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.

As for the people who can't understand why someone would play 40k and not ever paint, it's the same reason some people paint tons and tons of figs but never play.

Good point. All you painters who never play the game are a disgrace to the hobby, and I for one am personally insulted by your actions.

I agree, painting 40k miniatures for the joy of painting IS stupid. there are much better scale models out there, that are far more detailed.

40k should only be partaken of by people who both like playing and painting.

Sidstyler wrote:
Agreed, but that wasn't the point. If someone did slap three colors on their models so they would be "painted", they would still get complaints because they aren't detailed enough, and people would still be demanding that they put more time and effort into their army because it's insulting to them to play such a horrendously painted army.
You can't win, unless you're a Golden Demon level painter, and even then you see tools left and right going over your work with a fine tooth comb looking for imperfections. "OMFG IS THAT A MOLD LINE?!!!?"

Sidstyler i wanted to quote you because i think your example is exactly what i was saying back in page 1.
though no one understood me lol. Part i underlined from your quote = what i wrote below:

LunaHound wrote:

Long ago , there was a poor farmer enjoying his salad after a hard day's work . it was delicious and refreshing.
his land lord dropped by and made fun of the quality of the farmer's meager meal before stomping off his fat elephant like legs out the straw door.

On the way home the land lord was enjoying his happy meal , as he saw a giant limo drive by . Inside was some billionair dinning on his 20 course meal
with 30 bottles of best wines.

Sincity wrote:

BlackSpike wrote:To continue the comparisons of 'Ardboy vs Golden Demon, i've just checked the 2008 Golden Demon rules.
Some entries (Units, specifically) state that the units must be game-legal.
This leads me to believe that although the competition is judged on the painting quality, there is a basic level of game-based qualification, that although it does not affect the points, must be met to enter the competition.

IMHO, 'ArdBoyz could work the same way, with the points being awarded for actual battle results, but with a basic painting-based entry requirement of "Army must be at lest 3-colour painted"

What I'm saying is , if you force a paint requirement on an 'ard Boyz type event then you should also force a force organization chart on Gold Demons.

They do have requirements, it's got to be GW miniatures, and more requirements for units, and mounted, and banner etc. That's why I can't enter my Warjack, or my Tiger Tank, or my Model Airplane, or my still life acrylic portrait of fruit, or my niece's Easter eggs. If it was your way those would all be valid entries, they are all painted and its only about the paint! The Hard boy is the event that sticks out.

Sincity wrote:You know 1 HQ and 2 troops to be a single entry also a entry point value must be in effect , say 1000 pt per entry. And o yea they must be on the base supplied with the model.

Sounds crazy ? So do you people that want to have a paint requirement in a GAMERS tourny.

That's actually not to far from the GD unit requirements, that were already quoted in this thread.

Having a "painted army" is exactly like playing with "only GW minis" in the game, it's not in the rules but you have to do it.

I think the point with the Golden Demon comparisons is that it's a GW activity that really only tests one aspect of the hobby. Sure, you have to paint a legal model and come up with a story, but it's all about the paint.

Is it so ridiculous that there should be an event that's all about game play? There is simply no requirement other than have built armies and win?

This isn't a GT, or a campaign game, or a big apoc battle for a battle report. It's meant to be a big stupid unbalanced event. I'm kind of surprised that there are people that think having even one event without paint requirements is a problem.

it's not in the rules but you have to do it.

No, I don't have to do gak. All I'm obligated to do is play the game by the rules, and even the rulebook says that isn't all that important.

Sidstyler wrote:I'm just going to say what I always say in threads like this...if you don't like my unpainted army, then why not paint them for me if it bothers you so much? lol

And for you smart asses who come in demanding payment, no, that's not how this works. You're painting my army for yourself, since I couldn't care less if it's painted or not. This is for your benefit, not mine, so have at it.

Anyway, I notice a lot of people in these threads start going on and on about the "three color minimum", too, but I know for a fact that if anyone did do that you would still bitch because they clearly aren't putting enough effort into it. Three colors wouldn't be good enough for you either, so why should I bother with it at all, especially if I don't have to, since I'm going to have to listen to your bitching either way?

I've stated why I prefer to play vs painted armies.
It is not about "effort" or "respect", it is about making it easier to see what you have got.
I can't see the point in painstakingly making models WYSIWYG if all I can see from across the table is a wall of grey plastic.
I will, and do, play vs unpainted armies. I prefer painted one.

