Hobby Elitism in Warhammer.

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.

**Scott-S6**

LunaHound wrote:
Scott-S6 wrote:
Luna - can you show an earlier example of recreational table-top wargaming in which un-painted figures were the playing pieces of choice.

Chess ?

Chess is not a miniatures wargame. Like Space Hulk, BattleTech, Squad Leader or every other board game the pieces could be replaced with two dimensional counters with no change to the game at all. Likewise the board could be a grid scratched in the dirt without having any affect on the game.

The same is not true of a miniatures wargame where the intrinsic qualities of the playing pieces have a direct bearing on the playing of the game. This is what differentiates a miniatures wargame from a boardgame.

That said, even chess has playing pieces which are needlessly elaborate. A disc with a letter printed on it would serve the task just as well. And yet for many hundreds of years people have purchased or made playing pieces which are much more elaborate because it adds to the experience.

Chess can be played in the dirt with scraps of paper but is it not better to play with a nice set on a good board? Likewise, 40K can be played with unpainted models on a kitchen table with some cereal boxes for scenery but is far superior when played with painted armies on good terrain

**Ketara**

I would replace 'chess' with 'shogi' then.

Shogi is an oriental game that supposedly evolved from battle commanders tactics, and it's the asian version of chess with many similar rules and pieces.

Also, replace the 40K bases with flat appropriately sizeddiscs with 'SPACE MARINE' painted on, and it's just a case of moving discs around and taking them off the board. There are no 'intrinsic qualities' to 40K pieces. Your golden demon painted model still has the same stat line as my painted white disc.

**Wrexasaur**

Ketara wrote:I would replace 'chess' with 'shogi' then.

Shogi is an oriental game that supposedly evolved from battle commanders tactics, and it's the asian version of chess with many similar rules and pieces.

Also, replace the 40K bases with flat appropriately sizeddiscs with 'SPACE MARINE' painted on, and it's just a case of moving discs around and taking them off the board. There are no 'intrinsic qualities' to 40K pieces. Your golden demon painted model still has the same stat line as my painted white disc.

True and funny

"Note"
I wonder if chess or checkers has ever been played with WH40k pieces.

**Manchu**

LunaHound wrote:Its wrong and unreasonable to judge others on the assumption that
they should value / judge / behave things the same way you do.

This thread has covered a lot of ground. Yes, Warhammer can be primarily about the hobby for some. That category further subdivides into modeling and painting. Others see it as primarily about gaming. Still others only get excited about either because they like the setting. (I do not share LunaHound's enthusiasm for AT-43, for example.) Fine. Everybody knows these things. Nothing that has been said has controverted the point I'm quoting for the second time above. It is not self-contradictory to say that a person should not assume others share her/his values. If you would be embarrassed to field an unpainted army, fine--don't field and unpainted army. That doesn't give you a right to be stuffy when someone else does field an unpainted army. It doesn't matter how much or little time it takes to put two colors on a model. This thread is really as simple as that. If you don't learn that the quoted point is a fact of life here, that's fine. You'll just have to learn it at some other point in life, maybe in a much harder way.

**Scott-S6**

Ketara wrote:
Also, replace the 40K bases with flat appropriately sizeddiscs with 'SPACE MARINE' painted on, and it's just a case of moving discs around and taking them off the board. There are no 'intrinsic qualities' to 40K pieces. Your golden demon painted model still has the same stat line as my painted white disc.

I would disagree strongly.

How does TLOS work with flat counters? The impact and variety of scenery is also drasticaly altered.

If that's the sort of game you want to play then there are lots of counters-based wargames out there - squad leader is excellent.

**Noble713**

I look at it like this: I don't really like to paint much at all. At the same time, I refuse to put figures on the table (unless I'm soloing in my own home) that are unpainted.

It means that I haven't played a game in almost five years.

I had a fully painted IG army at my disposal but completely lost interest in 40k so working on Fantasy stuff was the only option. For a number of lame excuses I didn't do it. That's the price of not working up the motivation to finish my Empire army. Gaming is a reward for the struggle of painting. No struggle, no reward.

**Ketara**

It's quite simple. You have the height of a model painted on the other side, and flat white cardboard cutouts representing scenery, with their height marked on. Not only that, you can move the model tokens onto the scenery flats to represent being in cover.

Since GW was so expensive, this was actually how I started playing. I bought the codexes first, and then used cardboard discs to proxy. So I KNOW it's entirely possible.

You can go on about 'intrinsic qualities' and 'impact and variety of scenery' but at the end of the day, it's not actually crucial to the game. Anyone with an imagination can find a way to make the rules work with counters.

