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.

Since it has been a couple of weeks since the last attempt to discuss this, I thought I would give it another chance. This time, some rules need to be established before we get going. I'm not trying to censor, but I am trying to stop this thread from having to be locked.
1) Keep it related to the realm of miniatures.
2) Any political or historical discussion will not be tolerated.
3) Provide legitimate evidence or support for your view, do not simply say it is "tradition".

If at any point the Mods. or Admins. decide that the boundaries have been broken, feel free to close this (not that you need permission to do so).
Also, if anyone can figure out better rules to keep everyone under control please share it.

Now, I will open by stating I believe people should be allowed to use miniatures, painted or unpainted, because it has no realistic impact on the way the game is played or how it is finished.

There is a difference between someone who has an entire unpainted army and someone who is demonstrably making attempts to paint their models.

Personally, it's completely immersion breaking seeing unpainted models. Even basic models look better than plastic. I realise we all have our own lives and things to do, but it is a hobby and when we start gaming you need to realise that there's more than yourself involved. If someone else finds it too jarring to see an army of grey then you need to accept they may not be too keen to play you.

Especially power players who just buy whatever works best, and again make no attempt at the painting side of it.

I hold down a job plus full time education alongside other responsibilities and still managed to put together a fully-painted DAK army for Bolt Action. I would never say it has to be 100% fully painted or nothing - because like I say people are allowed to work on things. But an entire army of grey? Nope. Not for me, thanks.

I'll go ahead and post before it becomes a dumpster fire. The answer to your question depends on the location:

1) At a Games Workshop retail store. Painted. If the store is allowing you to play in the store, your only cost is that you're advertising for Games Workshop. You're the live-action advert when other customers (some new) visit. Hence no third party models, and you should have your models painted. That's a completely reasonable and fair trade.

2) At a gaming convention. Painted. However, this depends on the event organizers obviously. Once again you're being allowed to partake in an event - an event is a product that the EO's are "selling" for future return business. It's their product and they're allowing you to attend (regardless of paying the cost of admission). Their event, their rules. I absolutely support events (those large enough to do it) requiring painted miniatures and hopefully they're providing quality painted terrain.

3) All other environments. Painted. This, however, is personal opinion. Wargaming is a social hobby. It's also an aesthetic hobby. It is based around the idea of placing painted miniatures on a nicely painted table and replicating a 3D battle. If this isn't something you're interested in, there are a vast number of alternate ways to play games. Board games, card games, video games, etc. There will inevitably be a ton of people in here who will yap the usual "it's my hobby!" excuse. That's accurate if you're collecting miniature to put on your shelf. The second you place your miniatures on the table across from an opponent, it becomes "our hobby". It's a social contract, both players (or all players) are here to partake in a combined experience. All players should be doing their best to pull their weight and add their quality to the game.

When I play a game against opponents, friends or strangers, it's a matter of showing respect for them - that I provide fully painted models/terrain, etc. My one goal in wargaming with regards to painting is to never lower the level of the game when I put my stuff on the table. Whether that's bringing a single miniature for a dungeon crawl, or putting a full army on display.

Do I expect other people to meet this standard? I'd like them to, absolutely. There's nothing wrong with expecting and desiring a better community. Holding yourself and others to higher standards is not a bad thing. In our group we provide a healthy dose of good natured ribbing to those who show up with unpainted models (and it happens often). No one is berating them or belittling them.

I was lucky enough to come up in a well run gaming group, run by some older guys. They inspired me to raise my game, and to bring my best to the table. I have no problem desiring others to do so.

As in most of these threads we'll get a wealth of "exceptional circumstances" of which, some will be real. Others will be tall-tales. There is no incredible painting standard people are demanding from other gamers. We live in the time of cheating. It's how I paint. Coloured primers, easily applied basing materials, dips, washes, etc. If you're new and you suck at painting...keep trying. I'd rather see poorly painted stuff on the table than unpainted stuff. To me, again, it shows a bit of disrespect to your opponent to show up and simply not bother. If you're that disinterested, let's play a board game instead. I'll gladly bust out Zombicide or BSieged, etc.

