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.

CT GAMER wrote:I'd like to see pics of some of the table/terrain setups the people who only play vs. painted armies are using.

I have always found it ironic that many of the "paint snobs" I have encountered have utter ass tables or terrain or accept playing on such.

I personally expect the terrain to match the quality of the miniatures being used on it, so if someone is gonna demand my army be painted they better have some quality terrain to play on.

Detailed, based, painted with shading and highlights, themed to the table being used, etc., etc.

Otherwise shut up about non-painted armies "ruining" the visual, because that coke bottle tower and foam core building that looks like a five year old made it as an art project just aren't gonna cut it, and are ruining my enjoyment of the game...

All the best terrain is built by the most enthusiastic modellers, people who model terrain will certainly model their army. I can't think of many people who don't paint armies armies choose to make high quality terrain. Doesn't add up. The best blogs for terrain building are by people who regularly paint their armies.

nkelsch wrote:

Wait, I have to sacrifice my experience and enjoyment in order to "bring new people into the hobby" now? My gaming time is limited too... Why should I sacrifice my experience by playing against unpainted models to make others happy? They only care about getting themselves a game and care not for thier opponent's experience so why shouldn't I be exactly the same way. Pushing unpainted minis on opponents is no more or less selfish than deciding not to play someone with unpainted minis because all you are doing is putting your instant gratification first.

I will gladly sit down at a painting table with a new person and help them paint and teach them techniques if they are new to the hobby, how is that elitist? Social activity is social activity be it gaming, painting, modeling or shooting the bull... All of it is the same hobby to me. There is more than "just a game".

I would rather help someone paint figures for 2 hours than to have a bad game against some unpainted proxies.

Yes, IMO, every veteran gamer should be willing to sacrifice to help build the hobby. Maybe it's my years as a GW Outrider/Kommando that make me feel this way, the many demos, the intro games, the paint clinics, etc etc etc. Maybe that's why our local club is around 100 paid members annually for the last several years, and games at four different local stores. Maybe, well, you get the idea.

I am glad to hear that you are at least willing to help someone learn how to paint. Course, what if he doesn't want a painting lesson but would really appreciate it if someone would help him learn how to play..?
BUT! why do you automatically assume taht just because their models are not painted that it will be a "bad game"?

I made a thread like this a week ago. Search is your friend,even if it works like crap :3

nkelsch wrote:

Are you saying you would accept 'simply not interested' as an answer? Would you then be all fussy and redfaced if 20 minutes later I ended up playing against someone else with a painted army? And I laugh again at the idea of 'challenge' due to the uncompetitive nature of 40k...

I see a lot of "You can't fire me, I QUIT!" attitude from angry people who are upset that someone somewhere won't play against them and then a lot of insults and personal attacks.

...

"not painting" is not a protected class...

I have, and I would for the record. Especially if there are other possible choices to arrange a game with; and if I so happen to find an opponent then what do I care if you play a game twenty minutes later with someone else? The entire social setting could be broken down if you want, however there is no need

"Challenge" okay, was a poor choice of words. Invitation to a game, a request, and / or Offer. What have you. However, it takes very little effort to be polite in refusing to play or turning down a request then it does to refuse someone simply because you do not want their unwashed, unpainted minatures "assaulting" the painted minatures you invested your time in.

Cause as you said above, While "Not Painting" should not be a protected class, "Painting them" should not be one as well.

But, I do agree, there are ways to encourage players to paint them and bring them up to those standards. However to simply refuse some one on the grounds that their minatures are not painted and yours are smacks of arrogance.

Just to add, I know I'm one for letting people against me play with unprimed unpainted mini's.

Last night I took my new eldar army out for a whirl, it's all been painted since february except my shining spears who'd I'd just undercoated - they ruined the look, and whilst it was fun to use the army, the way they looked just ruined it for me - it's the first time in at elast a year i've not used a fully painted army, and I won't be making that mistake again soon!

40k is a hobby that requires approximately infinity hours. I'm a player, not a hobbyist. If I invest a few hundred dollars in the models and then a few hours assembling them, I don't care if they're painted or not, I'm playing with them. I'll paint them whenever I have free time (which is rare for me), but I'm not going to not use my hundreds of dollars because I'm concerned they don't look perfect.

