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.

Can't believe what I'm reading here. Are people really that worked up over this?

It's not some sort of personal attack, it’s them trying to attain a certain standard within the store without totally excluding the people who have unpainted units.

I think you'll find many other hobbies are not so forgiving. 50% of golf clubs will kick you out if you don't adhere to a dress code? Does it matter if you've bought the most expensive clubs to play with? no. Does it matter if you are imagining yourself as Tiger Woods while you hit the ball around? no, other people still see you in your daggy clothes not Tiger. It's them saying your personal taste does not meet our standards, which people find fair enough and either abide by the rule or find another club.

I suggest you do the same if it’s a huge problem for you.

weeble1000 wrote:


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.

What it is totally fluffy. Grey ghost like being are trying to invade the 40K setting, instead of using red tape or moving to a wifi-less zone. They have done the Grimdark thing and attacked with righteous fury, to keep the invasion of the grey masses at bay.

 Mastiff wrote:

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.
.

You have missed the point again. Your painted models don't hate mine because they are all fake plastic things, right? But in the context of that which they represent in one's imagination, having the Hatred rule because of unpainted enemy models is not very fluffy, right? So there's no basis for the models to hate each other that makes sense.

So the models represent the hatred of something else, something in reality. The same cold reality in which the models are not painted. Are you with me? The models represent the undesirability of the unpainted models. That undesirability comes from another real life human being.

So no, the fake plastic models do not hate anybody. Rather, the individual that wrote the rule dislikes unpainted models, finds them undesirable, and has chosen to express that with the Hatred rule. Now, if you unpack that a bit, you have a some choices.

The person who wrote the rule wanted to communicate something: unpainted models are undesirable in this area under my control. A choice was made to do that by creating a disincentive for people with unpainted models. Do this thing and this bad thing happens to you. Okay? Disincentive.

The person chose to effect that disincentive with the Hatred rule. Why? Probably because it reflects that individual's feelings. The painted models hating the unpainted models represent that individual's hatred for unpainted models. The models are unpainted because someone did not paint them, right?

Ergo the negativity is directed from one human being towards another. The store manager does not like that your models are not painted. The store manager would prefer that you paint them if you are going to play in the store. The store manager decided to influence you with a disincentive, i.e. negative reinforcement.

1: Negative reinforcement is not necessary to achieve the desired effect

2: You get more bees with honey than with vinegar.

It is unnecessary negativity that both inefficiently achieves the desired goal and causes long term harm to the business. So I think it is a pretty bad idea.

Do you get me?




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 vossyvo wrote:
Can't believe what I'm reading here. Are people really that worked up over this?

It's not some sort of personal attack, it’s them trying to attain a certain standard within the store without totally excluding the people who have unpainted units.

I think you'll find many other hobbies are not so forgiving. 50% of golf clubs will kick you out if you don't adhere to a dress code? Does it matter if you've bought the most expensive clubs to play with? no. Does it matter if you are imagining yourself as Tiger Woods while you hit the ball around? no, other people still see you in your daggy clothes not Tiger. It's them saying your personal taste does not meet our standards, which people find fair enough and either abide by the rule or find another club.

I suggest you do the same if it’s a huge problem for you.

I am actually worked up that several people seem unable to grasp a seemingly simple concept. I just think the rule is silly and less productive than something else. I would't play at such a store because there's plenty of other options, and I think the rule is a bit dickish. There's enough places to go that that most people have the option of avoiding dickishness when it comes to wargaming.

But to argue that it is positive reinforcement? That I somehow think the models hate me personally?

Considering that the rule in question is likely tied to an "Escalation League"--which is done as a slow grow manner with 'build dates' at the store, I still do not see why this is such a big deal.

 Kanluwen wrote:
Considering that the rule in question is likely tied to an "Escalation League"--which is done as a slow grow manner with 'build dates' at the store, I still do not see why this is such a big deal.

Nobody said it was a rule for an escalation league. If that's the case the dickishness goes down dramatically.

It is dickish as a blanket rule that theoretically applies to all games played on the premises. Still though, I think you get more bees with honey. A small disincentive is fine, I think, in a context in which everybody signed on to meet goals: the goals of building and painting an army. In that case you are essentially looking for group-oriented motivation, like going to the gym with a friend. You have made a public commitment mostly because failing in that commitment is itself a disincentive. You want the group to (playfully) ostracize/rib/goad/nag you into successfully completing the goal, along with positive reinforcement of encouragement, congratulations, shared experience, etc.

So if that were the context then it would be an entirely different story.