If I'm going to take the time, dedication, and money to present you with a visually attractive opposing army (on a visually attractive table), it's not much to ask you to put some work in.

Painted, period. Unpainted models look like and ruin the game. And it is extremely easy to paint to a basic tabletop standard, well within the abilities of the vast majority of people.

I mean, I play with an unpainted army because:
1) I don't have the time or skill to paint it. Even when I try, I grow increasingly frustrated and eventually drop it.
2) I don't have the money to get it properly painted, because even basic painting takes a lot of investment.

That said, I played 40K almost every week at a local gaming shop and not once did anyone say that I shouldn't be playing with unpainted models or that they had issue playing against someone who didn't have a painted army. That is just my experience though:

This topic is never civil. Like, ever. Everyone treats their opinion like fact. Everyone hobby-s 40k for different reasons.

It always comes down to local customs (Tournament rules? Garage? LFGS?) and the two people playing.

You may be playing somewhere it's not allowed. So you need painted minis. Or you might be playing somewhere it is allowed, so you can.

You might feel it's integral to the enjoyment of the game, in which case you're free to decline a game with someone. You may not care a fart in the wind, and play the game.

My experience is that it's nice to have painted minis on the table, better than unpainted. I find a sea of grey to make model recognition tougher, but that's me. I've never turned down a game, nor been turned down due to unpainted minis.

Like all social engagements, you tend to get out of it what you put into it. If I have unpainted minis, do I want to play against someone that would snub me for them? Probably not, so there's no loss there. If someone were to snub me for unpainted minis, they obviously wouldn't enjoy playing against me either. So while it's a bummer we don't get to play together, there are other fish in the sea, so to speak.

DeathKorp_Rider wrote:
I mean, I play with an unpainted army because:
1) I don't have the time or skill to paint it. Even when I try, I grow increasingly frustrated and eventually drop it.
2) I don't have the money to get it properly painted, because even basic painting takes a lot of investment.

That said, I played 40K almost every week at a local gaming shop and not once did anyone say that I shouldn't be playing with unpainted models or that they had issue playing against someone who didn't have a painted army. That is just my experience though:

Painting is a skill in this hobby and a skill needs to be learned z that you ain't good out of the box isn't an excuse. Learn to paint and your enjoyment increases tenfold and your opponent will like you more forr it.

Unpainted models are fine. Sometimes unpainted is better than painted, look at how many complaints there's been in the Forgeworld News thread about the state of the "professionally" painted preview models.
This has been said on every Unpainted Model thread but I'll repeat it here, people just getting into the hobby probably haven't had time or the experience to paint their models before their first games. Telling a kid he can't play until his models are painted will just turn the kid off the hobby and just result in declining market audience.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:

DeathKorp_Rider wrote:
I mean, I play with an unpainted army because:
1) I don't have the time or skill to paint it. Even when I try, I grow increasingly frustrated and eventually drop it.
2) I don't have the money to get it properly painted, because even basic painting takes a lot of investment.

That said, I played 40K almost every week at a local gaming shop and not once did anyone say that I shouldn't be playing with unpainted models or that they had issue playing against someone who didn't have a painted army. That is just my experience though:

Painting is a skill in this hobby and a skill needs to be learned z that you ain't good out of the box isn't an excuse. Learn to paint and your enjoyment increases tenfold and your opponent will like you more forr it.

Last time I checked, there was a line in the rulebook explaining you don't have to enjoy every aspect of the game. I for one do not like painting, so I don't want to spend time doing it. I would rather use what little time I have playing the game with other people.

Then pay someone to. Having a tabletop standard army is the bare minimum. Getting into this hobby you know painted armies are required.
It's literally not that hard.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
Then pay someone to. Having a tabletop standard army is the bare minimum. Getting into this hobby you know painted armies are required.
It's literally not that hard.

