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.

 jreilly89 wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
96% of Dakka users would prefer to use painted armies, according to a poll we did a few years ago.

And I'd prefer my opponents not be total TFGs, but we don't all get what we want do we? I'd also prefer to play on beautiful tables and quit my job to go pro at 40k, but that ain't happening. You can want something but also realize that the person you're playing against has wants and desires and they may not be the same as yours. I'd be interested in seeing a new poll of people who will/won't play a painted/unpainted army.

Side note: Dakka is not all encompassing. I've had several players at my LGS say they've never heard of it.

Please go ahead and make a poll.

The point about most people wanting to play with painted armies is that it is an attainable goal, and it's a goal that most players seem to attain. As a player, you can choose to paint your army, or buy a painted army (I've got both sorts) and decide not to play with your armies until they are painted.

If you decide you do want to play with your armies before they are painted, you can't fairly blame people for not wanting to play with you if they don't want to play with unpainted armies.

As for DakkaDakka not being the whole wargaming universe, I think if you go on The Miniatures Page you will find it's even more in favour of painting than DakkaDakka, as it has more of a historical focus.

War gamers were painting their armies before electricity was invented.

Very much prefer painted here, won't use unpainted myself as I've found that way madness awaits, its also a very good way to throttle spending.

I'll play against card counters if the person I'm playing is fun to play against, but prefer painted models, that said I'd prefer card counters or unpainted to some of the "three colour maximum" models out there.

Indeed for the likes of marines actually would prefer one colour & wash/dip to some of what I've seen, with maybe black for weapons (or grey washed).

As for being a snob wanting painted models? Hardly, I play historical games mostly and have very seldom seen an unpainted model on the table, the exception typically being something new or a player new to a game and with itchy fingers. I'd be more than happy with properly painted being a rule at a club.

'snob' tends to be a word, like many I won't mention, that gets thrown about by someone with different standards who feels the need to try and excuse their behaviour as opposed to just getting on with life and accepting people differ.

If there are locals who want unpainted models, how about suggesting they start a club and offering to help them do it, in effect becoming two sides of the same coin. You will probably find some playing unpainted wish they could paint (time, experience etc) and some who paint wish they had other models and may be happy to help out, failing that you could set up some wonderful 'grudge matches'

If you want a painted army and a nice table................you have to put the work in. Theres no real way around that.

Even if that "putting the work in" consists of "pay someone else to do it"

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
I'd much rather play against an army that's 90% unpainted because the person is actually trying to get them painted well instead of rushed to the table.

Most people are looking at upwards of a year to paint an army really well.

Of course let's be honest here: most of the people with unpainted armies have them because they don't care about painting, not because they're making steady progress on some awesome painting that takes a lot of time per model. I've seen a lot of armies that are mostly gray plastic with maybe a model or two painted to a very low standard, lots of pieces broken off from being thrown carelessly into boxes, and a very obvious lack of interest in the models beyond their use as game tokens. But I've seen very few that have some gray plastic alongside well-painted models, and an owner that clearly cares about them.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
The point about most people wanting to play with painted armies is that it is an attainable goal, and it's a goal that most players seem to attain.

People wanting to play with painted armies doesn't make it an attainable goal. For many people it isn't an attainable goal in any realistic time frame.

I'm sure a large portion of primed but not painted armies on ebay are a result of people not realising until partway in to a project that, for them at least, it's not an attainable goal.

If you decide you do want to play with your armies before they are painted, you can't fairly blame people for not wanting to play with you if they don't want to play with unpainted armies.

"Blame" is probably the wrong word... think they're dicks, narrow minded or snobbish and probably others would be more accurate.

Personally I don't really care either way, I just don't think there's anything particularly noble about limiting your field of opponents and being exclusionary over something that petty.

Having a painted army is an attainable goal.

Anyone who says they don't have the time/skill/money to achieve it really is saying they don't have the motivation.

Surely dismissing others as dicks because they want to play painted forces on nice tables is narrow minded. Particularly so when all games in the last 30 years are marketed on that basis with colour pictures of models on tables making it a fairly reasonable aspiration to meet.

I'm sure allot of the people that find painting an unobtainable goal still find time for computer games, TV and Dakka.

 notprop wrote:
Surely dismissing others as dicks because they want to play painted forces on nice tables is narrow minded.

Just to be clear, I never said *I* think that, rather I think KK's use of the word "blame" wasn't really an appropriate description of the emotions one would feel.

Deadnight wrote:

All I can say is keep it up Gordie. If you find yourself near Edinburgh, send me a message. There’s a beer in it.

