you're not demanding, and would acquiesce if your opponent said they'd rather play against a painted army, and you actually care about whether they enjoy the experience, then why is being polite by asking so offensive?

 catbarf wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

BrianDavion wrote:
ok dude, how hard is it to say "My models aren't painted, I assume that's not a problem for you?" ?

Exceptionally. I shouldn't have to ask permission to use my models. What don't you get about that?

Okay, so I gotta ask.

Say you start getting out an army of unpainted models.

Your opponent says 'Hey, I'd prefer a game against a painted army, is that okay?'

Are you saying your response would be 'Tough gak, I'm playing whatever I want'?

Serious question. Because what I'm hearing from the anti-asking-for-permission folks is that they just want their preferences respected- which I get- but outright demanding to use unpainted minis isn't respectful of the preferences of others.

And if you're not demanding, and would acquiesce if your opponent said they'd rather play against a painted army, and you actually care about whether they enjoy the experience, then why is being polite by asking so offensive?

If they care so much, should they not mention it beforehand ? I ask this above as well and was ignored. If it’s a tournament then it’s already to late, if it’s casual then expecting people to be casual about the experiance should be expected.
Suddenly the experiance of one person is above others it seems, and not checking if the opponents are in a position to even filed fully painted.

I say this fully aware I would just start packing up, if they don’t want to play that’s entirely ok. But this is exactly a toxic use of the guideline and placing the burden entirely on one side.

I personally don't think there's a wrong way to do this hobby, nobody should be required to adhere all aspects of it. Paint and collect rather than play? I can respect that. Like to spend time in tabletop rather than painting? Fine, they aren't my models so who am I to say how they should be. There is one single exception to all this, atleast asemble your models. I once played against just all-bases army and was not an experience to fondly remember for.

That said, the opponent and their army affect directly to my own gaming experience. I might pick the one with wholly painted army over unpainted for sole reason of enjoying the view (other circumstances do apply ofc).

About the player's code, I don't see harm implementing it but I am bit ashamed most have to be mentioned at all like they aren't like... I don't know, acting like a decent human being.

Apple fox wrote:

 catbarf wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

BrianDavion wrote:
ok dude, how hard is it to say "My models aren't painted, I assume that's not a problem for you?" ?

Exceptionally. I shouldn't have to ask permission to use my models. What don't you get about that?

Okay, so I gotta ask.

Say you start getting out an army of unpainted models.

Your opponent says 'Hey, I'd prefer a game against a painted army, is that okay?'

Are you saying your response would be 'Tough gak, I'm playing whatever I want'?

Serious question. Because what I'm hearing from the anti-asking-for-permission folks is that they just want their preferences respected- which I get- but outright demanding to use unpainted minis isn't respectful of the preferences of others.

And if you're not demanding, and would acquiesce if your opponent said they'd rather play against a painted army, and you actually care about whether they enjoy the experience, then why is being polite by asking so offensive?

If they care so much, should they not mention it beforehand ? I ask this above as well and was ignored. If it’s a tournament then it’s already to late, if it’s casual then expecting people to be casual about the experiance should be expected.
Suddenly the experiance of one person is above others it seems, and not checking if the opponents are in a position to even filed fully painted.

I say this fully aware I would just start packing up, if they don’t want to play that’s entirely ok. But this is exactly a toxic use of the guideline and placing the burden entirely on one side.

At which point you're just moving the onus back onto the other person... In most other environments/games/sports there are standards to adhere to, and if you cannot make that standard, the onus is on you or that person to ensure your opponent knows beforehand that there are some allowances they are asking for, as that is the polite thing to do. I fully back an ideal where armies are expected to be painted, just like I'd expect all members of a sport team to be in the same kit, it makes things easier for your opponent.

From a personal POV and I've mentioned this before I would refuse games based on two factors, firstly I play narratively, armies being painted etc are part of the narrative I want to play. Secondly, a mass of plastic units all grey is really really hard to differentiate what each unit is unless they have glaring scale differences.

I know the argument has come up before of some people being unable to paint for varying reasons, disability being one of them, at which point I'd be willing to help them out and get a unit painted here and there for them.