**Scott-S6**

On the other hand, you're playing a game where the playing pieces are self-assembled and self-painted models.

If you turn up for a game with un-painted and improper models then why wouldn't that go without comment?

LunaHound wrote:Its wrong and unreasonable to judge others on the assumption that
they should value / judge / behave things the same way you do.

All social groups are based on an assumption of shared values. What other basis should you use to judge someone?
Not to mention, on what basis are you judging those who say they wouldn't play against an oponent with an un-painted army? Surely you would consider his/her viewpoint to be equally valid?

ETA - Ketara. If you weren't in it for the models then I'm puzzled as to why you started playing 40K?

I've played it for 20years now but I'll happily acknowledge that it's not the greatest rule system. There are other systems designed to be played without miniatures which are better and the rules are cheaper to buy as well. If not for the models I would never have bothered starting with 40K.

**Wolfstan**

Ketara wrote:It's quite simple. You have the height of a model painted on the other side, and flat white cardboard cutouts representing scenery, with their height marked on. Not only that, you can move the model tokens onto the scenery flats to represent being in cover.

Since GW was so expensive, this was actually how I started playing. I bought the codexes first, and then used cardboard discs to proxy. So I KNOW it's entirely possible.

You can go on about 'intrinsic qualities' and 'impact and variety of scenery' but at the end of the day, it's not actually crucial to the game. Anyone with an imagination can find a way to make the rules work with counters.

End up doing a real version of Vassel. Give everything a numeric height value. Trooper value 1, hills, 1,2,3 etc. Light weight, portable and cheap

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Scott-S6 wrote:On the other hand, you're playing a game where the playing pieces are self-assembled and self-painted models.

If you turn up for a game with un-painted and improper models then why wouldn't that go without comment?

LunaHound wrote:Its wrong and unreasonable to judge others on the assumption that
they should value / judge / behave things the same way you do.

All social groups are based on an assumption of shared values. What other basis should you use to judge someone?
Not to mention, on what basis are you judging those who say they wouldn't play against an oponent with an un-painted army? Surely you would consider his/her viewpoint to be equally valid?

Still appear to be missing the point here. The question is, why does having an unpainted army matter? It's not whether you would play with an unpainted army. Also why would your viewpoint on playing against unpainted models be valid? You're not passing comment on the persons gaming playing skills or if they are a good general, but on a painted model.

**Manchu**

Scott-S6 wrote:All social groups are based on an assumption of shared values. What other basis should you use to judge someone? Not to mention, on what basis are you judging those who say they wouldn't play against an oponent with an un-painted army? Surely you would consider his/her viewpoint to be equally valid?

"Shared values" does not equal "same values." Only when you realize this will you understand how social groups actually (manage to) function. There is a difference between saying "I will not play against an unpainted army" and saying "no one should play against unpainted armies." It may be "valid," in some abstract sense, to say the latter. But it is no more valid in that sense than the statement "no one should paint their own armies." In other words, they are both just opinions. IMO, the former does not sound anymore sensible than the latter.

The statement "do not assume everyone thinks like you do" does not itself proceed from an assumption that everyone thinks the same way. Quite the opposite, actually. It is therefore not an equivalent assumption. I don't know how this can be any more clear.

**High Commissar Biffsmack**

LunaHound wrote:
K guys , take this as a rant / complaint / which ever you want to call it . But surely we all have our share of agitation with hobby elitists just the same
way as there is TFG during the game plays.

What is warhammer ? its as much of a game as it is hobby. Some people do it for hobby 's sake , other do it for game sake . Then the most common type , they do both
to "get more bang out of their money"

Just like some people say "lawl its a game , relax" , there is also " lawl its just a game , please dont criticize how we paint or not paint our game pieces"

I know its abit "far fetched" to say warhammer is similar to chess . But you know what i mean , units represented by miniature / sculpts . They both function the same way,
just some are more detailed and elaborate than others. So if you want to be proud that you spent 100s of hours on your intricate army , you can be proud .
But please remember , there are the other half doesnt see it the same way you do , they are but game pieces.

So before you scoff at other's unpainted armies , please rethink the following:

1) They aren't in it for the hobby aspect.
2) They don't have much free time . Some only have time for 1 game per week , don't expect everyone to have same amount of time as you.
3) Some don't have the proper materials as you. (bad brush bad primer bad paints)
4) Some don't have the knowledge in techniques or the practice. Were you always as good as you are when you started? Nope ?

