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.

nkelsch wrote:

 SilverMK2 wrote:

 fullheadofhair wrote:
Seeing as we are being open and honest, considering how those models are painted I would rather play with unpainted models.

May I ask why?

Edit: I see you think that the time spent per model isn't that high but is the result really that terrible?

Yeah, those Eldar are in no way 'bad' especially when the "pot calling the kettle black" models in his gallery are way worse.

Painted models show effort, and you can't leap to a amazing paintjob out of the gate. People will need to paint lots of gloppy models in their career to learn to paint better and send the old models to the stripping bath. I would rather play against someone's attempted paint, and expose him to other models so he can learn techniques and grow opposed to 'quit' and just say 'unpainted greys for my valuable models because a bad paint job is damaging my expensive models'.

Oh silly boy - as well you know that none of those models in there are finished by any means. I just use Dakka to host stuff I am selling as too lazy to do it else where - and the finished stuff I never actually painted myself. How can you tell? It's painted :-D .

I have actually recently stopped playing mainly because I hate the rules. Sold practically every thing I own. Now just paint individual models for fun when I can fit in the time and sold practically everything I own - I would cheerful admit to 90% of all my models being half finished. No biggie - that is now my approach to the hobby. Actually branching out to military models where I don't have to even care about other peole.

Most of the points you are making are 100% correct. Except you are missing the whole point.

He threw up a picture basically saying look, my unit is painted and it took me 20 mins so you can do it too and judging others. I am saying, actually, if that is all the effort you can be bothered put in I would rather not see it.

The newbie who starts and paints and wants to learn should be encourage and supported by the community. Agree with that 100%. As I said earlier - I will admire their efforts far more than the quick drybrush and wash call it good people who then sit there all smug because their army is ahem "painted".

The other point, some what tongue it check, is their is always someone more elitiest than you. I wonder if the person who threw up that photo might think twice about judging others after having someone openly judge him in front of others.

 fullheadofhair wrote:
The reason why is I find models that have just been sprayed, washed and drybrushed and left unhighlighted with details unpicked out jarring to the eye. I prefer unpainted models to poor paint jobs - purely an aestetic thing and purely my own opinion. Not usually something I ever share with people. I absolutely hate seeing beautifully crafted miniatures sloppily painted with people saying this whole unit only took me two mins todo and hey, it has the three color minimum.

Sure, I appreciate that - however, I stated that was what I did and how long it took to block out the models and get a minimum looking tabletop model - I have since gone back through and added more detailing, which obviously takes longer but that was not the point I was making, ie that it doesn't take long to paint a model to the point where you have a unit/army that, on the tabletop, looks pretty good. Which after all is what we are looking for. I'm not going to stick my head 2 inches away from your models the entire game

I'd be interested to hear your thoughts having clicked through to the gallery version of that image and having zoomed in to take a look more closely, obviously assuming that you have not done so already. I personally consider those models, with a few details picked out, based, etc, to be reasonable tabletop standard. My CSM, which are very poorly photographed in my own gallery I have to say, are painted, to me, to a similar standard and I have had positive responses whenever I have played - even narrowly missed out on beset painted at the last (?) Warhammer World DakkaDakka event

Wouldnt affect my decison to play with you in the slightest. Certain wouldn't share my inner thoughts on it with you.

Nor I with you, should you show up with the Grey Legion, commanded by Captain Grey de Grey, he of the missing head and arm. I would prefer it if you turned up with painted army, but hey

nkelsch wrote:

 fullheadofhair wrote:


Which goes to what I am saying about treating each other with respect and respecting how they choose to enjoy their hobby. But it goes both ways. So called "paint nazi" and the foams at the mouth non painter are just as bad as each other. The key is to find people who either have the same approach or are comfortable stepping out of their approach to the hobby.

I find the fact that people can get so bent out of shape in a modelling/ wargaming hobby quite amazing and totally not understandable in the slightest.

But there is a difference between painters and non-painters.

Non-painting can have a direct, quantifiable documented impact on sales within a store, and many times it is in the store owners best interest to require painting, or minimum standards during some or all of the 'open gaming'. There is also an issue with theft which requiring 'primed' helps protect against as often a store is hard to keep an eye if someone pops a blister and assembles a 25$ model vs brought it from home. 'primed' makes it easy to distinguish.

And when someone pays rent on the air you breathe, he has the right to tell you the 'correct' way to hobby while in his store. If that is with a minor rule change to encourage painting, then there is a 'wrong way' to hobby.