This is why the hegemonic bit I mentioned is important. In an escalation league, it is a choice to enter into a commitment that carries certain goals and expectations. When I walk into a retail store, I expect to be treated in a welcoming, respectful manner. Presumably my patronage is desired. Within the context of those expectations, an expression of negativity directed at the customer is very different.

weeble1000 wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
Considering that the rule in question is likely tied to an "Escalation League"--which is done as a slow grow manner with 'build dates' at the store, I still do not see why this is such a big deal.

Nobody said it was a rule for an escalation league. If that's the case the dickishness goes down dramatically.

It is dickish as a blanket rule that theoretically applies to all games played on the premises. Still though, I think you get more bees with honey. A small disincentive is fine, I think, in a context in which everybody signed on to meet goals: the goals of building and painting an army. In that case you are essentially looking for group-oriented motivation, like going to the gym with a friend. You have made a public commitment mostly because failing in that commitment is itself a disincentive. You want the group to (playfully) ostracize/rib/goad/nag you into successfully completing the goal, along with positive reinforcement of encouragement, congratulations, shared experience, etc.

So if that were the context then it would be an entirely different story.

There is a reason I'm saying "likely" and other statements.

Even with it being tied to an "Escalation League", I am still not sure why you insist on referring to this as "dickish".
Unless there are members taking it obscenely beyond "You get hatred for your painted units against enemy unpainted units"(like "My entire army gets hatred against your army because you have a single unpainted unit" levels), I do not see it as a big deal.

I'm with weeble on this. I'm old enough to remember buying and playing Rouge Trader. People bought the book and maybe one boxed set, and then played the game because the game was fun ( didn't the Rulebook have paper counters in the back to use instead of models? ) Then the Heavy Metal Team started to show how good painting can enhance a model, which became a part of the hobby, but not the most important part. Then GW realises how much money can be made by really pushing painting and introduced concepts such as inks, dry brushing, shading etc and suddenly, minimum painting standard rules started to raise their head. Don't get me wrong, I admire what some people can do with a paintbrush, but for me the initial attraction to the hobby was the war gaming, strategy and background. The painting was nice to look at but frustrating if I attempted it myself. Now it seems as though anyone who doesn't like painting doesn't "get" the hobby. This type of snobbery can only drive away those, who, like me, enjoy the battles and fluff, but not the painting. There's something slightly irritating about a teenager, boasting that he's been playing the game since the 4 th ed, graciously consenting to play against a poorly painted or unpainted army.

There has to be some flexibility on the painting rule. Not everyone has the time to paint all of their models in a given army. If someone tries to make an effort in painting their army on a weekly basis, like it was done officially in the GW stores years ago in my region, then they should be able to play. If they don't want to paint their armies then they should not go to that particular store.

Back on 2005 a very small GW store enforced this rule and during that year it was ranked in the top 10 in sales in the US. People also had fully painted armies as well at the end of the year.

But that was then and times and people's mindsets have changed. I'm not really sure that the painting rule can be effectively enforced as written, due to the possibility of affecting overall sales.

GW Game Managers are on quota that they have to meet. Better believe they will go for sales first than that particular rule as written.

Its a general store rule, not tied to a league. The league we do have just gives you an extra point for being painted.

As someone who just got into miniature gaming a year and a half ago (Malifaux), this has been an interesting thread to read through.

Luckily, my games are played at someone's home, and while we all relish painted figures and cherish the rare days that entirely painted crews faced each other, it was never a requirement. I can see how a store might make this a priority, and can respect 'their space, their rules', but honestly I'd find it offputting if such a requirement were in place to play.

I'm not an artist. The paint jobs that some of you scoff and disdain as rushed or lazy or laughable are still leagues better than I can pull off, and while they might not prevent you from playing me if we ever set up across the table from one another, it's a bit disconcerting to know that some people view others with such disdain or scorn based on that aspect.

I can respect that it can be a matter of personal opinion, preference, immersion, whatever, but at the end of the day some of the (perhaps Internet Hyperbole style) judgement laden upon those who lack the time or inclination to paint up for a game is surprisingly intense.

Yes, yes, caveats surely exist where most of you probably wouldn't bat an eye knowing someone had only been in the hobby for a year or two compared to your years or decades of experience, and that many have played for years and years so time isn't a consideration. I'm just reflecting as something of an 'outsider' how much time and effort went into even building and priming dozens and dozens of figures across 6 crews (an entire faction) and 2 off faction crews, let alone getting the 3 painted up as I have. That the purely built and primed section of my case could draw ire simply by opening it in the wrong section of a store would be.. well, it'd be something alright.