Additionally, and controversially I do not like meta chasers... There's other ways in the world to flex your competitive egos, and some don't paint their army because they want resell value 2 months down the line when they want to chase the new meta. Personal opinion and all that, I know people won't agree with it, but that is my take.

 endlesswaltz123 wrote:

Apple fox wrote:

 catbarf wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

BrianDavion wrote:
ok dude, how hard is it to say "My models aren't painted, I assume that's not a problem for you?" ?

Exceptionally. I shouldn't have to ask permission to use my models. What don't you get about that?

Okay, so I gotta ask.

Say you start getting out an army of unpainted models.

Your opponent says 'Hey, I'd prefer a game against a painted army, is that okay?'

Are you saying your response would be 'Tough gak, I'm playing whatever I want'?

Serious question. Because what I'm hearing from the anti-asking-for-permission folks is that they just want their preferences respected- which I get- but outright demanding to use unpainted minis isn't respectful of the preferences of others.

And if you're not demanding, and would acquiesce if your opponent said they'd rather play against a painted army, and you actually care about whether they enjoy the experience, then why is being polite by asking so offensive?

If they care so much, should they not mention it beforehand ? I ask this above as well and was ignored. If it’s a tournament then it’s already to late, if it’s casual then expecting people to be casual about the experiance should be expected.
Suddenly the experiance of one person is above others it seems, and not checking if the opponents are in a position to even filed fully painted.

I say this fully aware I would just start packing up, if they don’t want to play that’s entirely ok. But this is exactly a toxic use of the guideline and placing the burden entirely on one side.

At which point you're just moving the onus back onto the other person... In most other environments/games/sports there are standards to adhere to, and if you cannot make that standard, the onus is on you or that person to ensure your opponent knows beforehand that there are some allowances they are asking for, as that is the polite thing to do. I fully back an ideal where armies are expected to be painted, just like I'd expect all members of a sport team to be in the same kit, it makes things easier for your opponent.

From a personal POV and I've mentioned this before I would refuse games based on two factors, firstly I play narratively, armies being painted etc are part of the narrative I want to play. Secondly, a mass of plastic units all grey is really really hard to differentiate what each unit is unless they have glaring scale differences.

I know the argument has come up before of some people being unable to paint for varying reasons, disability being one of them, at which point I'd be willing to help them out and get a unit painted here and there for them.

Additionally, and controversially I do not like meta chasers... There's other ways in the world to flex your competitive egos, and some don't paint their army because they want resell value 2 months down the line when they want to chase the new meta. Personal opinion and all that, I know people won't agree with it, but that is my take.

In a casual environment people being casual with painting should be expected, and I advocate for both players to reach out just in case. Put it in neutral language and let players find where they want to be.

Which is why I think GW is just so hollow, they go against this all the time.
People don’t like for there army’s to be left or suddenly made redundant, which makes meta chasing far more fun for a lot of people. Again this guideline directly hinders a major part of the hobby.
I also think GW poor handling of the rules has put a lot of people off any form of narrative style play, again driving players towards the gameplay aspect first.
Competitive ego is not really anything to do with it in my experience, lots of players just like to fiddle with lists and make impactful choices.

And a final note, they say ask permission for substitute models, not use appropriate models. Again pushing against a hobby choice to be made. Being they could fix this issue with quality rules writing.

Edit for guideline, the 10 points rule is worse >.<

 catbarf wrote:

Serious question. Because what I'm hearing from the anti-asking-for-permission folks is that they just want their preferences respected- which I get- but outright demanding to use unpainted minis isn't respectful of the preferences of others.

And if you're not demanding, and would acquiesce if your opponent said they'd rather play against a painted army, and you actually care about whether they enjoy the experience, then why is being polite by asking so offensive?

I think what is getting people riled up is that GW are trying to create an environment where people using unpainted models are made to feel judged and somehow lesser. In 40k they did it by actually creating an in game rule giving an advantage to fully painted armies, in AoS it is by creating a code of conduct that puts the onus on a person fielding unpainted models to "ask permission". Technically as a mutually consensual activity everything needs your opponent's permission - my opponent is free to walk away and not play me for any reason including that they don't like the army I've taken or find the shirt I'm wearing offensive. I think what most people are saying is not that they should be able to field unpainted models regardless of their opponent's wishes but that this either does not belong in a code of conduct or should have been phrased more mutually - e.g. "talk over with your opponent about your expectations for the game, including whether unpainted and substitute models will be used".