That said, I'm not about to hold someone else to a higher standard than myself. If the guy I'm playing has an unpainted army, he has a reason for it. I respect that.

Yeah, for me i won't field an unpainted army. I won't criticise others for it, and i will play them But i like the idea of having an Army with an Identity and that they belong to me. I do find that sometimes people have a lack of courage to commit to painting and some gentle encouragement, practice and commitment and you can have a very creditable Table top army in no time. Encouraging people is better than berating them for a 3rd rate paint job and its not really in the spirit of the Hobby.

Frosty Hardtop wrote:40k is a hobby that requires approximately infinity hours.

How does it require infinity hours?

*It takes a finite number of hours to buy an army and learn the rules.
*It takes a finite number of hours to assemble the models.
*It takes a finite number of hours to paint the models.

It takes an infinite number of hours to potentially play the game. You can always sacrifice gameplay to complete the task of painting as it is a finite number of hours to complete. It only takes a few *MORE* hours to paint assembled models.

What if someone said "If I invest a few hundred dollars in the models, I don't care if they are assembled or not, i'm playing with them! and I have a reason you must respect that!" are you going to allow him to play with armless marines or bare bases?

What if someone said "I don't have 100$s of dollars to spend, so I printed these paper versions out on the internet and i'm playing with them, and I have a reason you must respect that!" Would you have no problem allowing him to use those paper stand-ins?

Remember, if you apply *ANY* level of standard to *anyone* and refuse to play him for *ANY* reason regardless of your personal enjoyment, you smack of arrogance and are a bad person!

I-bounty-hunt-the-elderly wrote:My point is, very few people will always play fully painted, and I consider that fine. What I prefer, with myself and opponents, is people who work towards painted armies. If someone's stuff starts unpainted, and he can only make very slow progress, that's fine. Shows he has a life outside models, if anything. But if there was a bloke in my group who showed up for months with the same crap-looking, unpainted force, I'd really start playing the other available opponents and avoiding games against him.

Don't be a nazi about it, but if you paint your models, it is natural, reasonable and expected that you will want to play painted opponents. (and on decent terrain)

I think I'm pretty much the same as you on this.

P.S. If you hate painting, dear god, why did you start this hobby!?

I'm with you 100% on this and I've never seen a satisfying answer.

Although people will claim that there isn't an intrinsically visual nature to miniatures wargaming, and that they just enjoy the gameplay. To which I tend to respond:

"If you like gaming, dear god, why did you start this game!?"

Gorgon, gald to see there are other people who view this issue in a reasonable way, not as some sort of ideological war!

Like this guy here:

caddock wrote:I don't put models on the table that aren't painted. Like others have noted, I enjoy my army better that way and feel I am offering my gaming partner the best experience I can.

My order of preference with a mixture of variables; Dicktitude is more of an issue for me :

1. Not a dick, fully painted. and I didn't play you yesterday.
2. Not a dick, mostly painted.
3. Not a dick with nothing painted - sure a small game, then lets go chat at the painting table and work on something.
4. Not a dick, fully painted and I did play you yesterday - rather play the same guy everyday then the next bunch.

5. Dick with all painted - a dick is still a dick but I'll play them rather then go home sometimes. At least the battle reports will look nice.
6. Dick with most painted - not likely.
7. Dick with nothing painted, I'd rather chat with the others at the paint table or go home and wash my dog

Dick could probably be put in some gradations too as there are people I'd just never play with no matter how well done their army is.

I agree completely with this. If you don't paint your army, we're not enemies, I'm not really judging you (except in a very narrow sense, the way we judge everyone) but that is one factor against you if there are other opponents available.

And don mondo made a good point about helping new people. Obviously it's a pretty cool thing to do to help a new player practise the rules (unless, as pointed out by caddock, he's a dick). New players are a perfectly good reason to discount whether their army is painted or not when deciding whether to play them.

Painted armies are a bonus. I play because there is a great bunch of guys I play with. They could put almost anything on the table from barely assembled to fully painted, it doesnt matter. Its the guys behind the armies that make the game enjoyable.

*shrug* I have the fully painted 5K of sisters, that looks great. But I also have 5K or so of orks thats most likely never going to be painted. I'll play either one, and folks have a good time.