Showing up with a 100% painted army never imposes upon anyone. You never are never imposing on the store owner and hurting his space usage or sales, you are never imposing on opponents and burdening them with unclear greys with no visual contrast to help distinguish with in-game play, you are never helping provide a 'cloak' for those who wish to commit theft through obscurity in a crowd.

If you don't like it, play somewhere else. Problem solved. If a store wants to force or encourage painting via ways that 'offend' you then get out and you won't have to be offended.

A store owner has the right to do what he pleases. You either agree or patronize elsewhere. No issues there.

I am talking opinions and my attitude in theory to the painted v's unpainted and more horrified at the way people are trying to define a hobby and force their idea of what is a bobby on others. Despite me saying my opinions wouldn't affrect a decision to play a person you seem determined to show that I would be - no need to make stuff up.

If you find an unpainted army a "burden", don't play against them. Be open as to why but respect the other person opinion and approach to the hobby - is it really that hard?

It is possible to disagree with people and not foam at the mouth.

nkelsch wrote:

This 'I don't like it and it wouldn't work in my area therefor it is a bad failed policy everywhere' is what is not valid

I didn't say that so I assume it wasn't directed at me, despite attaching it to what I did say.

All I can really do is speculate and throw out options for both sides of the argument, sense I don't hobby there and I don't know the exact reason for these rules.

Also I think the manditory Waagh is to add levity. As the topic has already proven, some people take this game a little to seriously in a casual setting.

Honestly I find the rule stupid. If a new would be player walks in to a store and sees a incredibly well painted army they will get intimidated by what they think is the standard for the game and not want to play until they have a army painted just as good, this can cause them to feel overwhelmed and drop the hobby because it is too much work. I have had this happen to a multitude of my friends and not want to get into the game due to this standard that they see, when compared to the armies that have a mixture of some well painted some just basecoated/primed and some grey models that feel much more relaxed about getting into the game knowing that they can play whenever and paint at their own pace without being critiqued bu others for fielding unpainted or unfinished models.

Our GW manager prefers that you paint to a high standard and only have a bit of your army painted rather then have an army full of a poorer quality spread tthrough an entire army

TLR Quality over Quantity causes less intimidation to people getting into the game since they know that they can paint at their own pace without being critiqued for unpainted minis

Wait does that mean for every game there, that oily stinking teens and preteens with stained dorito fingers are going to be constantly shouting Waugh!?

Sweet baby Jebus we just found the Terrordome. Forget waterboarding. Send the captured terrorists there.

 fullheadofhair wrote:
I wonder if the person who threw up that photo might think twice about judging others after having someone openly judge him in front of others.

I'm not judging anyone based on their army paint status - I am happy to game. Certainly I get the chance rarely enough that as long as the army is assembled I'd be happy enough to play you

As to being judged on my painting? When I read the initial comment, yeah, it did hurt a little, but I'm a big boy and can take it. It also helps knowing that I think my models look pretty good. As I have repeatedly said in this thread, I am a) slow at painting and b) don't really like painting. Most of my focus on techniques has been on getting a good looking result quickly - and I think given the limitations of that my models generally look pretty nice. Do I spend more time once I have the basics down going back and adding details, improving figures etc? Certainly - I would imagine most people do. Would I field my models having spent 10-20 minutes per model to get them to a 3 colour minimum? No, I wouldn't, as I want them to look better than that. Would I be bothered if someone else did? No, not really.

So, no, I am happy for people to judge my minis and painting as they would the minis and painting of anyone else. If I put up that picture and made no mention of how long it took to get them to that stage (which is probably around 20-30 minutes per model? I paint them over so long a period of time and on a production line so it is hard to keep track), would you make the same comments? I would guess not.

This is the best thing I've seen come out of a GW store in a long while. Would game there.

Anougher thing some people play 40k for the stratagy aspect of the game not the hobby aspect. Like myself I love the game because it challenges my mind, but i have very poor eye sight and hand eye cordination so untill recently I have not really got past just putting the models together. This is because other people really like to detail and paint minis themselves if I ever want to trade or sell my minis. And I have a wide range of armys I am intrested in so I like to be able to trade models and my painting sucks. But recently I have started to slowly convert a dreadknight to a knealing position with a blade coming out of one arms gauntlet and the other arm has strapped on the heavy incinerater, The dk will also have a cloak and a loin cloth when its done. This has actually been fun but really slow procces because of some physical disabilities.