I agree that GW should not be doing this. It is for players to decide between themselves how they want to hobby and GW shouldn't be sticking their nose in or trying to push their preferences onto people via the in game rules or code of conduct. They are fine to say "we think the game is a better experience with fully painted armies" and to try to inspire people with pictures of fully painted armies and plentiful painting tutorials etc (which, to be fair, they do).

I personally will only field painted models, but that is my personal choice and a luxury I have as the owner of one or more fully painted armies for each game. I don't mind if my opponent wants to use unpainted models and they don't need to ask my permission. The only reason they need not to paint is that they don't enjoy painting. I myself am a slow painter and my painting process at no point passes through "battle ready" (I typically blend up from the darkest colour in multiple stages) and it took almost 2 years to get my first 8th edition army fully painted - I certainly wouldn't have felt motivated or encouraged in any way during this time if I'd been playing at a 10vp deficit. Because of that background I respect that a prohibition on unpainted models is a huge barrier to entry and I'd rather my opponent took the time to do a proper job (and enjoy themselves doing it) rather than throw paint at their models because they feel obligated to do so in order to meet some arbitrary painting requirement.

 endlesswaltz123 wrote:

At which point you're just moving the onus back onto the other person...

Yes, because refusing to play against armies that aren't fully painted is not the norm. It is a specific expectation by those players and so the onus should fall on them to tell any would-be opponents that they will only play against fully-painted armies.

I would also note that GW themselves explicitly say as much when they talk about Battle Ready:

Battle Ready isn’t a bar you have to pass to be allowed into our hobby.

Yet it seems many here - even those claiming to be going by GW's own definition of the hobby - want it to be exactly that.

 Unknown_Lifeform wrote:

 catbarf wrote:

Serious question. Because what I'm hearing from the anti-asking-for-permission folks is that they just want their preferences respected- which I get- but outright demanding to use unpainted minis isn't respectful of the preferences of others.

And if you're not demanding, and would acquiesce if your opponent said they'd rather play against a painted army, and you actually care about whether they enjoy the experience, then why is being polite by asking so offensive?

I think what is getting people riled up is that GW are trying to create an environment where people using unpainted models are made to feel judged and somehow lesser.

I'm sorry, but where have you been the last 25+ years? You always, always got ragged on in a GW store (in a banter kind of way) for using unpainted minis. Hell, it got so bad that's where the "3 colours" rule came from. It was always the base standard since I ever got into this hobby. Same with basing as well. They made it something to aspire to in our local store, if your model was fully painted and based, it could go in the cabinet on display. I know for a fact I started basing my minis (before then it was just the ol' flat goblin green base) because of said encouragement.

Somewhere along the way though, GW have simply replaced the proverbial carrot with the stick. It happened in GW stores around circa 6th ed. where they said all units got Preferred Enemy vs. unpainted minis (this was not just one store. I heard this thing independently several times). This is not something that has "just" happened. Painted minis have been the base standard for (GW's version of) the hobby for nigh on decades. It is only very recently that it is all of a sudden a big issue and no one wants to paint their toy soldiers, despite entering into a hobby that explicitly depicted painted toy soldiers in all of its media...

 Grimtuff wrote:

 Unknown_Lifeform wrote:

 catbarf wrote:

Serious question. Because what I'm hearing from the anti-asking-for-permission folks is that they just want their preferences respected- which I get- but outright demanding to use unpainted minis isn't respectful of the preferences of others.

And if you're not demanding, and would acquiesce if your opponent said they'd rather play against a painted army, and you actually care about whether they enjoy the experience, then why is being polite by asking so offensive?

I think what is getting people riled up is that GW are trying to create an environment where people using unpainted models are made to feel judged and somehow lesser.

I'm sorry, but where have you been the last 25+ years? You always, always got ragged on in a GW store (in a banter kind of way) for using unpainted minis. Hell, it got so bad that's where the "3 colours" rule came from. It was always the base standard since I ever got into this hobby. Same with basing as well. They made it something to aspire to in our local store, if your model was fully painted and based, it could go in the cabinet on display. I know for a fact I started basing my minis (before then it was just the ol' flat goblin green base) because of said encouragement.