Damn. Was just reading your post thinking 'this sounds like a good guy' but you're literally at the opposite end of the country...

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Anyone who says they don't have the time/skill/money to achieve it really is saying they don't have the motivation.

Anyone who generalises is a sandwich short of a picnic.

Every time we have one of these threads, some people who don't care about playing with unpainted armies bring up words like "snob" and "elitism", and a new strand of argument is that people who don't like to play with unpainted armies are in some way harming the hobby by excludinng people who want to play with unpainted armies.

That makes me feel "blamed" for wanting to play with painted armies and not wanting to play with unpainted armies.

All I am doing is following the hobby of playing with painted toy soldiers.

We wrote:
I don't mind requiring me to paint my armies but if you criticise my paint job or give me flak for using three colors I'm out. (I usually have no problem with this but I have a life. I work I have kids etc. Most of my armies are painted but if I buy something new and want to play with it gray or primed and you get an issue then we aren't gaming together.

I get that playing an all gray unprimed army sucks but when you see how many miniatures I have painted and the level of my paintings you will see I try. I am not rushing a paint job just to field a unit. I have been in this hobby for 25 years and plan to be in it until I die. I take my time painting because a model lasts a lifetime. It gets painted when I am ready and may or may not be partially painted when I field it.

I'm pretty much the same; I usually aim for at least 3 colors before fielding a force. That's normally a colored primer, skin and metal, since that'll usually pass the 4' test. I'd love to field showcase quality painted and based units, but in reality it's never going to happen; I get maybe 5-10 hours of hobby time a month and I'm not going to spend that being guilted about games

That said, it's your house and club so you can do what you want (and I admire your groups commitment). But realistically I'd only ever get a game if I paid a painter, or borrowed an army.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Peregrine wrote:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
I'd much rather play against an army that's 90% unpainted because the person is actually trying to get them painted well instead of rushed to the table.

Most people are looking at upwards of a year to paint an army really well.

Of course let's be honest here: most of the people with unpainted armies have them because they don't care about painting, not because they're making steady progress on some awesome painting that takes a lot of time per model. I've seen a lot of armies that are mostly gray plastic with maybe a model or two painted to a very low standard, lots of pieces broken off from being thrown carelessly into boxes, and a very obvious lack of interest in the models beyond their use as game tokens. But I've seen very few that have some gray plastic alongside well-painted models, and an owner that clearly cares about them.

Are you sure? How do you define "care about painting"?

I'd imagine most people playing with unpainted armies, assuming they are progressing, are just struggling to get it done quickly enough. I'm a glacially slow painter but I love doing it. It took me 3 campaign months to get a 15mm army (maybe 200 minis) from primed to finished. I'd also love to spend 4 hours a night painting, but I work full time and have a baby, so most of my "leisure time" is spend catching up on all the stuff you can't do with an awake baby (housework).

So it's not laziness, it tends to just be other priorities. I dislike the idea that you can only be a gamer if you're willing to dedicate full-time hours to the hobby. It is a hobby, after all.

Herzlos wrote:

We wrote:

So it's not laziness, it tends to just be other priorities. I dislike the idea that you can only be a gamer if you're willing to dedicate full-time hours to the hobby. It is a hobby, after all.

Yep, its a hobby. An escape. A pastime. Its not a job, although some people do seem to treat it as such. If its not enjoyable to spend time on, then its not much of a hobby!

To those that play with unpainted armies I'd like to ask the question...
Have you ever played a game with two fully painted armies on a fully terrained battlefield?
There really is nothing quite like it, the sense of satisfaction is something else.
If you've never painted an army and never felt the rush and tried to control the adrenaline whilst applying the final transfer, painting the last eye lens or painting the last base rim you're missing out.

 Alex Kolodotschko wrote:
To those that play with unpainted armies I'd like to ask the question...
Have you ever played a game with two fully painted armies on a fully terrained battlefield?
There really is nothing quite like it, the sense of satisfaction is something else.
If you've never painted an army and never felt the rush and tried to control the adrenaline whilst applying the final transfer, painting the last eye lens or painting the last base rim you're missing out.

Yup. I've got fully painted armies for 3 systems, and used custom-built tables (mostly at WHW). Painted is obviously better, no-one is debating that, but for a lot of people it's just not realistic. Especially when game bloat is a factor.