I suppose it some way that it is logical in a business sense. I really can't begrudge the store that option, can't say I'd make the same one, but that is their choice nonetheless.

Some responses in here however, read as: Stop enjoying this game the wrong way/different than me.

 Mastiff wrote:

 Krellnus wrote:

Instead of having this honestly stupid rule, reward people who paint, instead of penalising those who don't.

They are rewarding people who paint. Their units are more effective than unpainted units. It's really just semantics. If each painted unit got a re-roll, it still means the unpainted units are penalized because they don't share in the bonus. Wailing and gnashing of teeth would still issue forth from the owners of the unpainted armies.

It is not a reward for people who paint, it is a punishment for people who don't paint. It isn't, "Painted armies get +1 armor save" or "Painted armies gain +1 inch of movement." It is painted armies have hatred for unpainted armies. Hatred, while a rule in the game, is a snarky, mean-spirited dig on people who have unpainted armies.

Unpainted modes are unwelcome. They are so unwelcome that painted models hate them to such a fury that they kill more ruthlessly and efficiently. It is a not very subtle ostracism of people with unpainted models. Do you understand what I mean? Hatred. Not 'Preferred Enemy' even, but Hatred. And don't go saying that it is just a rule in the game. It is a rule in the game chosen for its rhetorical value as much as its value in the game.

It is not even an efficient bonus because it only applies in close combat. It is a penalty for people with unpainted models, and more importantly, it communicates that unpainted models are bad, something to be embarrassed about, and not something that is welcome in the store. It is not positive reinforcement. It is the essence of negative reinforcement.

Don't paint because you want to earn something offered, paint because you want to avoid being stigmatized. Note that the rule only applies against unpainted models, so if everyone in the store has painted models, nobody gets a bonus. So no, it is not something to be earned. It is both a penalty in the game and a means to ostracize. In fact, it is particularly insidious in that it encourages connection with the hegemonic authority by immediately giving those who paint their models the power to turn a negative influence they were faced with against someone else.

It is not so dissimilar from hazing, and if you want to think of it like that, fine. But I don't think it is good for the hobby to go around hazing people interested in the hobby. You wouldn't trash someone in a demo game as a way to encourage them to get better at playing would you? You wouldn't give people with a bad win/loss record penalties in their games until they got better would you? Do you think that would help grow the hobby?

If you wouldn't do that, why do it for painting?

If I played there...

I won't allow anyone to use their army unless it was painted to codex colors.

I won't allow my opponent to use any special rules unless their army was painted to the same or better standards than my own.

I would have a 2+ invul on all my models that I think are cool looking.

My weapons are all twin linked and have rending and unlimited range because I say so.

If you take allies against me you auto lose the game.

Totally fair and in the spirit of GW.

Some of this thread is just surreal. I paint my stuff, I like seeing well-painted miniatures on the other side, but I'm here to play the game first, and I get that some people just don't enjoy painting. Heck, I don't enjoy painting big units with uniform schemes (I have to push myself to get Warmachine units done, and they're twelve dudes maximum), preferring characterful individual models or big creatures, so I'd really struggle to get a 40-model WHF unit done. FWIW, I certainly wouldn't play anywhere with passive-aggressive paint snobbery.

My daughter took up rowing last year. She and some of her fellow girl rowers were moaning about getting wet and muddy. I told them they would most likely find there is quite a lot of water involved in the sport.

It's the same with tabletop miniature wargaming and paint.

The store isn't pressing for passive-aggressive paint snobbery. They just want to have the game represented by models that are painted. They didn't say your army had to be painted to such and such standard or codex colors or anything. Just painted. And it's only a penalty for those models you don't have painted, not your whole army, so it's not even that heavy of a penalty if you are in the process of adding new units. its only an issue if you don't paint anything.

weeble1000 wrote:

 Mastiff wrote:

 Krellnus wrote:

Instead of having this honestly stupid rule, reward people who paint, instead of penalising those who don't.

They are rewarding people who paint. Their units are more effective than unpainted units. It's really just semantics. If each painted unit got a re-roll, it still means the unpainted units are penalized because they don't share in the bonus. Wailing and gnashing of teeth would still issue forth from the owners of the unpainted armies.

It is not a reward for people who paint, it is a punishment for people who don't paint. It isn't, "Painted armies get +1 armor save" or "Painted armies gain +1 inch of movement." It is painted armies have hatred for unpainted armies. Hatred, while a rule in the game, is a snarky, mean-spirited dig on people who have unpainted armies.