Somewhere along the way though, GW have simply replaced the proverbial carrot with the stick. It happened in GW stores around circa 6th ed. where they said all units got Preferred Enemy vs. unpainted minis (this was not just one store. I heard this thing independently several times). This is not something that has "just" happened. Painted minis have been the base standard for (GW's version of) the hobby for nigh on decades. It is only very recently that it is all of a sudden a big issue and no one wants to paint their toy soldiers, despite entering into a hobby that explicitly depicted painted toy soldiers in all of its media...

Preferred enemy against painted minis was a joke, even the GWS I played at around then treated it as a funny joke to laugh about but never did enforce it.
People have held the same attitude about painting really since I began around the very end of 2nd. It really just become a issue that couldn’t be joked about when GW made it a issue.

They could have made it 1VP or wins on draws. Still would be a big thing, but wouldn't cripple the very idea of a new player starting to learn to play, before they paint the army. It is as if GW wanted first add extra costs to starting an army, just so people leave less often, because they invested so much more.

 Jidmah wrote:
Oh, look, I managed to bait three at once.

And they brought their favorite logical fallacies, ad hominem attack, appeal to tradition and false analogy!

That will show the dirty peasant that he is not worthy of being part of our elitist club of people who had made the time to smear our plastic miniatures with sufficient amounts of pigment!

We don't always agree but I've got your back on this one friend. They obviously look at someone with any unpainted stuff as lesser players and really that is a little sad but considering they think this way are you surprised ? I know I'm not.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Not because I said so, but because that's the culture of minis wargaming. The whole hobby of sitting down and painting them is what is celebrated about it, vis a vis other games like boardgames.

If you disagree with that, you can. But it isn't because *I* said so. That's because of how it is.

Just like how clapping quietly at golf isn't a request from one person ("he said so") but rather an expected behavior within the hobby.

I also mini war game and I've never forced the pain on anyone so it isn't always part of the culture my dude. It's maybe part of yours, not mine or some others here. If they will, wonderful, if they are great at it, wonderful, if they move so slow the next ice age will happen before they finish sounds fine to me as well.

It's just like your opinion man.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

BrianDavion wrote:

Tresson wrote:

Racerguy180 wrote:
But if one is painted and one is not, are they on equal standing?

So your saying that people without a fully painted army should be treated as scond class players, inferior to people that that have painted armies?Good for nothing but belittlement, insults and scorn?

way to over read it. Look everyone plays 40k for differant reasons, and has differant expectations of the game.

No one owes you a game of Warhammer

Fully agree, and I don't owe someone asking if I can use my own darn models in a game either.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Tygre wrote:
Maybe the code should be "inform" if you will be using unpainted and/or proxy, rather than "ask permission".

Hey inform people is what you can easily do, the other person can deny it if they want its on them then. However I can say I've never had someone even inform me if they had unpainted models as I never cared. I just care if they are a good person to play against and it will be fun. It's a social game experience for me at least most of the game rules are second to the fun I have with my opponent painted or not.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 posermcbogus wrote:
I'm posting this every time we have this discussion and there's nothing anyone can do to stop me.

You have to stop putting that picture up it makes me laugh every time I see it.

Once I sat down at a public park table with a family I'd never met before. Right between their children. I then started singing Closer by Nine Inch Nails.

I just couldn't believe my ears when they asked me what I was doing. I told them that obviously I'm enjoying the park table my way, and how dare they suggest I was enjoying the park wrong.

To this day I go to therapy because they made me feel like a second class citizen. I may not ever recover

Given that GW often makes units or entire armies worthless with edition changes, it's an unfair onus to put on players to suddenly have another army ready to go when their gak gets nerfed into unplayability. I play against people who have unpainted or partially painted armies in my regular playgroup, and I watch them slowly make progress on them. I would feel like an absolute donkey-cave to insist they be painted.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

BrianDavion wrote:
ok dude, how hard is it to say "My models aren't painted, I assume that's not a problem for you?" ?

Exceptionally. I shouldn't have to ask permission to use my models. What don't you get about that?

Unless, of course, new guidelines come out for painting competitions requiring painters who don't play to ask permission to put forth their entries despite not actually playing the game.