I don't remember the line in the rules saying "painting is required".

I only play with painted models. Fully completed, based models.

I don't expect my opponents to do the same thing and I will play with people whose models are unpainted.

That said there is nothing quite as soul destroying as a grey lump of plastic obliterating a model you have spent countless hours pouring your dedication and craft into, particularly on the first turn. So I tend to gravitate away from playing those people whose armies aren't somewhat painted to a minimum standard.

I do not agree that painting is impossible for someone. Anyone can paint, the less skilled you are the longer it takes, in my experience. I have known people with disorders where they literally shake able to at least get colours on a model and do a quick dry brush and wash if nothing else. I can't explain how many levels better that is for someone like me when I play the game.

I don't think anyone can sit here and tell you how to hobby, but consider that it is much more enjoyable for your opponent to be wrecked by a beautifully painted army than unpainted plastic and if you are a considerate person you will presumably try to maximise your opponents' enjoyment as well as your own. I don't think anyone in your store or area would tell you this either. Its a bit of a faux pas to tell someone you'd rather play against a painted army and more so to say you'd rather play against a better painted army.

It's all a matter of social contracts. You should abide by the expectations of your peers, which in this case means "the people you game with" and not "the opinion of people online".

If your gaming group has a "painted" requirement - and that includes tournaments and stores if you attend either of those - then yes, you should paint your models.

If it does not have such a requirement, then you shouldn't feel obliged to paint if you don't want to.

Personally? I think a painted army looks better than an unpainted one aesthetically, but I'd never turn down a game against an unpainted army, and I have no qualms about bringing my own unpainted models to the table.

I'd rather play a close and exciting game against a fun opponent with a field of bare plastic than have a slog against a miserable foe with the most beautifully-painted army in the world.

My own armies vary from fully painted to bare grey, and I paint them when I get the time and inclination, but I don't feel pressured to paint when as a chore. It is, after all, supposed to be fun.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:

Painting is a skill in this hobby and a skill needs to be learned z that you ain't good out of the box isn't an excuse. Learn to paint and your enjoyment increases tenfold and your opponent will like you more forr it.

This sort of statement is precisely the reason these threads head south so often. It's a massive generalisation being presented as a fact.

Learning to do something well is no guarantee in the slightest that someone will enjoy doing it. I could sit here all day listing things that I can do well that I don't enjoy doing. And your opponent will only 'like you more for it' (even assuming that the 'you' in this situation gives a damn whether or not their opponent likes them) if they are expecting an opponent to have painted models. I've played against any number of people over the years who honestly couldn't care less, and would be unlikely to even notice whether or not the models were painted.

I personally prefer to play with and against painted models, but I fully understand that some people lack the time and/or the inclination to paint, and I'm not going to dictate to someone else how they should spend their hobby time.



I'm also consistently puzzled by the claims that unpainted miniatures are 'immersion breaking'. Frankly, I find bare grey miniatures far less distracting on the table than that marine whose face has been painted halfway down his chest. It's not an uncommon perception that unpainted miniatures look better than badly painted miniatures. (Although if you're playing with 'badly' painted miniatures, and you're happy with them, that's totally cool too!)

Again, it's all down to what you're expecting from the game. If you're playing 40K for the spectacle of fully painted armies, then sure, someone rocking up with an unpainted army might be disappointing for you. If you're playing 40K as just a different type of boardgame, then minis being unpainted is no different to having unpainted Monopoly pieces.

As with so many things in this hobby, I've found over the years that the best approach is to try to find like-minded gamers to play against, rather than try to force others to fit into your preconceptions of what the hobby should be.

This question has zero context.

Why is this always presented as a black-and-white choice?

Honestly, I prefer to play against painted armies. I'd prefer 100%, but 90% painted is better than 80 and so on. I'd prefer to see an army gradually get painted than stay grey forever... I reserve the right to decline a game against any opponent, but...