As for the "fact" that I would still complain, you are wrong. If I call "3-colour is fine" then 3-colour is fine, and you'd be right to lambaste me as a hypocrite if I complained at your 3-colour plaint job. (Unless you've done a slap-dash, spiteful, "just throw 3 tubs of paint over the army, no matter how it lands. That's not a paint job. That's a TFG move)

It's true that you will have to listen to someone bitching, thats called life. You can't please all the people all the time.

Sincity wrote:What I'm saying is , if you force a paint requirement on an 'ard Boyz type event then you should also force a force organization chart on Gold Demons. You know 1 HQ and 2 troops to be a single entry also a entry point value must be in effect , say 1000 pt per entry. And o yea they must be on the base supplied with the model.

Sounds crazy ? So do you people that want to have a paint requirement in a GAMERS tourny.

As I said, there is already a Game-based requirement on Golden Demon. Not the one you ask for, but it's there. And the competition is split into several Warhammer 40k and Warhammer Fantasy sections, not WhateverSciFiYouWant and WhatEverFantasyYouWant. You'll not notice many Wild West gunsligers in the competition. Or English Civil War models. The game-based requirement is there.

But this is all just my opinion.
I'm not attending any competitive event to do with Games Workshop related hobbies, paint or play. I'm just not that good at either.

the_Armyman wrote:

Wargaming is "THE HOBBY", bro, not the company calling itself Games Workshop. And I've never seen a historical gamer NOT paint their stuff. From my experience, unpainted armies seems to be relatively unique to sci-fi and fantasy genre wargames.

Then you need to get out more. Over the years I've seen folks playing with unpainted stuff from RPG's to battletech to historical to PP and FoW and GW. The "HOBBY" is bigger than your small minded view of whats best.

You know, in today's enviorment there really is no excuse not to have a painted army. There are several painting services in third world countries that offer good quality an are inexpensive to use. Several of our local gamers, for example, have used one based in Sri Lanka and have been very happy with the results.

When you can get stuff painted to a decent wargame standard for less than 2$ a figure, why would anyone chose not to have a painted army? Plus you get to joke about how your figures were painted by children chained to a painting desk and "paid" with a half a bowl of stale rice a day!

TR

Trench-Raider wrote:You know, in today's enviorment there really is no excuse not to have a painted army. There are several painting services in third world countries that offer good quality an are inexpensive to use. Several of our local gamers, for example, have used one based in Sri Lanka and have been very happy with the results.

When you can get stuff painted to a decent wargame standard for less than 2$ a figure, why would anyone chose not to have a painted army? Plus you get to joke about how your figures were painted by children chained to a painting desk and "paid" with a half a bowl of stale rice a day!

TR

You know, with the internet, and discount places like, malestrom, warstore, chaosorc and places like bartertown and ebay, there really is no excuse not to have an army if your planning on entering the Golden demons. Some places have have deeper discounts, and you can pick up armies on the cheap through ebay, and hell trade in those old models on bartertown and have on complete one......

There have been painting competitions for many decades. They are nothing per se to do with wargaming, just that once people started wargaming shows they often incorporated a painting competition too.

GW took that up and held the Golden Daemon alongside the playing competition. Just because there is a painting competition without games doesn't mean there should be a games competition without painting. That would be a syllogism.

I don't believe the hobby is that big a tent. The hobby is about playing games with painted military miniatures. If you don't paint your figures, you aren't inside the tent, you are in a different tent next door where they play games with unpainted miniatures. It is in many ways a similar hobby, but it is different to the painted figures hobby and it has more in common with map and computer based wargames. I don't look down on map games, I used to play loads of map games.

I would just rather not play a tabletop game than play with unpainted figures.

But, as they say, "Hey, that's just me".

I mean, some people think the idea of pre-painted figures is heretical, while I think they are a good way of getting people playing quickly with attractive models. I am focussed on an attractive battlefield, not how people get to it.

Sincity wrote:[What I'm saying is , if you force a paint requirement on an 'ard Boyz type event then you should also force a force organization chart on Gold Demons.

They do have requirements, it's got to be GW miniatures, and more requirements for units, and mounted, and banner etc. That's why I can't enter my Warjack, or my Tiger Tank, or my Model Airplane, or my still life acrylic portrait of fruit, or my niece's Easter eggs. If it was your way those would all be valid entries, they are all painted and its only about the paint! The Hard boy is the event that sticks out.