Unpainted modes are unwelcome. They are so unwelcome that painted models hate them to such a fury that they kill more ruthlessly and efficiently. It is a not very subtle ostracism of people with unpainted models. Do you understand what I mean? Hatred. Not 'Preferred Enemy' even, but Hatred. And don't go saying that it is just a rule in the game. It is a rule in the game chosen for its rhetorical value as much as its value in the game.

It is not even an efficient bonus because it only applies in close combat. It is a penalty for people with unpainted models, and more importantly, it communicates that unpainted models are bad, something to be embarrassed about, and not something that is welcome in the store. It is not positive reinforcement. It is the essence of negative reinforcement.

Don't paint because you want to earn something offered, paint because you want to avoid being stigmatized. Note that the rule only applies against unpainted models, so if everyone in the store has painted models, nobody gets a bonus. So no, it is not something to be earned. It is both a penalty in the game and a means to ostracize. In fact, it is particularly insidious in that it encourages connection with the hegemonic authority by immediately giving those who paint their models the power to turn a negative influence they were faced with against someone else.

It is not so dissimilar from hazing, and if you want to think of it like that, fine. But I don't think it is good for the hobby to go around hazing people interested in the hobby. You wouldn't trash someone in a demo game as a way to encourage them to get better at playing would you? You wouldn't give people with a bad win/loss record penalties in their games until they got better would you? Do you think that would help grow the hobby?

If you wouldn't do that, why do it for painting?

Good god, I'm blinded by the hyperbole.

Yes, I'm sure there are some would-be gamers who would be stigmatized and embarrassed by the hatred exemplified by snarky, mean-spirited hazing , but I suspect those people may not be suited to leave their homes to be in public. Most others would just suck it up and play the game.

Let me ask you this; do you feel an outright ban on unpainted models would be preferable?

weeble1000 wrote:
Do you understand what I mean? Hatred. Not 'Preferred Enemy' even, but Hatred. ...It is a rule in the game chosen for its rhetorical value....

It is particularly insidious in that it encourages connection with the hegemonic authority....

It is not so dissimilar from hazing...

Great point. That people could contemplate such cruelty to little metal (or finecast) figures is unthinkable. Oh, and definitely hegemonic. Who is that store manager, Tom Kirby?

 DeffDred wrote:
If I played there...

You don't get to enforce house rules when you don't own the house or pay the rent on it

I won't allow anyone to use their army unless it was painted to codex colors.

I won't allow my opponent to use any special rules unless their army was painted to the same or better standards than my own.

I would have a 2+ invul on all my models that I think are cool looking.

My weapons are all twin linked and have rending and unlimited range because I say so.

If you take allies against me you auto lose the game.

Totally fair and in the spirit of GW.

When you run a FLGS, club, or have people to your house... you can make all the house rules you wish to impose your way of playing on others... and they can vote with their feet/wallet if they want to play there by your rules or not.

You don't get to go to someone else's house/store/club and say 'you have rules I don't like? Let me make up rules and be a poor guest because I want to make a scene!'

nkelsch wrote:

 DeffDred wrote:
If I played there...

You don't get to enforce house rules when you don't own the house or pay the rent on it

I won't allow anyone to use their army unless it was painted to codex colors.

I won't allow my opponent to use any special rules unless their army was painted to the same or better standards than my own.

I would have a 2+ invul on all my models that I think are cool looking.

My weapons are all twin linked and have rending and unlimited range because I say so.

If you take allies against me you auto lose the game.

Totally fair and in the spirit of GW.

When you run a FLGS, club, or have people to your house... you can make all the house rules you wish to impose your way of playing on others... and they can vote with their feet/wallet if they want to play there by your rules or not.

You don't get to go to someone else's house/store/club and say 'you have rules I don't like? Let me make up rules and be a poor guest because I want to make a scene!'

Correct me if I am wrong, but I do believe he was being sarcastic about the matter. (Exaggerating the point of penalizing people who do things you don't like and patronizing the random rules-making.)

 Mastiff wrote:

Good god, I'm blinded by the hyperbole.

Yes, I'm sure there are some would-be gamers who would be stigmatize and embarrassed by the hatred exemplified by snarky, mean-spirited hazing , but I suspect those people may not be suited to leave their homes to be in public. Most others would just suck it up and play the game.

Let me ask you this; do you feel an outright ban on unpainted models would be preferable?