Note, I'm not trying to misrepresent anyone's opinions, nor put words in their mouths. Just noting the raw venom that, intended or not, seems to be coming out over the matter.

The only time I would ever really "pick on" someone for having something unpainted is if I know they hop from faction to faction as new books and netlists come out.

Fireytas wrote:
I'm with weeble on this. I'm old enough to remember buying and playing Rouge Trader. People bought the book and maybe one boxed set, and then played the game because the game was fun ( didn't the Rulebook have paper counters in the back to use instead of models? ) Then the Heavy Metal Team started to show how good painting can enhance a model, which became a part of the hobby, but not the most important part. Then GW realises how much money can be made by really pushing painting and introduced concepts such as inks, dry brushing, shading etc and suddenly, minimum painting standard rules started to raise their head. Don't get me wrong, I admire what some people can do with a paintbrush, but for me the initial attraction to the hobby was the war gaming, strategy and background. The painting was nice to look at but frustrating if I attempted it myself. Now it seems as though anyone who doesn't like painting doesn't "get" the hobby. This type of snobbery can only drive away those, who, like me, enjoy the battles and fluff, but not the painting. There's something slightly irritating about a teenager, boasting that he's been playing the game since the 4 th ed, graciously consenting to play against a poorly painted or unpainted army.

I think you have it back to front. There was a section in the RT book that covered painting and scenery building. The expectation was there. Warhammer arrived after historical war gaming was well established and unpainted figures were definitely frowned upon, partly because lead figures are not the nicest things to handle, but also the historical wargamers take themselves a bit more seriously.

Warhammer players are among the ones that are least likely to paint their miniatures, from what I have observed. And GW's relaxation of the painting expectancy, in order I suspect to boost sales of flavour of the month stuff by encouraging its use immediately painted or not, has made it far more common.

In previous painting-nonpainting threads I've seen some really belligerent non painters proudly proclaiming their right not to ever paint their stuff for one reason or another, which is fairly bizarre. It's simply part of the hobby, don't complain when other people wish to play in games with people who have completed their army and are not fielding a work in progress, or a work you have no intention of completing. Not painting the figures is rather like not fully assembling them. But some people don't even assemble figures properly for play either. Presumably those not painting stuff look down on those not sticking arms on their marines before fielding them. *shrug*

weeble1000 wrote:

You have missed the point again. Your painted models don't hate mine because they are all fake plastic things, right? But...

Stop there. Beyond that point you're running on conjecture, and assuming malevolent motives for the owner. No one's missing your point. Unless you know him, you're making huge leaps involving transference and assumptions.

weeble1000 wrote:

The person chose to effect that disincentive with the Hatred rule. Why? Probably because it reflects that individual's feelings. The painted models hating the unpainted models represent that individual's hatred for unpainted models.

That's your assumption. No matter how passionately you feel about it, you're bringing your own interpretation that he's acting in bad faith. And assuming that his level of intensity over the matter matches yours.

He may have a mature audience that isn't bothered by his stance. He may have a customer base that even responds well to light-hearted teasing as an incentive to push forward. Or he may have more players wanting spots than he can accommodate, and can afford to be a bit more exclusive. Or he's tried using honey without effect, and decided it's time to bring out the vinegar. He may even have a sense of humour. It happens.

You can explain how the rule makes you feel, and no one's disputing that. But you're losing people when you turn this into a morality play, where the only possible interpretation is that the owner is filled with an seething hatred for all things unpainted. It's a possibility, but not the only one.
.

Haven't read through the first 6 pages, but my take on the painting rule is this.

I LOVE this rule.

Painted armies are the reason I got into this hobby and I fully support clubs and FLGS's that are willing to take a bit of risk to promote the glory that is masses of painted soldiers. The shop in the OP seems to have taken a small, but not drastic step by not denying unpainted miniatures, but providing an incentive to get them painted.

Also, they set an extremely low standard. 3-colors is one colored primer plus two colors on that, something anyone can do quickly.

I also practice this myself. I organize a club that has been meeting every-other-week for 3 years that does not allow unpainted miniatures. Now this is tempered by the fact that...
1) We don't set standards for how well a miniature must be painted.
2) We allow pre-painted miniatures.
3) We have enough painted miniatures to always be able to lend an army/warband/etc to anyone who wants to play but doesn't have the figures.
4)We are very open and encouraging to new players.
...but we are unflinching in our resolve that our wargaming will be a glorious spectacle of painted miniatures on evocative terrain.