Sincity wrote:You know 1 HQ and 2 troops to be a single entry also a entry point value must be in effect , say 1000 pt per entry. And o yea they must be on the base supplied with the model.

Trench-Raider wrote:You know, in today's enviorment there really is no excuse not to have a painted army. There are several painting services in third world countries that offer good quality an are inexpensive to use. Several of our local gamers, for example, have used one based in Sri Lanka and have been very happy with the results.

Except painting services are also forbidden. For some people it isn't enough that the models are painted, they have to be painted BY YOU or it doesn't count.

Not to mention at tournaments and the like you'll still be penalized as if you were playing with an unpainted army (unless you lie), so once again, why bother?

Kilkrazy wrote:There have been painting competitions for many decades. They are nothing per se to do with wargaming, just that once people started wargaming shows they often incorporated a painting competition too.

GW took that up and held the Golden Daemon alongside the playing competition. Just because there is a painting competition without games doesn't mean there should be a games competition without painting. That would be a syllogism.

That would be incorrect. The Golden Demons started WAY back when(I still have the WD's), that folks took models out of their army for the painting competetion. I see no reason why we shouldnt go back to that standard. Golden Demons evolved. I dont see why tournments cant or dont.

I don't believe the hobby is that big a tent. The hobby is about playing games with painted military miniatures. If you don't paint your figures, you aren't inside the tent, you are in a different tent next door where they play games with unpainted miniatures. It is in many ways a similar hobby, but it is different to the painted figures hobby and it has more in common with map and computer based wargames. I don't look down on map games, I used to play loads of map games.

I would just rather not play a tabletop game than play with unpainted figures.

But, as they say, "Hey, that's just me".

SO you are an elitest. The "Hobby" is alot of things. Its different things for different people. Do you scold folks that buy models and dont play?

Kilkrazy wrote:
I don't believe the hobby is that big a tent. The hobby is about playing games with painted military miniatures. If you don't paint your figures, you aren't inside the tent, you are in a different tent next door where they play games with unpainted miniatures. It is in many ways a similar hobby, but it is different to the painted figures hobby and it has more in common with map and computer based wargames. I don't look down on map games, I used to play loads of map games.

I dunno. I think the core of the GW hobby is building your own army, however you wish to do that. Conversions, painting, or just collecting are all parts of it. Painting is a big part of it, but to say that playing 40k is closer to chits than to 40k with painted figures is a bold statement.

By your logic, putting three colors of paint on a model magically changes the hobby a person is in?

Except painting services are also forbidden. For some people it isn't enough that the models are painted, they have to be painted BY YOU or it doesn't count.

Not to mention at tournaments and the like you'll still be penalized as if you were playing with an unpainted army (unless you lie), so once again, why bother?

You sure about that? I'm not one of these hard core competition players, but every tournament I've played at just asks on the score sheet about the quality and complete nature of your opponent's army, not if he actually did the brush work on it.

Now don't get me wrong. I could see GW banning professionally painted armies as a case could be made that such an army just might cut into their profits for their grossly over-priced hobby supplies. But I don't think this is the case. Can someone confirm this for us?
In any event, it's an unenforcible rule. (much more so than the "play with GW models only" rule)

TR

As far as I know, it's never been verboten that you bring a painted army by someone else,
but they ask you sometimes to verify that you painted your army (kind of like telling an online
photo album that you have the right to post certain pictures) in order to keep you from
winning overall or best painted. Of course, in an extreme situation where painters don't
want to play and players don't want to paint, you get someone representing a painted
army with the painter's army so they both can get recognition...

Horst wrote:I agree, painting 40k miniatures for the joy of painting IS stupid. there are much better scale models out there, that are far more detailed.

There are some better models out there, but in terms of overall quality of sculpts, GW stuff is pretty close to the top, at least in the 30mm sci-fi/fantasy ranges. I didn't get into GW games until about 5 years ago, because I didn't like the cartoony sculpts compared to (at the time) companies like Grenadier or Ral Partha. That's changed. And while there are some specialist stores that put out excellent sculpts (Hasslefree minis rock), overall, browsing online and at Games Plus, there aren't that many companies out there that are doing as detailed models in this scale as GW is currently.

Trench-Raider wrote:You know, in today's enviorment there really is no excuse not to have a painted army. There are several painting services in third world countries that offer good quality an are inexpensive to use. Several of our local gamers, for example, have used one based in Sri Lanka and have been very happy with the results.