...whether the army is painted is just one factor in my decision of whether to play.

Playing against a fun opponent's unpainted plastic is better than playing against a tool's Golden Daemon army.

I wish people would stop portraying this as the most important factor in deciding whether to play a game. The opponent's attitude and "fun factor" are far more important.

Of course, in a GW store, the manager is entitled to hold you to higher standards.

In a tournament, the same applies. If I have paid to play against strangers, I like the organiser to ensure a certain minimum standard. I won't throw a hissy fit if the person did not quite manage to paint the last few models, but I'll be peeved if I am playing against purely grey plastic whilst my mate gets to compete against painted armies.

In a friendly paint-and-play campaign with friends, with expectations regarding painting, I'll recognise that we all have demands on our time, and just hope everyone has done their best.

Personally, I try to use mostly painted models, but often put works-in-progress on the table. Just ask Arbitorian! I'll respect the right of anyone to decline a game until I can get finished. I'll find it extreme, but it is their right to do so.

Unpainted models should be left at home until painted, or at the very least have -1 WS and BS

 Snake Tortoise wrote:
Unpainted models should be left at home until painted, or at the very least have -1 WS and BS

And if I've done a really good conversion on a model, added extra scopes and stuff, should I get +1BS?

Honestly I think some people overplay this topic online to a serious degree. I seriously have a hard time believing that some would "NEVER" play against an unpainted army because I'm sure if someone were new to the game and club they'd be right there showing them the ropes of how to play and getting them involved even with an army not even primed!

The discussion tends to get people being very polarized in how they comment and choose to word things. I think part of it is a fear that if they say they'll accept unpainted armies the next thing will be a generation of wargamers who don't paint, don't bother to learn and wont' ever paint. So they really get heavy handed with their comments to make unpainted not just undesirable but unacceptable.



Personally I think its the wrong attitude. I would argue that very few gamers actually want to play with unpainted armies, but that there's a myriad of reasons why a person might have an unpainted army. Often I'd say the reason is that they've got a lack of skill with painting and a lack of confidence in learning. They might even be totally at sea in learning how to paint (self learning is a skill and not everyone has it).

Rather than exclusion they require inclusion within the group, acceptance and then building into active encouragement. That means more than "oh Dave paint your army" it means "Hey Dave you've not painted anything, want some help? I've not got a game setup for next week so how's about we grab a table and I help you get started".

One of those will likely get a negative reaction and continual exclusion/insult will drive a person out of the group. The other is more likely to get a positive reaction, reinforce their desire to remain part of the group and have a higher chance of getting them painting.


And sure there's going to be one or two here and there (who you might never find at your actual club) who refuse to paint; or who are changing armies so fast they've never the time to paint anything before they've moved onto the next power-army. But by and large they are like TFG and other such people. Those who command high attention in online discussions, but who are honestly very few and far apart and of which some of us might never encounter.

I personally always try to paint everything before playing with them, but if I don't manage to get everything painted before the next game at a friend's house or the FLG, then I'll field it grey/primed/whatevs. But I am long term unemployed, so time is all I have.

And like everyone else, I prefer to play against a painted army, though I am not so sure if a badly painted army is better than a grey army. I've seen one or two armies that looked like they had been painted by a slowed monkey on speed, and to me that is just a look of destroyed money. Like how some people buy new expensive models and just throw a Dremel and some GS at it to make it "Nurgle".
On the other hand, a grey army is kinda like a tabula rasa that I can't understand why the owner doesn't un-tabula rasa. ^^ Those grey minis are such a promise of creativity and expression, ever though it's basically a very advanced form of painting by numbers. So I am a tad torn.
The LEAST important thing to me is basing. I based my entire Tau army a couple of hours before a tournament, so it's crap. My DG are partially based, but I need to change those and do them all in a good way. The only army that is based good is my Custodes. Granted, it's only texture paint with washes, static grass tufts, pigments and drybrushing, but they do have trofies from every army they've defeated.