Or, as vipoid put it so succinctly:

"Games Workshop defines the hobby as Build, Paint Play, therefore anyone building and playing without painting is doing the hobby wrong and deserves to be punished. But someone building and painting but not playing is totally different in every conceivable way and definitely not doing anything wrong at all. Because it's fine for one section of hobbyists to ignore the aspect they don't enjoy but totally unacceptable for another section of hobbyists to ignore another section they don't enjoy (or even just to do it in a timeframe that suits them)."

and now you're being intelelctuallyl dishonest. this isn't about orginized compeitions. most of which have by and large had painting guidelines in place for AGES.

I am all for each of those rules except one, and in a tourn setting. For a casual or fun game I would have no problems reminding players of rules they miss ect. In a tournament I would do no such thing. Unless its a fluff score comp, then I would remind.

Also, the game is about the enjoyment of both players. If one finds playing against unpainted armies to be joyless, then it is valid not to play with that person. There are enough players, mostly, for people to find games with like minded folks. I wont play vs unpainted and it has never been a problem because we list our expectations pre game and if they dont match no harm no foul.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

BrianDavion wrote:
ok dude, how hard is it to say "My models aren't painted, I assume that's not a problem for you?" ?

Exceptionally. I shouldn't have to ask permission to use my models. What don't you get about that?

You have to ask for a game though, and your opponent is free to decline for whatever reason; your hair cut, attitude, clothes, grey tide, anything. This is why the rule really doesn't matter and the only thing at stake is the 10vp in a casual game. It's transparent that what people really don't like is anything that reinforces the idea that the miniatures should be painted even if it doesn't impact them at all.

I have never asked one person for a game. I've asked if someone wanted to get in a game ? If so I am available, if they take me up on it fine, if not, fine.

Unless I'm already friends with someone I don't ask them for a game as I don't know them. I've never once even seen someone deny a game based on paint or lack there of. If I saw someone deny a game based on that they could be sure to be free of even the dream of a request from me to play.


So sure I agree you deny a game for anything but some reasons you may choose to deny a game do come off a little stupid right ?

If its such a casual game of fun, I don't think there is much a reason to deny a game other than the other person is super annoying to your personally. Short of that I've never seen someone with a disagreeable shirt I had to say " No way, I won't ever game with someone wearing a Knight Rider shirt ! "

However for such a casual game why do we then need all of these rules formalized ? Do group dynamics not do this enough ? Can peer pressure not do enough to enforce social norms ? They did me well all this time and somehow people still found good games, odd as that may seem and even with this people would still have crap games. It's almost like people who need to follow rules like these the most don't really care, funny how that works.

But your not expressing the faux outrage, which seems to be what drives this thread.

No, this code of conduct is not needed and will likely be ignored in AOS in favor of local social norms

But, it's entertaining to read the the hyperbole folks write in order to somehow think they will win an internet debate.

 Irkjoe wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

BrianDavion wrote:
ok dude, how hard is it to say "My models aren't painted, I assume that's not a problem for you?" ?

Exceptionally. I shouldn't have to ask permission to use my models. What don't you get about that?

You have to ask for a game though, and your opponent is free to decline for whatever reason; your hair cut, attitude, clothes, grey tide, anything. This is why the rule really doesn't matter and the only thing at stake is the 10vp in a casual game. It's transparent that what people really don't like is anything that reinforces the idea that the miniatures should be painted even if it doesn't impact them at all.

I tend to agree. they're trying to basicly shame the internet into demanding that we adopt THEIR standards

BrianDavion wrote:

 Irkjoe wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

BrianDavion wrote:
ok dude, how hard is it to say "My models aren't painted, I assume that's not a problem for you?" ?

Exceptionally. I shouldn't have to ask permission to use my models. What don't you get about that?

You have to ask for a game though, and your opponent is free to decline for whatever reason; your hair cut, attitude, clothes, grey tide, anything. This is why the rule really doesn't matter and the only thing at stake is the 10vp in a casual game. It's transparent that what people really don't like is anything that reinforces the idea that the miniatures should be painted even if it doesn't impact them at all.

I tend to agree. they're trying to basicly shame the internet into demanding that we adopt THEIR standards

The topic itself was started by trying to push a standard on others.