Or better yet, just sit down and do it. I painted an entire 4500+ point army last week, using little more than foundation paints and washes. You can get a tabletop quality level with very little effort, and that's all that the 3rd-world services do.

Sidstyler wrote:
Except painting services are also forbidden. For some people it isn't enough that the models are painted, they have to be painted BY YOU or it doesn't count.

Not to mention at tournaments and the like you'll still be penalized as if you were playing with an unpainted army (unless you lie), so once again, why bother?

malfred wrote:As far as I know, it's never been verboten that you bring a painted army by someone else, but they ask you sometimes to verify that you painted your army (kind of like telling an online photo album that you have the right to post certain pictures) in order to keep you from
winning overall or best painted. Of course, in an extreme situation where painters don't want to play and players don't want to paint, you get someone representing a painted army with the painter's army so they both can get recognition...

The most successful method of handling this in tournaments, IMHO, was the one used at the GTs last year. They asked if you painted your own stuff, but that didn't prevent you from getting a paint score, and the paint score still contributed to the overall award, so that people who didn't want to paint weren't ruled out from that. But they did reserve the best appearance awards for those people who actually painted their own stuff. This seems like a good approach to me, as it removes the incentive for people who just want to play to lie about their own work, as they're still in the running for the overall prize, but it also rewards the people who do their own work.

the_Armyman wrote:Pfft. Why bother painting anything? Houses are just for living in. Cars are just for driving from point A to point B. Why bother with anything aesthetic if the only reason is to look pretty?

You've got me. I don't understand the point of flashy paintjobs on houses, artwork hanging all over the walls or cars that look like they should be headed for the racetrack. IMO, keeping something clean is enough to show that you take pride in it.

the_Armyman wrote:My point is twofold:

1. GW used to promote the hobby. 'Ard Boyz is a good example of how far they've fallen.
2. Just because 'Ard Boyz doesn't require a painted army, doesn't mean you can't take a little pride in what you have.

The paint on stock cars or the bright uniforms/helmets of sports teams have no bearing on their performance, but what kind of crappy place would it be to turn on the TV and see a NASCAR race with primer gray cars or a bunch of football players in white t-shirts?

Sincity wrote:A painting requirement at 'ard boyz is like a comp score at gold demons.

I'll probably get flamed for making this comparison, but it's a real shame that honesty and integrity don't have a place in competition. If you want proof, ask the people who entered the Golden Demons in Chicago...

So now you're comparing a 3 color paintjob to wraps on nascar cars and sport team uniforms? The purpose of all of that flashiness is so that you can tell who's who and for corporate sponsors to advertise. When it comes to Warhammer I do take pride in my paintjobs. That's only because I'm pretty good at it. I know a lot of guys who don't have time for it or who just aren't good painters. They don't take pride in their paintjobs. They take pride in winning or they don't care about the game period and they play because they like the people.

Redbeard wrote:
Or better yet, just sit down and do it. I painted an entire 4500+ point army last week, using little more than foundation paints and washes. You can get a tabletop quality level with very little effort, and that's all that the 3rd-world services do.

agreed. a simple base coat (skip the primer since they don't care about the paint job/durability and pick your base coat from a color you want to use) sprayed on and a few details in two other colors. for instance, spray an assembled marine in black, color the bolter silver/boltgun metal, and a SINGLE shoulder pad grey. you've just met the minimum painting standard! whoa is me! i've just been forced to spend an average of less than one 1 minute on a figure usable for a multistage national tournament! the pain! the pain! the colors burns my precious! no one is even asking you to color only between the lines. as long as you're close (don't glob the paint over the shoulder pad, arm, and half the chest when you are aiming for the pad only), no one will CARE if you go over the detail a bit and NOT do a correction. the point is for the minis to look OK from a 3ft away perspective. as stated before, the golden demons DO have a gameplay requirement in that they're required to be a playable legal 40k/fantasy entry (sorry, no warmachine warjacks please!). adding the miniscule standard above would be the equivalent. NEITHER requirement would be used for scoring (how effective your unit is in 40k for golden demons or your painting quality in the hard boyz proposal).