 Alex Kolodotschko wrote:
To those that play with unpainted armies I'd like to ask the question...
Have you ever played a game with two fully painted armies on a fully terrained battlefield?
There really is nothing quite like it, the sense of satisfaction is something else.
If you've never painted an army and never felt the rush and tried to control the adrenaline whilst applying the final transfer, painting the last eye lens or painting the last base rim you're missing out.

Ummm... yeah.... no.

I mean, it's nice to play with painted armies, it's nice to paint a whole army. But it's not so much a sense of satisfaction as "well thank feth that's over, if I ever have to open another pot of <insert main army colour here> again I'm going to gouge my eyes out".

I get more satisfaction when I finish singular impressive models than I get when I add boring old goblin #238 to regiment #6 to finally reach X number of points.

I've painted a few armies over the past couple of decades, played countless games both fully painted and semi-painted. After all this time I don't really care much either way if a game consists of painted models or unpainted models. I play with painted models myself because I simply have them available to me, if I didn't spend time playing half painted armies I wouldn't now have painted armies to play with so I'm not going to turn down a game from someone else who hasn't fully painted their force. It's the character of the person I'm playing with that I care more about.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Every time we have one of these threads, some people who don't care about playing with unpainted armies bring up words like "snob" and "elitism", and a new strand of argument is that people who don't like to play with unpainted armies are in some way harming the hobby by excludinng people who want to play with unpainted armies.

That makes me feel "blamed" for wanting to play with painted armies and not wanting to play with unpainted armies.

All I am doing is following the hobby of playing with painted toy soldiers.

I get what KK is saying. KK has never come off as a snob to me, in the time that I've been here.

He seems to prefer, like I do, to play with and against painted armies. I have happily played against unpainted armies:Long time players who don't give a gak about painted, new players just in the hobby, and long time players with a new army. I've enjoyed those players and had fun; however, looking down at the table of grey plastic just looks like something is missing.

He has also been around this forum long enough to know that a lengthy version of this conversation comes up 2-3 times per year. Everytime, you have rational people on one side saying "I would rather play against painted models." Rational people on the other side saying "I get it, but I don't like to paint." And then there are the irrational people who post "Paint your gak, you lazy fether!" or "You're a stuck-up snob! Play my unpainted Necrons or you're just a butt-sniffer."

If we could lay off the name calling here and get back to the OP's post: "Hi. My budies and I made a club, and it's painted only or GTFO."

Nothing wrong with it. I hope your group does well!

 Alex Kolodotschko wrote:
To those that play with unpainted armies I'd like to ask the question...
Have you ever played a game with two fully painted armies on a fully terrained battlefield?
There really is nothing quite like it, the sense of satisfaction is something else.
If you've never painted an army and never felt the rush and tried to control the adrenaline whilst applying the final transfer, painting the last eye lens or painting the last base rim you're missing out.

Yes I have played with full armies on grand tables. also played with painted armies on crappy tables and unpainted armies on wonderful tables.

 Kanluwen wrote:

I feel like it's also worth mentioning that sometimes "Sorry, I'd prefer to play against a painted army" is a great way for someone to avoid playing a game with someone they dislike but they don't want to cause a scene.

*files that gem away for later use*

Crispy78 wrote:

Deadnight wrote:

All I can say is keep it up Gordie. If you find yourself near Edinburgh, send me a message. There’s a beer in it.

Damn. Was just reading your post thinking 'this sounds like a good guy' but you're literally at the opposite end of the country...

Oh aye, As soon as I offer a beer, and then everyone wants to jump on!

Seriously though it's not that far. Just head north! When it gets bloody cold and wet, and you see men wearing skirts and everyone speaking in tongues, you're probably there.

That's hardly fair; it's summer this week.

I didn't realise you were in Edinburgh, but you're safe as I don't really drink anyway. I'll hit you up for tea and a scone some time though

Herzlos wrote:
That's hardly fair; it's summer this week.

I didn't realise you were in Edinburgh, but you're safe as I don't really drink anyway. I'll hit you up for tea and a scone some time though

You do realise 'summer in Scotland' essentially means more daylight to stare at the dirty grey storm clouds squeezing out rain, right?

Tea and scones sounds good. But you'd better bloody well pronounce 'scone' right!

like 's-gone?

And I nearly got burnt the other day. By that burning sky-ball. At least it'll be gone tomorrow and we can go back to grey.

Do you work in the city?