The list can go on , but basically we all must realize something. "we" are not "you" Its wrong and unreasonable to judge others on the assumption that
they should value / judge / behave things the same way you do.
Do they look like you? are they your clones ? no they arnt . So why should you suddenly expect them to do what you think they should do?

yeah I don't see why people got to be so critical of each other. It's a game, you're supposed have fun playing it with other people, not criticize how they play it.

**Ketara**

Why did I start playing? Because I was young and bored, and it was the most accessible wargame with a massive background world. I loved the actual 40K universe. And like I said, if you have an imagination, the models aren't crucial. I bought the codexes, one at a time, and proxied discs for models, and played with my brothers.

Whilst someone might comment on the fact you have an unpainted army, if that's how you 'judge' people, then you have a poor sense of when judgment' is appropriate. To be frank, if I walked into your FLGS with an unpainted army, and some guy walked up to me and decided just on that basis that I must be a lazy, stupid and inferior person to them, then I, in turn, would judge that person very shallow. But I daresay that making judgments on other peoples judgments on you is a lot more valid, than making them on whether a person paints their army or not.

**Scott-S6**

Manchu - Absolutely but there do seem to be certain people on this thread that are saying it is not valid to say "I believe people should paint their armies". There are people in the non-painting camp who seem to think that they should be able to present an unpainted army and their opponent shouldn't be allowed to object. That's what I object to. I wouldn't refuse to play someone because their army was unpainted although I would have no problem with someone who did. What I do have a problem with is the attitude that goes with "I haven't painted my army but you're not allowed to comment on that or refuse to play me." Refusing a game is completely different to demanding one.

Wolfstan - If someone turned up to play 40K against you with an army consisting entirely of pogs with notes scribbled on them would you be fine with that? (knowing that they had bought all the models, they just couldn't be bothered to assemble them)

**grizgrin**

Man, multi quote almost had me sitting here for a long time with this response. I'll shorten it up a bit.

The point is, I think; that there really are no wrong answers here except those who would seek to alter the opinions of their opponents through negative commentary. You don't like the way they paint their army, offer to fix it if it offends you so much. I really dont care what your Space Elf with Ninja Star Blaster looks like in his paint job. WYSIWYG and telling squads apart is about the biggest responsibility a player has since it helps speed game play. Note that my response reflects my values; if you disagree you are welcome to it but I have been wargaming for years and usu just ignore opinions rendered in negative tone since they are utterly without worth and are self-defeating.

This really is all about opinion. And for those of you who would argue that indeed some opinions can be wrong, well I've seen that one too so feth off, I aint bitin.

**Frazzled**

You know when you're old like me you don't give a

if its painted, not painted, made of paper or legos. Shut up and play.
To paraphrase the preacher: your concern about the status of my minis means almost nothing.

**Emperors Faithful**

(Sob/Moan) it's true! I don't paint my armies enough. I just don't put in the energy or time. I could, I should but I don't.

Emperor Forgive me!

**Wrexasaur**

Ketara wrote:Why did I start playing? Because I was young and bored, and it was the most accessible wargame with a massive background world. I loved the actual 40K universe. And like I said, if you have an imagination, the models aren't crucial. I bought the codexes, one at a time, and proxied discs for models, and played with my brothers.

Whilst someone might comment on the fact you have an unpainted army, if that's how you 'judge' people, then you have a poor sense of when judgment' is appropriate. To be frank, if I walked into your FLGS with an unpainted army, and some guy walked up to me and decided just on that basis that I must be a lazy, stupid and inferior person to them, then I, in turn, would judge that person very shallow. But I daresay that making judgments on other peoples judgments on you is a lot more valid, than making them on whether a person paints their army or not.

I would play games like this if I had people to do so with. Vassal (can we talk about this actually?) is a fantastic way to play this way, although it lacks the 3-d aspect, but you pretty much lose that when everything is 2-d in its own plane.

Scott-S6 wrote:Manchu - Absolutely but there do seem to be certain people on this thread that are saying it is not valid to say "I believe people should paint their armies". There are people in the non-painting camp who seem to think that they should be able to present an unpainted army and their opponent shouldn't be allowed to object. That's what I object to. I wouldn't refuse to play someone because their army was unpainted although I would have no problem with someone who did. What I do have a problem with is the attitude that goes with "I haven't painted my army but you're not allowed to comment on that or refuse to play me." Refusing a game is completely different to demanding one.

Wolfstan - If someone turned up to play 40K against you with an army consisting entirely of pogs with notes scribbled on them would you be fine with that? (knowing that they had bought all the models, they just couldn't be bothered to assemble them)

Agreed and Agreed.