What hyperbole? You don't think it would be embarrassing to be in a place that has a rule posted saying that painted models hate your unpainted models? I thought I explained my point pretty clearly. For those of you thinking that it is positive reinforcement to give all painted models Hatred for unpainted models, it is objectively not positive reinforcement.

I do not see any hyperbole in explaining why that is factually correct. You may not like the word "stigmatize," but it is an accurate word to use to describe the effect of the rule. What word would you use? Motivating? But why is it motivating? That is the question I was specifically addressing; i.e. positive reinforcement versus negative reinforcement. It is, and is clearly intended, to motivate by penalizing and stigmatizing players that play with unpainted models.

Stigmatize is merely a way to say marking or identifying something as being bad or undesirable. By giving painted models Hatred for unpainted models, the unpainted models are marked as being undesirable and by extension the player, for the actual models have no agency or control in the actions they perform or the state that they are in. A model cannot paint itself. It is the player that paints them, and thus the player that bears the burden of their unpainted nature.

Nor in the imaginary world the models are used to represent are the characters the models represent "unpainted." It would not make logical sense in the fictional universe. So there is no reason for the painted models to "hate" unpainted models. The models therefore represent the undesirability of the painted models, and not merely undesirability, but hatred. There is your hyperbole. I did not choose that word; whoever wrote on that board chose to use the word "Hatred." And as I said, Hatred was not the only available option if one's goal was merely to provide some benefit to painted armies/penalty to unpainted armies. In fact there were literally hundreds of other options. And yet "Hatred" was specifically chosen.

Logically, it was chosen to represent someone's hatred for unpainted models, presumably whoever wrote the rule and by extension, those who support it.

I really shouldn't have to delve into the issue in this depth. The rule is intended to make people 'feel bad' when they don't have a painted army. It is not intended to make them want to 'feel good' by painting their army. Hence, negative reinforcement of norms conceived of and enforced by an authority figure. This is why I think it is mean-spirited.

I would not feel welcome in a place in which my models are subjected to (imagined) brutal, hate-fueled physical violence meant to symbolically punish me for not adhering to arbitrarily normative behavior. Imagined though it may be, there is indeed hate behind that "Hatred," whether or not the person who wrote that rule is consciously aware of it.

Would it feel better if the rule were called "Disdain"?

Hivefleet Oblivion wrote:

weeble1000 wrote:
Do you understand what I mean? Hatred. Not 'Preferred Enemy' even, but Hatred. ...It is a rule in the game chosen for its rhetorical value....

It is particularly insidious in that it encourages connection with the hegemonic authority....

It is not so dissimilar from hazing...

Great point. That people could contemplate such cruelty to little metal (or finecast) figures is unthinkable. Oh, and definitely hegemonic. Who is that store manager, Tom Kirby?

I'm sorry guy, I'll try to use smaller words in the future.

That dude totes runs the shop man. He can, like, kick you out and stuff. So if you, like, want to hang out there, like maybe 'cause you got bros that are there, you would feel, like, pressure to act right and stuff. Like how you're not 'sposed to throw popcorn in the movies. Only this is, like, if the move people said you had to sit way up at the front if you were with a fat chick.

So what am I supposed to do if my girl is big? When we sit down there everybody knows why we're there. That aint right, bra!

weeble1000 wrote:


I would not feel welcome in a place in which my models are subjected to (imagined) brutal, hate-fueled physical violence

So why are you playing wargames then?

Are the models supposed to sing kumbaya and talk therapy-speak, so they can all feel validated?

weeble1000 545582 5941479 null wrote:

I'm sorry guy, I'll try to use smaller words in the future.

Might be a good idea. Or, if you're using longer ones like hegemony, find out what they mean?

Hivefleet Oblivion wrote:

So why are you playing wargames then?

Are the models supposed to sing kumbaya and talk therapy-speak, so they can all feel validated?

Allright, let's try again.

I enjoy imagining violence in the FICTIONAL IMAGINED PRETED world.

That is why I play WARgames.

It is enjoyable because the violence does not symbolize an attack on me personally.


Are we getting somewhere yet? Is there a meeting of the minds?

The little fake men "Hate" that my little fake men are not painted.

But hold on a minute................Little fake men can't think. Little fake men have no feelings about painting. They are fake. They, like, live in a world of my imagination.


If I IMAGINE that the FAKE PRETEND people in their FAKE PRETEND WORLD hate the enemy for NOT BEING PAINTED it is like, totally weird.

It kinda breaks the mood, right? I mean, does it make sense for the Eldar Guardian to HATE the Imperial Guardsman because he is a tiny grey plastic model with no paint?