I see no problem with it myself and I don't have my army painted. I don't like painting, never have enjoyed it. My buddy is actually painting my models for me. He loves to paint but for me the modeling part of it, just holds no love in me. I like the game. That's really it. That being said, if its your club that you're running, they are your rules and I wouldn't think you're being unfair or a snob. I'd just go find a different club and everyone can have fun and be happy. But that's just my 2-cents


Automatically Appended Next Post:
To add, I truly think anyone who would get seriously upset over that is somewhat hypocritical being that it seems to me that they think they're above your rules.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Having a painted army is an attainable goal.

Anyone who says they don't have the time/skill/money to achieve it really is saying they don't have the motivation.

I don't quite agree with this statement. I know several wargamers who do not have the time/money to paint. They don't have the money to even buy GW models. As for time, I used to work constantly, at a job that was an hour away from my house. Even if I had wanted to paint (and like I said I'll admit I had no desire) I couldn't. I didn't do anything in those days. I went to work, came home and slept for work the next day (desperately trying to get promoted). That being said I doubt too many people live their lives like that, so it'd be more like me who would have the inability for a time, but later would have the time.

Zarroc1733 wrote:
I see no problem with it myself and I don't have my army painted. I don't like painting, never have enjoyed it. My buddy is actually painting my models for me. He loves to paint but for me the modeling part of it, just holds no love in me. I like the game. That's really it. That being said, if its your club that you're running, they are your rules and I wouldn't think you're being unfair or a snob. I'd just go find a different club and everyone can have fun and be happy. But that's just my 2-cents.

I really like this post because it represents my polar opposite while still being fair. It's important to recognize that many prefer one side of the hobby over another without getting bent out of shape about it. I've been working on my current army for almost four years and every single model has been fully painted to the absolute best of my ability. I only starting playing it a few months ago.

Painting and modeling is what I love to do, but I'm not a tactician. A 10 year old who's paying more attention to playing Angry Birds on their phone than to a game would curb-stomp me in two turns, three if I'm lucky. That said, I fully respect those guys who delve deeply into the nuances of rules and unit synergies. They study all of the other armies and units in their free time as carefully as they study their opponent's next move on the tabletop. Being good at gaming requires every bit as much research, patience, and practice as being good at painting. Given the limited amount of free time we all have, it's very likely that excelling at one aspect of the hobby will cause you to fall short in the other, at least in the short term.

Given enough time, I personally feel that even a hardcore gamer should get their army painted to at least tabletop standard (whatever that means). But I also feel that given the same amount of time, the hardcore painter should also make an effort to, at a minimum, broadly understand the rules and the capabilities of their own army so that a game of average size doesn't take half a day to play. If his army is a grey hoard and I suck at the game, we're both making sacrifices when we play each other. As a matter of mutual respect, we should both try to address our weaknesses so that we both have a better gaming experience the next time we play.

These sacrifices shouldn't be a source of conflict, but rather a catalyst for conversation. Games are so much more fun when there's spirited dialogue involved. My opponents have been very gracious and have taken the time to help me get better at building lists and playing the game, including warning me in advance when I'm about to do something incredibly dumb. By the same token, I often spend time talking with my opponents about how to achieve a desired effect or why a certain technique didn't work out quite they way they'd hoped. At the end of the game, we've both learned something and that's what makes it fun.

My point is that a group of painters creating their own group so that they can game with like-minded hobbyists is no more wrong than competitive players creating their own group so that they develop their skills and talk tactics. It isn't about exclusion or elitism, it's about engaging that part of the hobby that you enjoy most. That said, it's also important to step outside of your particular niche and be willing to play with those who don't share your views.

Your club and your rules, nothing snobby. BUT like others have been saying, i'm a slow painted, minimum for me is undercoat but if i'm using that undercoated unit a lot then i would make an effort to work on it a bit more. I remember having to paint up my second vendetta before a tournament deadline, i did a great job on it. when i got there i played a un-coated DE army. I don't get annoyed but its far nicer playing a painted army. It brings the plays together and makes the game more fun i feel.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:I get more satisfaction when I finish singular impressive models than I get when I add boring old goblin #238 to regiment #6 to finally reach X number of points.

And therein lies the disconnect. Why are these goblins not a handful of new recruits to Skelekrull's Snickety Raidy Party, each one more bloodthirsty and hell bent on stealing good stuff than the next adding bulk to Warlord Smashfether's neverending tide of greenskins?
That make's things far more fun for me, of course when they get blown off the battlefield Turn 1 of their first game by a Hellblaster Battery it's a little discouraging but it certainly helps to 'Forge the Narrative'.

The discussion seems to parallel the "competitive" vs "fluff" debates that crop up just as often as this.
It can lead to viewpoints of extremes.