All-in-all: I'll play you and your army, no matter the degree of paint, though I have my preferences.

As a relative novice to the hobby (played a bit of FoW, still testing the waters on 40k), my view may be a little skewed, but for me an entirely unpainted army is... pointless. Not quite finished in time, or a couple brand new pieces you just want to get a feel for play-wise, fine, but if you have no intention of paining, then I wouldn't think this is your game/hobby.

I look at it this way: there are HUNDREDS of excellent war and strategy games involving hexes, cardboard squares, little wooden units etc. If you arnt into minis and the whole modeling hobby, wouldn't one be happier cultivating game-play on one of those instead?

Only certain circumstances.

I see NO excuse for 40k, age, necromunda etc players to constantly whinge "oh I have no time to paint 10 or 50 models I'm so busy whine whine whine"
And yet they have time to post about all about tournaments they spend 4 days attending. Or computer games they spend months on.

Yet you never see historical gamers with an unpainted army.

I think it mostly comes to GW gamers have zero respect for themselves or the game or their opponents.

If you're new and show progress each week that's fine. You're showing an interest and passion for your hobby and getting gak done every week.
If you've got no time to do anything except build every day (which takes time you idiots. Time you claim you don't have) then stick to your gak computer games

ValentineGames wrote:
Only certain circumstances.

I see NO excuse for 40k, age, necromunda etc players to constantly whinge "oh I have no time to paint 10 or 50 models I'm so busy whine whine whine"
And yet they have time to post about all about tournaments they spend 4 days attending. Or computer games they spend months on.

Yet you never see historical gamers with an unpainted army.

I think it mostly comes to GW gamers have zero respect for themselves or the game or their opponents.

If you're new and show progress each week that's fine. You're showing an interest and passion for your hobby and getting gak done every week.
If you've got no time to do anything except build every day (which takes time you idiots. Time you claim you don't have) then stick to your gak computer games

See this is a prime example of such a negatively charged post and viewpoint. I'm sure there are many historical armies that don't get painted, then again I'd argue that historicals likely see a lot less recruitment of new players who are totally fresh to miniature hobbies. Warhammer and GW are a gateway product - GW is pushing marketing and attracting new people all the time with a lot of energy and drive. So its not that you're getting "gak computergame players" its that you're getting new gamers who are still learning their skills in the hobby.

I agree there is, in theory, little excuse for not being able to have the time to paint if they can have time to assemble armies; however often that's simply an excuse that is used to hide other underlaying issues. Lack of confidence, lack of painting knowhow, lack of proper tools/paints etc... Sometimes you've got to chip past that casual armour to get at the real issue which can then be tackled in a positive manner that results in them learnign and gaining experience, improving confidence and growing as a gamer and member of your local scene.
However if you spurn them and turn them away then you'll just push them out and you lose another gamer.

I really, really, really, really, don't care what other people do with their time, money and possessions.

 greatbigtree wrote:
It always comes down to local customs (Tournament rules? Garage? LFGS?) and the two people playing.

You may be playing somewhere it's not allowed. So you need painted minis. Or you might be playing somewhere it is allowed, so you can.

Yeah this. All about context. Regardless of what any individual's opinion on the matter is, it depends on the broader context. Take an aesthetic and narrative driven game like Inq28; you'd be hard pressed to find anyone who says that grey plastic is acceptable in that context. Likewise, a game between two like-minded friends who don't care for painting obviously should not he held to some arbitrary '3 colour minimum' rule.

Obviously there are plenty of situations where the two people playing are not necessarily like-minded, but then it's down to the rules of the turf. Of your local GW wants your stuff painted, then you should respect that anf show up with stuff painted. If there's not such requirement, then don't get snobby if someone doesn't want to paint their army - it's their free time, if they don't want to paint then they shouldn't have to paint. A respectful disagreement is fine; just learn to accept that there are people you shouldn't olay with, doesn't have to be a drama.