This comment may tick some people off, but it's just an observation: people in my metagame, who play with fully painted armies, tend to have a better understanding of the rules and the game itself than players who show up with unpainted or shoddily painted armies. This isn't to say that the paint makes the difference, but that the people who put in the time to paint the minis to a decent standard also put in the time to learn the game, learn the rules, and learn the tactics that allow them to play something other than a complete pushover game.

You see I am merciful when it comes to this, I would Perfer if someone had a painted army to play against, I really would, but being someone who started around christmas this last year and having a horde army, I can understand it not being paint, if you have 200 models for a 1850 game vs someone who has 40 ya, then ya the 200 models may not get done in time. As it is right now, I am now to the point were I don't field something that isn't painted.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
In addition to this, I am also of the opinion that if someone is doing something rather special with their army that take a extra amount of time, for example, a feathering effect and other special effect, I will also cut them some slack.

I don't like to ruin perfectly good miniatures so I go all grey.

Once you go grey it won't go away.

I've never seen an unpainted army fielded, ever. My playing experience is at long-running clubs, with a higher proportion of older players. These sorts of venues have a culture that you don't play with unpainted figures. It is the standard culture of wargaming from as old as we know about model soldiers.



I'm not claiming any moral high ground from this. I just don't understand the idea that I should feel obliged to play with unpainted soldiers because some young chap wants to, while he should not feel obliged to play with painted soldiers because some old chap wants to.

Can't we just go our separate ways peacefully?

I don't mind unpainted or primed, Everyone loves two well painted armies clashing on the battlefield, but to be frank I have seem a few paintjobs where the army would have looked better just primed and left at that.

nevertellmetheodds wrote:I don't mind unpainted or primed, Everyone loves two well painted armies clashing on the battlefield, but to be frank I have seem a few paintjobs where the army would have looked better just primed and left at that.

That would be the case with anything I field

But at my club we're all friendly and understands that everyone else is a lazy gak and doesn't always get their army done, though sometimes we give people crap about not having a finished army so yeah we'll play unpainted, though I usually at least prime my guys, it makes me feel awkward otherwise.

I will never refuse a game based on painting but I do like to see progress.

If I play you today and 6 mo from now your army looks the exact same with no attempt to paint them I get a little pieved.

Kilkrazy wrote:I'm not claiming any moral high ground from this. I just don't understand the idea that I should feel obliged to play with unpainted soldiers because some young chap wants to, while he should not feel obliged to play with painted soldiers because some old chap wants to.

I completely agree with this sentiment, however;

Kilkrazy wrote:
I've never seen an unpainted army fielded, ever. My playing experience is at long-running clubs, with a higher proportion of older players. These sorts of venues have a culture that you don't play with unpainted figures. It is the standard culture of wargaming from as old as we know about model soldiers.

It is exactly this kind of atmosphere that prevented me from ever getting involved at my LGS. While they weren't quite as "conservative" as this, I still got the distinct impression that most players there would rather not play than play an unpainted army. As a gamer who started less than a year ago, and a snail-slow painter to boot, I felt absolutely no reason to engage with the wargaming community at large - especially when I could have a load of fun playing some games with my buddies in one of their basements. TBH, I felt somewhat pushed out "until I could get a painted army."

Truth be told, I would very much always prefer to play a fully painted army against another fully painted army, on a nice table with good terrain, against a friendly and fun opponent. Unfortunately, this idyllic scenario is out of reach for me. My army is not fully painted (though some of it is), and since I can't go to the LGS without a fully painted army (and because it's fairly out of the way for some of my friends) I have to play against their armies, which are mostly unpainted, and mostly made of card-stock circles. Furthermore, none of us have the money for a table or terrain, so we make do with what we can get our hands on. So really, the only thing I've learned to care about in my games is playing against a friendly and fun opponent.

So as much as I agree with the painted-only sentiment, the sad truth is that for some of us, we simply can't afford the time or money to make our games so picturesque. Obviously then, I'm not going to decline a game for purely hobby-ing reasons; it would be quite hypocritical of me to do so.

I won't play against somebody if the Army they field could be swapped out for a 'Big Bucket 'O Soldiers'.

Proxies- no.

I play a simulated war/battle game. Not Legos or Battletech.

That being said- I'll never knock a game back with a mate for the above reasons either( Hypocrite!! )

Xca|iber wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:I'm not claiming any moral high ground from this. I just don't understand the idea that I should feel obliged to play with unpainted soldiers because some young chap wants to, while he should not feel obliged to play with painted soldiers because some old chap wants to.