Yea, weird, huh?

So if it is NOT the FAKE PRETEND Eldar Guardian that HATES my models, then................then.....................then.......................IT MUST BE A REAL PERSON!!!


Holy crap!!! A REAL PERSON HATES MY UNPAINTED MODELS, not an Eldar.

So that must mean the person who wrote that rule hates my unpainted models.................and is punishing me for it.

Do you really think that people hate you for not having unpainted models?

Why not simply make the unfinished armies play on unfinished plywood tables?

weeble1000 wrote:


I would not feel welcome in a place in which my models are subjected to (imagined) brutal, hate-fueled physical violence meant to symbolically punish me for not adhering to arbitrarily normative behavior. Imagined though it may be, there is indeed hate behind that "Hatred," whether or not the person who wrote that rule is consciously aware of it.

It is not arbitrary... Painted models drive sales. Arbitrary would be if there was no purpose behind it except to remove a random group for no discernible reason. There is a valid reason to isolate those models and attempt to have them not be welcome in the store and drive people to change behavior. Painting bans, minimal requirements and 'incentives' (even if they are seen as punishments) serve valid purposes from a financial point of view for store owners who want to have 'open gaming' actually benefit the store opposed to being a drain.

Also: People with Paranoid Delusions are probably not healthy to have in a social group and a risk to commercial businesses... so if such a 'rule' makes people with such paranoid delusions 'not come to the store' because they can't take a joke or don't understand jokes... that sounds like a win-win to me.

@everyone:

Please remember that this is a web forum for discussing toy soldiers.

If you find yourself upset enough to insult a stranger over toy soldiers, consider taking a break from the discussion. And keep in mind that our Rule Number One is Be Polite. If you think someone else is being rude, please hit the yellow triangle at the top right of their post to report it to the moderators.

Thanks!

weeble1000 wrote:

What hyperbole? You don't think it would be embarrassing to be in a place that has a rule posted saying that painted models hate your unpainted models? I thought I explained my point pretty clearly. For those of you thinking that it is positive reinforcement to give all painted models Hatred for unpainted models, it is objectively not positive reinforcement.

So if my painted models hate your unpainted models, your feelings are hurt?

I...

You...

You know models don't have feelings, right? There is no hatred. The models don't hate, the players don't hate. It's a store owner having a little fun to motivate players to paint their armies. If he or the players truly hated the models, they would not be allowed on the board.

Why do you believe the store owes you positive reinforcement? You keep using that term as if protecting your personal self-image should be the store's primary goal.
.

nkelsch wrote:

weeble1000 wrote:


I would not feel welcome in a place in which my models are subjected to (imagined) brutal, hate-fueled physical violence meant to symbolically punish me for not adhering to arbitrarily normative behavior. Imagined though it may be, there is indeed hate behind that "Hatred," whether or not the person who wrote that rule is consciously aware of it.

It is not arbitrary... Painted models drive sales. Arbitrary would be if there was no purpose behind it except to remove a random group for no discernible reason. There is a valid reason to isolate those models and attempt to have them not be welcome in the store and drive people to change behavior. Painting bans, minimal requirements and 'incentives' (even if they are seen as punishments) serve valid purposes from a financial point of view for store owners who want to have 'open gaming' actually benefit the store opposed to being a drain.

Also: People with Paranoid Delusions are probably not healthy to have in a social group and a risk to commercial businesses... so if such a 'rule' makes people with such paranoid delusions 'not come to the store' because they can't take a joke or don't understand jokes... that sounds like a win-win to me.

Who wants to see fat people in a movie theater, right? Fat people are ugly. Nobody likes to be around a place where there's fat people. It is better if they sit in the front then.

I do get your point though. But I would be less upset about a rule that nobody can play with unpainted miniatures. That makes sense if you are looking to keep play at your one man shop on the one available table strictly for pretty looking finished models to showcase the game.

But it is not about making sure the store looks good. It is about encouraging people to paint their models by stigmatizing them. Another option would be to have painting days, or offer to paint some of the models. How about the store owner paints one for two. You paint two models and I'll paint a third! The more you paint, the more of your models I will paint, and I can show you some neat tricks too.

How about saying that you can't play with unpainted models in the store, but you can play with the shop's painted models if you like.

My point is that making people feel bad about not having their army fully painted is a poor way to encourage people to paint their armies and ultimately bad for the hobby. Negative reinforcement is completely unnecessary.

Can we agree on that?