In tournaments, yes. In friendly games, I'll play against unpainted models. I'd rather have the correct models unpainted than a whole army of Counts As/Proxy Fest 40,000.

Honestly, imo even primed models look so much better than unpainted.

Non-drilled gun barrels out are still unplayable even if pro-painted.

 insaniak wrote:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:

Painting is a skill in this hobby and a skill needs to be learned z that you ain't good out of the box isn't an excuse. Learn to paint and your enjoyment increases tenfold and your opponent will like you more forr it.

This sort of statement is precisely the reason these threads head south so often. It's a massive generalisation being presented as a fact.

Learning to do something well is no guarantee in the slightest that someone will enjoy doing it. I could sit here all day listing things that I can do well that I don't enjoy doing. And your opponent will only 'like you more for it' (even assuming that the 'you' in this situation gives a damn whether or not their opponent likes them) if they are expecting an opponent to have painted models. I've played against any number of people over the years who honestly couldn't care less, and would be unlikely to even notice whether or not the models were painted.

I personally prefer to play with and against painted models, but I fully understand that some people lack the time and/or the inclination to paint, and I'm not going to dictate to someone else how they should spend their hobby time.



I'm also consistently puzzled by the claims that unpainted miniatures are 'immersion breaking'. Frankly, I find bare grey miniatures far less distracting on the table than that marine whose face has been painted halfway down his chest. It's not an uncommon perception that unpainted miniatures look better than badly painted miniatures. (Although if you're playing with 'badly' painted miniatures, and you're happy with them, that's totally cool too!)

Again, it's all down to what you're expecting from the game. If you're playing 40K for the spectacle of fully painted armies, then sure, someone rocking up with an unpainted army might be disappointing for you. If you're playing 40K as just a different type of boardgame, then minis being unpainted is no different to having unpainted Monopoly pieces.

As with so many things in this hobby, I've found over the years that the best approach is to try to find like-minded gamers to play against, rather than try to force others to fit into your preconceptions of what the hobby should be.

EDIT - Insaniak, how do you determine what is a badly painted model any way, most people would rather see the best effort of some one at least trying there best instead of just grey killing of tradition.

 Stormatious wrote:
Tradition.

So you either didn't read or chose to ignore the OP?

DeathKorp_Rider wrote:
This time, some rules need to be established before we get going. I'm not trying to censor, but I am trying to stop this thread from having to be locked.
1) Keep it related to the realm of miniatures.
2) Any political or historical discussion will not be tolerated.
3) Provide legitimate evidence or support for your view, do not simply say it is "tradition".

Stormatious wrote:EDIT - Insaniak, how do you determine what is a badly painted model any way, most people would rather see the best effort of some one at least trying there best instead of just grey killing of tradition.

Serious question - how do you know what "most people" prefer?

Aelyn wrote:

 Stormatious wrote:
Tradition.

So you either didn't read or chose to ignore the OP?

DeathKorp_Rider wrote:
This time, some rules need to be established before we get going. I'm not trying to censor, but I am trying to stop this thread from having to be locked.
1) Keep it related to the realm of miniatures.
2) Any political or historical discussion will not be tolerated.
3) Provide legitimate evidence or support for your view, do not simply say it is "tradition".

Stormatious wrote:EDIT - Insaniak, how do you determine what is a badly painted model any way, most people would rather see the best effort of some one at least trying there best instead of just grey killing of tradition.

Serious question - how do you know what "most people" prefer?

I didn't read it properly and skimmed it quickly my bad.

And i should say that i think most people would prefer that. But i don't know and neither does insaniak so im just saying i think his feelings are not shared widely.

 lifeafter wrote:
Non-drilled out gun barrels are still unplayable even if pro-painted.

This...so very much this. LOL