**Scott-S6**

grizgrin wrote:. WYSIWYG and telling squads apart is about the biggest responsibility a player has since it helps speed game play.

grizgrin makes an excellent point. This why I will refuse a game against someone with more than a couple of proxy models. However, squad markings are often a major problem with the can't-be-bothered-to-paint crowd as well.

**Manchu**

Scott-S6 wrote:Absolutely but there do seem to be certain people on this thread that are saying it is not valid to say "I believe people should paint their armies". There are people in the non-painting camp who seem to think that they should be able to present an unpainted army and their opponent shouldn't be allowed to object. That's what I object to. I wouldn't refuse to play someone because their army was unpainted although I would have no problem with someone who did. What I do have a problem with is the attitude that goes with "I haven't painted my army but you're not allowed to comment on that or refuse to play me." Refusing a game is completely different to demanding one.

I think we are on the same page.

**Frazzled**

Wrexasaur wrote:

This is a perfect example of a simple yet effective paintjob. Nothing fancy, but it really gives the model some life. I can't imagine this taking more than one hour to make. So do 2-3 of these per week, and maybe a vehicle on the side, you will only have to spend 2/3 of a full day over the course of the entire week.

You've got to be a kid. 2/3 of a full day? Work 60-80 hours a week, commute, take care of kids, house etc. etc. then come back to me about 2/3 of a full day.

**Wolfstan**

Scott-S6 wrote:Manchu - Absolutely but there do seem to be certain people on this thread that are saying it is not valid to say "I believe people should paint their armies". There are people in the non-painting camp who seem to think that they should be able to present an unpainted army and their opponent shouldn't be allowed to object. That's what I object to. I wouldn't refuse to play someone because their army was unpainted although I would have no problem with someone who did. What I do have a problem with is the attitude that goes with "I haven't painted my army but you're not allowed to comment on that or refuse to play me." Refusing a game is completely different to demanding one.

The point is not that you not allowed to, the point is why would you feel the need to? If someone pulled out an assembled unpainted army why would there be a need to say or think that it was wrong?

Wolfstan - If someone turned up to play 40K against you with an army consisting entirely of pogs with notes scribbled on them would you be fine with that? (knowing that they had bought all the models, they just couldn't be bothered to assemble them)

Please use a sensible example. We are refering to an assembled, unpainted army, not pieces of paper or counters.

My comments on counters is anside to Ketara's mention of using them. I'd thought about that before, and it would work if you had two sides the same and did some tweaking. Armies, scenery, vehicles all with a height value on them. Not as felixible as a 3d game, but potentially faster. A height 1 model's los will be blocked by a height 1 piece of scenery, but a height 2 Dreadnought (height 2) wouldn't be affected.

**Emperors Faithful**

um,... (look hopeful)... holidays? Sir?

**Wrexasaur**

Frazzled wrote:
Wrexasaur wrote:

This is a perfect example of a simple yet effective paintjob. Nothing fancy, but it really gives the model some life. I can't imagine this taking more than one hour to make. So do 2-3 of these per week, and maybe a vehicle on the side, you will only have to spend 2/3 of a full day over the course of the entire week.

You've got to be a kid. 2/3 of a full day? Work 60-80 hours a week, commute, take care of kids, house etc. etc. then come back to me about 2/3 of a full day.

I meant 2/3 of a work day, so around 5-6 hours. There was a person talking about their feats earlier with the exact situation you just described. Your free time is there for you to do what you want with it, if you are a single parent I can imagine it being next to impossible. If your spouse is kind enough to give you some play time (most are) that is fantastic, and you can do this with no problem. If you can't do that because you are simply too busy, your friends should understand that; especially if they have kids of their own

.

**Dashofpepper**

I started playing 40k because I'm nerdy enough to do so, and a prospective client that I was trying to win for something else happened to own a FLGS.

With that said, I have Orks and Tau (orks are my wife) and for the most part, she's painted both of them. I don't *care* about the painting aspect. I'm proud of my pink Orks simply because they're outrageous and my wife is engaged in the game.

I play 40k because of the tactical and competitive aspect of it. I don't plan on really using *any* freetime to get cracking painting because I simply don't care about the painting aspect. Some of you people are elitist enough to think that makes me a lesser hobbyist...

How about this one?