I completely agree with this sentiment, however;

Kilkrazy wrote:
I've never seen an unpainted army fielded, ever. My playing experience is at long-running clubs, with a higher proportion of older players. These sorts of venues have a culture that you don't play with unpainted figures. It is the standard culture of wargaming from as old as we know about model soldiers.

It is exactly this kind of atmosphere that prevented me from ever getting involved at my LGS. While they weren't quite as "conservative" as this, I still got the distinct impression that most players there would rather not play than play an unpainted army. As a gamer who started less than a year ago, and a snail-slow painter to boot, I felt absolutely no reason to engage with the wargaming community at large - especially when I could have a load of fun playing some games with my buddies in one of their basements. TBH, I felt somewhat pushed out "until I could get a painted army."

Do you want to know a secret?

Those people who generally give you that vibe? They're my kind of people. And you know...they're not going to toss you out on your butt for not having an unpainted army to start with. They'll just want to see progress. Speaking for myself...I have no issues with facing an unpainted army once or twice. I start to get a little irked when we're getting into our double digits for games played, and you haven't even primed anything whatsoever.

Xca l iber wrote:
Truth be told, I would very much always prefer to play a fully painted army against another fully painted army, on a nice table with good terrain, against a friendly and fun opponent. Unfortunately, this idyllic scenario is out of reach for me. My army is not fully painted (though some of it is), and since I can't go to the LGS without a fully painted army (and because it's fairly out of the way for some of my friends) I have to play against their armies, which are mostly unpainted, and mostly made of card-stock circles. Furthermore, none of us have the money for a table or terrain, so we make do with what we can get our hands on. So really, the only thing I've learned to care about in my games is playing against a friendly and fun opponent.

So as much as I agree with the painted-only sentiment, the sad truth is that for some of us, we simply can't afford the time or money to make our games so picturesque. Obviously then, I'm not going to decline a game for purely hobby-ing reasons; it would be quite hypocritical of me to do so.

Pretty much, yep. I've said it a few times now and I'll say it again:
Nobody is going to outright refuse to play against you for having an unpainted army. Will it make the game for them less enjoyable? Maybe.

However, at least from my experience, people who turn someone down for having "an unpainted army"? They're using it as an excuse to get out of playing someone who's considered TFG in the gaming group.

At the kind of clubs I played at, if you had a unpainted army rather than encourage you to play with it, we would lend you one of our own armies.

Hell, you could come without any army at all and you would still get a game. Even if you didn't know the rules you would get given a 2-in-C position with an experienced player.

I'm always very disappointed when someone can't even take a stab at painting their army. That's a major part of the game, and I don't even know why you would get into wargaming if the idea of painting and modeling your army didn't even appeal to you at all. Even if you can't paint very well, you have to start somewhere.

However, I'm not a pompous ass, so I would never refuse to play a game with someone because their army isn't painted. I almost always offer to help someone with painting techniques or what have you if they have an unpainted army, as I find that it's usually just people who are afraid to show their own skills that don't paint their armies. Oftentimes my own dedication towards painting and modeling is enough to inspire people to finish their armies. I answer any questions that they have for me, offer sound advice that's appropriate for their skill level, and sometimes even show them how to execute a painting technique if everything is already set up.

Back when I used to buy and play 40k regularly (it's been a while), I convinced quite a few people to work on painting their armies. I did it not through ostracizing them, but through the power of suggestion.

Kilkrazy wrote:At the kind of clubs I played at, if you had a unpainted army rather than encourage you to play with it, we would lend you one of our own armies.

Hell, you could come without any army at all and you would still get a game. Even if you didn't know the rules you would get given a 2-in-C position with an experienced player.