<sarcasm>
frankly, if it's just about the gameplay and purchasing the models, why should i be required to ASSEMBLE models???? i should just be able to bring the sprues (to prove i bought the whole model) and play with the correct base and a stick of the same height as each type of unit (so that i'm not accused of modelling for LOS or other in game benefit, i would place the stick vertically on the base when LOS issues came up). i have no need for the assembling aspect of this ridiculous "hobby" you speak of and frankly don't enjoy it. why should i be forced to glue my models just for your enjoyment???? that's ridiculous. if i were to assemble the model, you would just chide me for not converting parts of it so why should i even do that minimum effort!? you all are simply elitist because i'm not into your precious part of the hobby (assembling). i've spent the money on GW minis and spent just as much time making up my list. why shouldn't i be able to play with my army of bases, toothpicks cut to various sizes, and a bunch of sprues in a suitcase next to me??
</sarcasm>

ridiculous? yes, but it's simply taking the argument i've read over the past several pages to the next level. the hobby ideally involves the following in the stated order: buying, assembly, painting, playing. if you want to ignore the third, why should you pay homage to the second? gw only cares about the first (buying) and you only care about the last (playing).

*edited to make sarcasm more obvious*

carmachu wrote:

SO you are an elitest. The "Hobby" is alot of things. Its different things for different people. Do you scold folks that buy models and dont play?

No, I just don't play games with them.

It doesn't make me better or worse than people who play with unpainted figures, just different.

warboss wrote:
frankly, if it's just about the gameplay and purchasing the models, why should i be required to ASSEMBLE models????

Wow, now we're getting in deep. If it is all about the game, why even bother with models at all? Plenty of excellent games can be played with cardboard counters, or folded pieces of paper. Cheap Ass Games has made a business out of making fun games without significant overhead.

GW has brainwashed you into believing that you can only play with their models. That's clearly not true. If you only want to play, make cardboard counters to be your guys and have at. The real elitism here seems to be based on spending. Did you buy enough product for me to deem it worth playing you?

We're not here because we want to play a strategy game, we're here because we want to play a miniatures game. We want to play with toy soldiers. We don't have an emotional attachment to bits of plastic, we have an attachment to the 3rd Company of the Ultramarines, or the Bad Moon Clan, or the pestulant worship of Father Nurgle. This is a game that has a tactile, visceral appeal. And painting the models is part of that. It's part of playing a miniatures game. GW pushes these 'ardboyz events trying to get you to believe that what's important is having the models. You spend, they profit, and that's that. But fielding an unpainted army is no better than fielding a cardboard counter army. Both miss out on what a miniature game should be - a game that has both a strategic and an artistic appeal.

I don't think there is any reason to require painting for Ard Boyz. I am sure people would still play but you would end up seeing some shoddy looking armies. Ard Boyz is all about GW making some nice profit and the players seeing who can win the most. It works well and everyone is happy.

Warboss wrote:
the hobby ideally involves the following in the stated order: buying, assembly, painting, playing. if you want to ignore the third, why should you pay homage to the second? gw only cares about the first (buying) and you only care about the last (playing).

Because assembly (can be) straightforward and easy while painting is a pain in the ass. The best quality I can manage, after days of working on a model, is only tabletop quality and the first time I showed it to people, all I got were complaints. No one complains about my awesome conversion work, the models with dynamic poses all WYSIWYG and awesome, but as soon as I apply paint to it in order to conform to your standards, all I get is complaints about what I did wrong and how I didn't apply washes or shading or highlights or this or that.

If you're able to put out Golden Daemon work, you can play in any tournament (or not play at all) with minimal harassment. If you can't paint that well, shouldn't there be a single tournament where you can play without taking sh*t for it?

EDIT: damn quote function...

Kilkrazy wrote:

No, I just don't play games with them.

It doesn't make me better or worse than people who play with unpainted figures, just different.

Which is the whole point. Different people have different attactions to the game. I dont see why you(or armyman) or others just dont let them be and have their tournment they can enter, just as painters have golden demons, without attaching other strings to said tournment.

Dont like hard boyz? Great. Dont show up. Go play an RT or GT or something that you like. Let folks have their enjoyment in an unpainted tournment if there is one and leave'em alone.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

warboss wrote:[
ridiculous? yes, but it's simply taking the argument i've read over the past several pages to the next level. the hobby ideally involves the following in the stated order: buying, assembly, painting, playing. if you want to ignore the third, why should you pay homage to the second? gw only cares about the first (buying) and you only care about the last (playing).

*edited to make sarcasm more obvious*

Mostly because even hard boyz and otehr tournments have a WYSIWYG requirement. So yes you have to assemble the models and have them be what is what.

