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.

Against. I'd have to pay someone to paint for me and they'd have to be damn good at it because no matter how great a model is put together, best pose ever achievable, etc. A bad coat of paint ruins the whole thing. It looks like a piece of excrement fielded on a table and its something to be ashamed of and lessen your chances of playing the game.

All the things I own that are painted are that way because I bought them painted. I have fun but also a lot of difficulty building models due to nerve damage and the results of alcohol abuse when I was young.

I wouldn't care if a house rule penalty was made that both players agreed to E.g. Grey Knights Preferred enemy was limited to only models from Codex: Chaos Daemons. So that an Eldar player fielding the Avatar isn't penalised when really the Avatar isn't a malevolent Daemon of the warp, its a "Living God", etc.

 Peregrine wrote:

If they hate painting so much (and aren't saving their models for when they're going to do an amazing paint job) then they should have no problem painting with the basic "spray, boltgun metal, dip" approach. In the time they spend playing a single game they could probably paint their entire army like that.

Again. If I hate painting, and I have the choice between a game and painting, why would I choose painting? Again, you are simplifying the issue down to time, when there is far more to it than that.

If we are going to boil this down to any one issue, it should be a person's desire to do what they want with their free time. If they want to play, let them, if they want to paint, wonderful. But their decision to do one or the other should not be penalized.

Think about it on the flipside:

If you don't have the time to write a proper army list, why are you bothering painting? You should not put a single drop of paint on a model until you know its position in your list.

If you don't know your army's fluff and lore, you should not paint it. After all, if you don't care about the army's lore and won't take the time to research it, why are you applying colors that are completely unfitting?

All of these would be laughed out of the door.

SkyD wrote:
because no matter how great a model is put together, best pose ever achievable, etc. A bad coat of paint ruins the whole thing. It looks like a piece of excrement fielded on a table and its something to be ashamed of and lessen your chances of playing the game.

I'd say the exact same thing about an unpainted model.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 curran12 wrote:
Again. If I hate painting, and I have the choice between a game and painting, why would I choose painting? Again, you are simplifying the issue down to time, when there is far more to it than that.

Because the amount of effort required to paint to a minimum standard is trivial. Spray the whole unit at once (30 seconds to a minute), paint the gun or other major details a single color (maybe a minute per model, max), wash/dip (a few seconds per model). Refusing to spend even 15 minutes painting an entire unit is just a lack of respect for any opponent who cares about the aesthetic value of having two painted armies.

If you don't have the time to write a proper army list, why are you bothering painting? You should not put a single drop of paint on a model until you know its position in your list.

Irrelevant because painting extra models has nothing to do with your opponent's experience. If I bring an appropriate army to the game it doesn't matter how many hours I've spent painting other models that you don't see.

If you don't know your army's fluff and lore, you should not paint it. After all, if you don't care about the army's lore and won't take the time to research it, why are you applying colors that are completely unfitting?

Irrelevant because, in my experience, nobody ever asks about fluff, even people who have nicely painted armies. So it might be a bit annoying if someone doesn't spend even a token few minutes thinking of a general idea for what their army represents, it's a lot less likely to ruin the experience for their opponent.

Huh..well I would say preferred enemy against HQ's that are not painted. That is about it.

 Peregrine wrote:

SkyD wrote:
because no matter how great a model is put together, best pose ever achievable, etc. A bad coat of paint ruins the whole thing. It looks like a piece of excrement fielded on a table and its something to be ashamed of and lessen your chances of playing the game.

I'd say the exact same thing about an unpainted model.

Both are true in my experience. My first attempt at an army was SoB, which is my favorite faction. My painting has never been great so you can imagine I wasn't pleased with my first try. Being discouraged by such results, I left the other models with just a base coat. The net result is that I didn't want to appear in public with either the painted or unpainted parts of my "army." But let's call it as it is: my own personal hang up. If someone else feels no embarrassment taking a poorly painted or unpainted army to the LGS, it's not my place to try and embarrass them. In fact, all that would likely end up happening is me embarrassing myself.

For, Totally for, but make it different.
Like my group you get a points system for the campaign, if you dont have a Rulebook, stuff you need(like dice or templates) and unpainted models. you get a point loss for each of those.
And the prize at the end of the month was money.
But if you want to discourage Unpainted, make it a percentage, like is less then 50% is painted then do the preffered enemy.

Because the amount of effort required to paint to a minimum standard is trivial. Spray the whole unit at once (30 seconds to a minute), paint the gun or other major details a single color (maybe a minute per model, max), wash/dip (a few seconds per model). Refusing to spend even 15 minutes painting an entire unit is just a lack of respect for any opponent who cares about the aesthetic value of having two painted armies.

Irrelevant because painting extra models has nothing to do with your opponent's experience. If I bring an appropriate army to the game it doesn't matter how many hours I've spent painting other models that you don't see.

Irrelevant because, in my experience, nobody ever asks about fluff, even people who have nicely painted armies. So it might be a bit annoying if someone doesn't spend even a token few minutes thinking of a general idea for what their army represents, it's a lot less likely to ruin the experience for their opponent.