How messed up is it that I spend 6 months crafting an army list, tailoring and tweaking it, planning strategy, perfecting techniques and battleplans, and when YOU show up to the game with your well-painted fluffiness, you absolutely suck. You then waste 2.5 hours (or more) of my time while I table you. That's not fun to me. I crave competition and challenge, and if people aren't willing to take the time to learn to play their army and participate in their hobby, its a worse sin than not painting your army. Painting your army just takes up YOUR time. Playing a game with me that isn't fun because you haven't an ounce of tactical sense (but look at the inked fill-ins!) wastes your time AND my time, which is even worse.

So unless you're a golden demon winner AND the 'Ard Boyz champion, you can shut your piehole about other people's need to participate in their hobby the way you want them to. Its like frakkin' politics and abortion; bunch of crusty white guys trying to tell women what they can and can't do with their bodies.

**Manchu**

That was pretty good up until the strange ravings at the end.

**Emperors Faithful**

Buy, craft, paint THEN learn.

Or (preferably) learn, buy, craft THEN paint.

DEAL WIV IT.

**Scott-S6**

Wolfstan wrote:
Scott-S6 wrote:Refusing a game is completely different to demanding one.

The point is not that you not allowed to, the point is why would you feel the need to? If someone pulled out an assembled unpainted army why would there be a need to say or think that it was wrong?

I wouldn't. But if someone wants to refuse to play you because your army isn't painted that's up to them. Why shouldn't they refuse you? If their standard of army preparation is assembled+painted+based and you don't meet the standard then that's tough. Try telling a TO that he should let you play with your un-painted army.

Wolfstan - If someone turned up to play 40K against you with an army consisting entirely of pogs with notes scribbled on them would you be fine with that? (knowing that they had bought all the models, they just couldn't be bothered to assemble them)

Please use a sensible example. We are refering to an assembled, unpainted army, not pieces of paper or counters.

And here we start to see the hypocrisy.

So, painting isn't required but assembly is? Ketara would disagree with you.

I also would disagree with you as I feel that painting is required. I wouldn't refuse to play you because some of your army was unpainted but if it was entirely unpainted with absolutely no attempt being made to do so then my patience may run out. (I've never actually had that happen - I don't know any 40K players that don't paint. Some are slower than others but all of them work towards the goal of a painted army)

ETA - either they are models and should be painted or simply gaming pieces in which case it doesn't matter if they're un-painted or replaced with pogs. Your objection to the pog army suggests to me that the asthetic of the army does matter to you. Do you disagree?

**Wolfstan**

Dashofpepper wrote:

How about this one?

How messed up is it that I spend 6 months crafting an army list, tailoring and tweaking it, planning strategy, perfecting techniques and battleplans, and when YOU show up to the game with your well-painted fluffiness, you absolutely suck. You then waste 2.5 hours (or more) of my time while I table you. That's not fun to me. I crave competition and challenge, and if people aren't willing to take the time to learn to play their army and participate in their hobby, its a worse sin than not painting your army. Painting your army just takes up YOUR time. Playing a game with me that isn't fun because you haven't an ounce of tactical sense (but look at the inked fill-ins!) wastes your time AND my time, which is even worse.

QFT

**Scott-S6**

dashofpepper - you have a point and it's clear that you are 95%game vs 5%modelling in this hobby. If your opponent is 5%game vs 95%modelling then he probably felt the exact same way when he saw your army on the table.

If you want to play outside of a small group of like-minded friends then you need a decently presented army, a variety of lists of various power-levels and the ability to use them. With that you can have a good game with anyone.

**NAVARRO**

Strange rant topic... not because of the theme but because of the double standart content in it.

Assuming others are elitists ( even going further and labeling those are mostly the good painters) because they dont share your ways and then preaching your take on things is just as valid as others and should be respected is just ridiculous double standart.

My take on the theme is very simple:

- I do my thing in my own way for myself... thats why I rarely game, paint now and then and sculpt mostly.
- If I game with someone I establish a conection with a person and its not "My thing for myself" anymore... its important to try to be polite and establish a friendly relationship during game, afterall its a social hobby activity and should be a positive experience.
- Being polite doesnt mean I have to take everything from the other person.
- I rarely play but when I do i like to play against a painted army, it builts my imaginary.
- Do I reject to play against grey hordes or paper models/proxies? Yes I do... Now you can call me elitist if you want.
- I dont ever comment other works unless asked for... even then most of the times I sugarcoat my opinions.
- Good for those that like playing with soda caps they save on time and money... its their thing and I respect it... just dont ask me to praise and participate.
- Last time I checked painting 40k armies is part of official rules for gaming... you can choose not to its your perrogative as is others to decline to play with you... no need to rant or btch about it just learn to embrace the consequences of your choices.