Redbeard wrote:We're not here because we want to play a strategy game, we're here because we want to play a miniatures game.

I'm here because I want to play a strategy game. Sorry, but that's the truth. I like playing 40k because the potential games and scenarios are endless. Minitures provide a much quicker, easier way to keep track of units and weapon loadouts than cardboard counters would ever provide. Yes, painting the figures makes the battles more pleasing to the eye, but to me, it doesn't provide anything to the wargame aspect beyond what the minitures themselves contribute.

I'm sorry that my idea of what makes 40k fun is different from yours. That doesn't make it any more right or wrong. Just different. If you want to look down on my half-painted army, that's fine by me. Just don't expect me to care.

Once again, I don't think anything is added to the hobby by telling a whole segment of players that they're "doing it wrong" and second-class citizens. I think everyone should be able to participate in events that fit their interest. 'Ard Boyz fits those of us who are into the "gaming" aspect of the hobby. There are many events that cater to a more "hobby"-oriented approach, so I don't see how it hurts to leave this one event as it is.

Purpose of ard boyz is not painting. ITs who can PLAY the best.

carmachu wrote:SO you are an elitest. The "Hobby" is alot of things. Its different things for different people. Do you scold folks that buy models and dont play?

This is a strawman I've seen pop up time and again on this topic. In a painting competition you can't tell whether a person plays games or not, and it's not important either. Loads of painting competitions are set up to be independent of any kind of roleplaying, some people enter gaming miniatures, others do not. It's only GW that limit their competitions to gaming figures, and that's because they limit stuff to their own ranges which are nearly all gaming pieces. But even in GD, not all the compeitions are for game legal pieces anyway, you have large scale forgeworld pieces and conversions that would not fit on the battle field in any army. And as I said, whether or not a person plays the game makes no difference to your appreciation of their painted entry to a competition.

Now compare to gaming. Seriously, does an unpainted army have no impact on the quality of the game? Really? Unpainted armies look fugly and I can't believe anyone who can seriously claim that a game could looks just as good with an unpainted army. Part of the experiance of the game is in watching it unravel and experiance it in front of you, "getting into it" so to speak. Of course painted miniatures affect this. No one would turn up to a historical wargame and watch the battle of waterloo fought out with unpainted miniatures and think it wasn't any less enjoyable to watch and take part in than if all the miniatures had been painted in full colour uniforms.

So painting competitions are not affected by whether the entrant plays or not, you probably wouldn't even know unless you ask. The quality of gaming on the other hand is connected to painting, you can see if an army is painted or not straight away and a game full of painted miniatures is much more thrilling and realistic than a load of plastic and grey.

You can paint and not game, but gaming and not painting just looks dumb.

Redbeard wrote:This is a game that has a tactile, visceral appeal. And painting the models is part of that. It's part of playing a miniatures game. GW pushes these 'ardboyz events trying to get you to believe that what's important is having the models. You spend, they profit, and that's that. But fielding an unpainted army is no better than fielding a cardboard counter army. Both miss out on what a miniature game should be - a game that has both a strategic and an artistic appeal.

This. Oh lordy is it ever this.

It's beyond me why one would spend hundreds and hundreds (or in the case of some 'ard boyz armies, thousands) of dollars on GW miniatures and not paint them. If they're going to be plain, visually indecipherable blobs you're better off spending 50 bucks for 2500 points worth of appropriate bases and write the model's names and wargear on them. Maybe clip some toothpicks to the right height for TLOS, and you're set. It's going to look the same to me from across the table anyway, right? Miniature war gaming is fundamentally a visual game. That's a very large part of why the entire hobby didn't collapse horribly when Vassal came on the scene; sliding little representative icons of your units doesn't compare.

I'd like to add the caveat that I don't think I've ever let the above opinions interfere with my enjoyment of the hobby; I like painting, I like fielding a painted army. I'd like it if other people liked fielding a painted army (and thankfully nearly everyone I know does, to varying degrees of seriousness), but if you don't I'll still play with you. Unless, of course, there's someone next to you with a painted army who I haven't played before either.

I'm shocked people are upset that GW held an explicit no-comp, no holds barred tournament, at an artificially inflated points level - that had no painting requirement.

Oh boo-hoo, people didn't have to paint their mini's to play in a tournament specifically designated for them to play in.

QQ more, it makes my morning that much more enjoyable.