Honestly, you keep putting your personal experience as "fact of the world that is irrefutable." My personal experience is different, I play with folks big into fluff, and we are back into this circular argument. You are not the world. Your personal experience is not the world.

I think this is going to be a matter of agreeing to disagree.

 Fafnir wrote:
I would be against this.

It's easy enough to say "paint your models," but you have to keep in mind that not everyone has the time to paint everything. I'm a slow painter, and these days I barely have enough time for a personal life, let alone painting models.

And then there are those that just really don't enjoy painting. Not their fault either, they just want to enjoy a game (how someone could possibly enjoy 6th edition 40k is beyond me, but that's not my prerogative).

While I appreciate your comments on painting, why don't you like 6th? I have really enjoyed it so far.

 curran12 wrote:
Honestly, you keep putting your personal experience as "fact of the world that is irrefutable." My personal experience is different, I play with folks big into fluff, and we are back into this circular argument. You are not the world. Your personal experience is not the world.

Sure, and in that situation refusing to spend even a small amount of time coming up with some basic fluff would be disrespectful and I would have no problem with imposing a penalty on no-fluff armies.

valace2 wrote:

 Fafnir wrote:
I would be against this.

It's easy enough to say "paint your models," but you have to keep in mind that not everyone has the time to paint everything. I'm a slow painter, and these days I barely have enough time for a personal life, let alone painting models.

And then there are those that just really don't enjoy painting. Not their fault either, they just want to enjoy a game (how someone could possibly enjoy 6th edition 40k is beyond me, but that's not my prerogative).

While I appreciate your comments on painting, why don't you like 6th? I have really enjoyed it so far.

That's a subject for another thread that's been discussed to death. If you'd like to talk about it, find or create another thread, but that's not what this is for.

 Fafnir wrote:
As I said, it's not always so simple. I have a full Krieg army just waiting to go, but getting the time to actually paint it all is very difficult to do, not to mention the daunting nature of a project so large (and if you've seen my painted Krieg models, that's the standard I envision for the entire army).

And I have a Nurgle army I'm waiting to get to as well. Not to mention at least a dozen other projects on the go. But until I'm happy with it, it won't be seeing table time. And when I start using it, it will be smaller games that accommodate the models I have finished. We all use unfinished models from time to time, and it's not a big deal. But people who never bother painting, not because they have time constraints but because they just don't want to, those people have chosen the wrong hobby.

That's a crude assumption. There are plenty of reasons for people to get into this hobby, and painting isn't the only one, nor is it necessarily the most important.

Some people enjoy it for the game itself (hard, I know, but some people manage to do it).
Some people like it for the social aspect that you just can't get while playing against a screen.
Some people legitimately enjoy arguing and discussing the rules.
Some people enjoy the fluff of it all.

And a myriad of other reasons. You can't say that they chose the wrong hobby just because one facet of it might not necessarily appeal to them.

For a campaign these rule is fine but in general it's a bad idea. It punishes new players and makes everyone quickly paints model in a hurry which in the end doesn't look good and defeats the whole purpose of painting it.

 Fafnir wrote:
That's a crude assumption. There are plenty of reasons for people to get into this hobby, and painting isn't the only one, nor is it necessarily the most important.

Some people enjoy it for the game itself (hard, I know, but some people manage to do it).
Some people like it for the social aspect that you just can't get while playing against a screen.
Some people legitimately enjoy arguing and discussing the rules.
Some people enjoy the fluff of it all.

And a myriad of other reasons. You can't say that they chose the wrong hobby just because one facet of it might not necessarily appeal to them.

There are plenty of games that offer rules, and face-to-face social interaction without the requirement for painting. I can't understand why anyone who doesn't like the idea of painting little toy soldiers would ever get into wargaming.

Also...

Some people enjoy it for the game itself

Who are these masochists?

 Glorioski wrote:
It is interesting how many people are seeing this as a penalty/punishment for unpainted armies rather than a reward for painted ones.

To be honest, having a fully painted army already has a reward in the form of compliments given by people who see it. The tangible ingame benefit suggested in the original post (which I might add is a very potent ingame benefit - see Old Adversary Tyrants backing up Hive Guard and Devilgants) is punitive in nature as it only applies against someone who has an unpainted force rather than applying to the person who has a painted one. Ergo, it isn't a reward for the player who painted their force as much as a punishment for the person who does not have their amy painted (fully or otherwise).

If the goal is to simply reward someone for having their force painted in a league-type match, it would probably be better to just have a small quantity of bonus points that could be awarded rather than tamper with ingame balance. In pick-up games it shouldn't matter, as you can always elect to not play them if something about their force is problimatic to you.

 Kaldor wrote:

There are plenty of games that offer rules, and face-to-face social interaction without the requirement for painting. I can't understand why anyone who doesn't like the idea of painting little toy soldiers would ever get into wargaming.

And yet I know people who are into it for just that. Does that make the enjoyment they get out of the game wrong?

Some people enjoy it for the game itself

Who are these masochists?

Sick bastards, the lot of them.

 TheCaptain wrote:
Sounds like crap. Plain and simple; some people aren't in this for the painting aspect.