For some, the main element of the "hobby" is the game.
I am sure if they could, pushing cardboard chits would be OK.
Some would argue the "competitive" element of 40k is not all that compelling.
- It allows for quickly getting into the game.
- Greater accessibility for new players.
- More flexibility in army composition / changing lists.
- Less time spent/wasted developing skills considered "unimportant".

For some, the main element of the "hobby" is the look of it, an interactive diorama of sorts.
Literally the only thing that sets a limit on how much is done is remembering that the models have to be handled.
Some would argue that more time was spent on making it look pretty than competitive.
- The game is represented by models and few hobbies involving models consider them complete until painted (to look like what they represent).
- The model better represents the object portrayed.
- Some measure of accomplishment to be had seeing the end result: it is no small measure of "work".
- It is visually pleasing to the eye which can be attractive to potential new players.

I am sure most of us fit somewhere in the middle of the above viewpoints.
We all set a minimum standard for ourselves of what is "good enough".

Setting rules at a fellow's house is just a means to attract "like minded individuals" which is not to be underestimated.

I feel I had hit a low moment playing a fellow with largely bases with only legs on them for the basic troopers.
I think this is why I lean toward the painted end of things... I never want to play that again... call me a snob, I dare you.

 Alex Kolodotschko wrote:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:I get more satisfaction when I finish singular impressive models than I get when I add boring old goblin #238 to regiment #6 to finally reach X number of points.

And therein lies the disconnect. Why are these goblins not a handful of new recruits to Skelekrull's Snickety Raidy Party, each one more bloodthirsty and hell bent on stealing good stuff than the next adding bulk to Warlord Smashfether's neverending tide of greenskins?

Even if so, how does that make them stand out from the previous 237 new recruits, each more bloodthirsty and hell-bent? Do they all have a backstory?

I can see your point, if you're talking about a skirmish force of a 30 gobbo raiding party. But when there's 240 of them? (6 units of 20)

 Nodri wrote:

Zarroc1733 wrote:
I see no problem with it myself and I don't have my army painted. I don't like painting, never have enjoyed it. My buddy is actually painting my models for me. He loves to paint but for me the modeling part of it, just holds no love in me. I like the game. That's really it. That being said, if its your club that you're running, they are your rules and I wouldn't think you're being unfair or a snob. I'd just go find a different club and everyone can have fun and be happy. But that's just my 2-cents.

I really like this post because it represents my polar opposite while still being fair. It's important to recognize that many prefer one side of the hobby over another without getting bent out of shape about it. I've been working on my current army for almost four years and every single model has been fully painted to the absolute best of my ability. I only starting playing it a few months ago.

Painting and modeling is what I love to do, but I'm not a tactician A 10 year old who's paying more attention to playing Angry Birds on their phone than to a game would curb-stomp me in two turns, three if I'm lucky. That said, I fully respect those guys who delve deeply into the nuances of rules and unit synergies. They study all of the other armies and units in their free time as carefully as they study their opponent's next move on the tabletop. Being good at gaming requires every bit as much research, patience, and practice as being good at painting. Given the limited amount of free time we all have, it's very likely that excelling at one aspect of the hobby will cause you to fall short in the other, at least in the short term.

Given enough time, I personally feel that even a hardcore gamer should get their army painted to at least tabletop standard (whatever that means). But I also feel that given the same amount of time, the hardcore painter should also make an effort to, at a minimum, broadly understand the rules and the capabilities of their own army so that a game of average size doesn't take half a day to play. If his army is a grey hoard and I suck at the game, we're both making sacrifices when we play each other. As a matter of mutual respect, we should both try to address our weaknesses so that we both have a better gaming experience the next time we play.

These sacrifices shouldn't be a source of conflict, but rather a catalyst for conversation. Games are so much more fun when there's spirited dialogue involved. My opponents have been very gracious and have taken the time to help me get better at building lists and playing the game, including warning me in advance when I'm about to do something incredibly dumb. By the same token, I often spend time talking with my opponents about how to achieve a desired effect or why a certain technique didn't work out quite they way they'd hoped. At the end of the game, we've both learned something and that's what makes it fun.

My point is that a group of painters creating their own group so that they can game with like-minded hobbyists is no more wrong than competitive players creating their own group so that they develop their skills a talk tactics. It isn't about exclusion or elitism, it's about engaging that part of the hobby that you enjoy most. That said, it's also important to step outside of your particular niche and be willing to play with those who don't share your views.

I wish I could exalt this a dozen times. We are agreed even though we are on the opposite sides of the hobby spectrum.