<3 Made me feel warm and fuzzy~!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Chrysaor686 wrote: That's a major part of the game

And that's the beginning and end of it, you think it's a major part of the game - others feel this falls into the 'hobby' box - they want to play 40K a game of 40k infact while you want to sit down and paint... how can you say what you're doing has any kind of 'major part' of playing 'a game'?
Now, if for some reason painting your minis made the dice listent o you more....
It'd remind me of beginner magic players, who refuse to use sleeves. They see it as an unresonable expense from this already exensive game and refuse, the next time is when someone points out their cards become damaged - they don't care their just playing it, not collecting. Finally they throw down their deck losing for the Nth time and someone explains to them that "You know why all the pros use sleeves right? It's because it means one is able to shuffle more easily/better. That's why you're always mana-screwed."
So accoring to my own story I refuse to paint my minis because there is no effect in game and in addition to this I refuse to play against painted armies because there my be some reason (or benifit) from the said painting and I don't play against cheetos =P

I-bounty-hunt-the-elderly wrote:My point is, very few people will always play fully painted, and I consider that fine. What I prefer, with myself and opponents, is people who work towards painted armies. If someone's stuff starts unpainted, and he can only make very slow progress, that's fine. Shows he has a life outside models, if anything. But if there was a bloke in my group who showed up for months with the same crap-looking, unpainted force, I'd really start playing the other available opponents and avoiding games against him.

Don't be a nazi about it, but if you paint your models, it is natural, reasonable and expected that you will want to play painted opponents. (and on decent terrain)

I've already posted my preference towards painted armies, but this post made me think.

In our group we, of course, like progress too. But we tend to play all-painted. This doesn't mean that I expect newer players (or those with a new army) to paint the whole 2000pts before we play. When we start a new army, we tend to start playing games with it when maybe 750pts is painted and ready to go. This can be very quick. Then, of course, the army develops over the course of months (years!) as more and more stuff becomes painted, and you move to playing bigger and bigger games with your army.

I don't think it's therefore particularly bad to ask new(ish) players to have painted models - for a new Marine player the basic AOBR contents could be painted very quickly AND allow them to start playing games at a reasonable point level.

I hate playing like 80-90% full grey armys. If some just bought a Batleforce or somthing, im down. But if I know that you have 1500 Points of X, and all you have done have painted A,B, and half of C? Ehh... I kinda lose Respect for you. If you have a Job and like....4 Hours of free time in the weekdays? Alright, fair game. But im 14. What else are you doing apart from Modern Warfare? a High Schooler should be able to put work into an Army.

ChrisCP wrote:

Chrysaor686 wrote: That's a major part of the game

And that's the beginning and end of it, you think it's a major part of the game - others feel this falls into the 'hobby' box - they want to play 40K a game of 40k infact while you want to sit down and paint... how can you say what you're doing has any kind of 'major part' of playing 'a game'?

It's a major part of the game because the miniatures come unpainted, and they are intended to be painted.

The customization of tabeltop games is one of the things that really sets it apart from everything else. You have something completely personal invested in the game itself.

I guess I should've said 'Hobby', but I don't really get that hung up on technicalities.

I have never, ever been able to understand why someone would spend so much money on something, and not even try to see it through to completion.

A lot of good points have been raised in this thread, on both sides.
It’s easy to buy minis and a lot harder to paint them well.
GW does seem to push them on you faster than most people can paint,

And you have to feel sorry for the person, who paints all his models to a high standard,
Only for a new codex to come out, and make them useless...
Will as much effort be made on the next models?

We all like to play against a painted army, on good terrain but how much leeway are we prepared to give in order to encourage new blood into the hobby.

Two bare or primed armies fighting on a basic table is pretty dire to look at,
And it only takes a little paint to spice thinks up.

Paint is the difference between me fielding an ork army, and fielding MY ork army.

There where a couple of guys that used to play at my local club that where very hard arsed on the painting line, that in the end we refused to play them, they always insisted on only painted armys, with no excuse. and it came to a head when we was getting ready for the club tourny where most of the memebers where play testing differnt builds, and in the case of one guy, building a new army, so a lot of unpainted units where in use, while people where trying to decide what to use, and these 2 players who insisted on painted only armys, would refuse to play, even though they would be helping test an army, they tried to demand that we paint every unit, even if it didnt make the final tourny list, they where that hard arsed about it

my main opponent has many multiple thousands of points of Orks that are at least at the priming stage, and over the months of playing against each other, him facing my painted army has inspired him to work on his... BUT he paints about as fast as molasses on a glacier.

And we have come to this one irrefutable truth: a unit must either be fully painted, or fully primed, or fully grey... As soon as you make one person in the unit slightly different, whether its just getting his skin tone down, etc. but making ONE model in a unit different from the rest will make that unit HORRIBLE!!!