Why make games significantly more frustrating for them?

Sure, its just preferred enemy, but next game you play, give your opponent preferred enemy against you; see that it's a little nuisance that can be a big annoyance.

You're right, that's why I like my local shop. Can't field unpainted units.

 Fafnir wrote:

 Kaldor wrote:

There are plenty of games that offer rules, and face-to-face social interaction without the requirement for painting. I can't understand why anyone who doesn't like the idea of painting little toy soldiers would ever get into wargaming.

And yet I know people who are into it for just that. Does that make the enjoyment they get out of the game wrong?

No, it doesn't make the enjoyment they get out of it wrong. But I reckon they would be happier if they got into pen-and-paper RPGs, or M:TG, or something like that.

This is a stupid idea. You'll anger a lot of friends who may or may not have the time, money, or ability to paint to their liking, now you're proposing to penalize them even more?

Just play...

I painted a full 2000 point army in 3 hours. They aren't winning any Golden Daemons, but they're not bad. However I paint for the fun and the added narrative, if someone just wants to play then I don't give a rats ass what their army looks like, I'll play them whenever TFG wont

We had something close to this at a tournament at my FLGS but instead of preferred enemy against the entire army it was twin linked against any unpainted unit. Which was kinda funny because not a single person used it as most thought it unsporting and would rather fight a fair battle.

I'm against.

i have a painted army and i'm a 1/4 way through another. I play with both.

now I wonder how much free time all the "For" have? I mean i was lucky to start this Amazing hobby @ age 11, so i have had many of my childhood free time painting.

now i'm 23 and find it very hard to get that free time to finish painting that army i have to work around everything (work,uni, GF and social life) to finish 1/4 army (there are also over 200+ minis in this army), and i cant see this as motovation to paint it'd make me feel like i shouldn't play the hobby.

now i take time with my painting, even small detail, IC take days to finish. i havent palyed in 1 month due to not having a painted army i feel happy at seeing my fully painted army, but to be penalised for not having it done, I would feel insulted by such a rule.

Against.

If anything people should be rewarded for fully painted armies never punished.
This form of elitist crap always make me sick.

If this was enforced it would turn the hobby into a chore.

So here is a thought? Would you choose A.) Unpainted Army or B.) Horribly Painted army with.no.effort made?

jdjamesdean@mail.com wrote:


You're right, that's why I like my local shop. Can't field unpainted units.

There was a GW near me that used to have that rule.... They stopped because they were losing business.

I paint all my armies, but that rule is just stupid...I was once told I couldn't field the unit I just bought from their store and built just before the game.... I have nearly 2k of fully painted models sitting on the table and your going to not let me field a single unpainted unit I just bought from you? Terrible store policy...

I would rather play against painted armies, but I accepted the fact that lots of people don't have time or just don't like it...

lynxstrife wrote:
So here is a thought? Would you choose A.) Unpainted Army or B.) Horribly Painted army with.no.effort made?

A; let people focus on the part of the hobby they like. If painting isn't it, don't force people to do it.

 BarBoBot wrote:

jdjamesdean@mail.com wrote:


You're right, that's why I like my local shop. Can't field unpainted units.

There was a GW near me that used to have that rule.... They stopped because they were losing business.

I paint all my armies, but that rule is just stupid...I was once told I couldn't field the unit I just bought from their store and built just before the game.... I have nearly 2k of fully painted models sitting on the table and your going to not let me field a single unpainted unit I just bought from you? Terrible store policy...

I would rather play against painted armies, but I accepted the fact that lots of people don't have time or just don't like it...

Considering the Owner is a hobbyist who loves painted models, and gives amazing prize support for tournies. I have no complaints, besides it gets me off my butt to paint.

Against, simply because some people don't have the time or inclination to paint.

For example, I have a friend who loves to play. Massively into the fluff and is genuinely fun to play against. His lists range from hard to simply for fun. He has more Marines and Eldar than I could ever hope to own.

He also works nights, has 3 kids and is married. He simply does not have the time or energy to sit down and paint. My brother occasionally paints some of his Eldar when he gets the urge to paint Eldar, but other than that, his stuff is largely unpainted.

This sort of rule would simply mean I don't get to play him anymore, rather than get him to paint, like I'm sure it would a lot of people without the time/energy/ability to paint.

Yes, it's nice seeing two fully, competently painted armies square off. No, it's not central to the enjoyment of the hobby, and you've got no right to tell someone they're enjoying their hobby wrong.

 -Loki- wrote:
He also works nights, has 3 kids and is married.

So he has time to play and time to assemble his models, but not enough time to spend an hour or two doing a basic paint job on the entire army? Maybe he should just give up a single game of 40k and spend that time painting everything so he never has to paint again.

 Peregrine wrote:

 -Loki- wrote:
He also works nights, has 3 kids and is married.

So he has time to play and time to assemble his models, but not enough time to spend an hour or two doing a basic paint job on the entire army? Maybe he should just give up a single game of 40k and spend that time painting everything so he never has to paint again.

Or hell if he has the Cash flow to invest into that many models for his limited availability, he should pay someone to paint them.