Is there anyone who can post the text for work restricted people who cannot view the image containing these rules?

1) This store is Friendly-Competitive

2) No Waaaagh! shout, No Waaaagh! roll

3) Painted units have "Hatred" of unpainted units (3 colour-standard)

4) Positive Attitudes!

5) Family Friendly Store

I dont see the big deal, before painting, rule number 4 is what gets most of these people kicked out of this store. Complaining about unpainted armies either way is not very positive > (Devils Advocate)

I'm in the middle on this,

2). I don't play Orks and will never shout Waaaagh for any reason. So I particularly do not agree with this rule at all

3) I do not have problem with this for ALL store associated events including campaigns and leagues. But for a friendly pick-up game I would never allow my opponent to use this rule (store rule or not)

 fullheadofhair wrote:

 SilverMK2 wrote:
My Eldar are painted with white primer, a wash of orange paint, a light black wash, then black paint for the helmet and yellow for the face - a 3 colour minimum which is then enhanced with a wash of grey paint for the guns and blue ink for the stones and lenses. Total time per model (if I did it all in one sitting rather than getting bored after 20 minutes) is probably about 10 minutes.

Also bonus points as this is the second time I have posted this image in a thread today

Seeing as we are being open and honest, considering how those models are painted I would rather play with unpainted models. That standard of painting in no way makes me more connected to the "hobby" which you are trying to define for each and everyone of us. Also, considering how much GW models cost I find the time you have spent doing those wholly inadequate and quite laughable. Doesn't mean I would be a douche about it - opinions are opinions and are often best kept to oneselves. Having said that there are somethings I would like to share seeing as we are having this discussion:

Several points for everyone:
1) If you don't want to play against unpainted models politely decline but no need to be an ass about it.
2) If your army is unpainted and someone declines to play you, thems the breaks. Accept it with good grace and find someone who has a similar attitude to the hobby that you do.
3) The hobby of wargaming is breathtakingly broad in how it can be approached. It covers those who are horrified if a 15mm French 1812 army has the wrong color shoulder epiletes through to those who are quite happy using tokens with the name written on them.
4) Don't judge or get bent out of shape towards others who have a different approach. The level of enjoyment you seek from a hobby in order to relax and escape from the stress of life is purely up to you. However, there are consequences to the level you choose - accept that with good grace as well.
5) Using the would "force" or "encourage" in this thread is dumb - why should you be trying to change someone's opinion?
6) Your opinion is only valid to you and your circumstances. Judging other people in a hobby people use to relax is an anethma to having a hobby.

Wow just wow this is uncalled for. The guy was just trying to show that you can get decent results even if you are not the best painter. Insulting someones work is no way of making friends.

It really is funny that people think they have the right to determine what standard another person's models, purchased with their own money, should be held to. When you start buying my models you can determine what standard they are painted to, and how fast I paint them. Offending your aesthetics is not a rational reason to require paint standards as it has no bearing upon the actual game play. The only legitimate gripe I have seen is when TFG continually rotates thru the latest net lists repeatedly at tournaments. Have no problem with special events, or the big tournaments {ie Feast of Blades and Adepticon}, having the minimum paint requirements...do not think it is appropriate for casual play and casual tournaments in a LGS. Painting your models is only one aspect of a multifaceted hobby.

That being said, any store does have the right to have requirements. One can shop and game somewhere else if you do not like the requirements at a particular store.

My FLGS just had a tourney with 3-color minimums{normally no requirement} and they had approximately 50% of the normal turnout. That translates into $200+ less the store made/had available for prizes from the tourney itself and half as many people who might have bought something on impulse while they were there. Kind of shoots down the theory that painting requirements translates into increased sales. Though my models are painted above 3 color minimums, and WYSIWYG, I chose not to attend to show my displeasure with the policy. Politely expressed my opinion to the store owner to let them know why I would not attend and would return when they dropped the requirement.

And other FLGS have increased turnout when requiring all painted, as people will travel farther for a better event so you draw from a larger area... But every area has different customers. What works in one area may not work in another.

There is no "one size fits all" standard, and trying to use the interned to say "clearly the minimum standard is always best" and makes most money" is nothing but Internet MBA bullcrap.

Store owners will do what is best for their location, and what is best will differ between locations. But that does not mean "no standards" is always the best or most successful. What you find more often is that "changing to MTG" simply beats all various standard for war gamers when they get pissy and disagree and you can't make them all happy. Got a split group which disagrees? Dump them all for card games and make more profit.

Dolgan wrote:
It really is funny that people think they have the right to determine what standard another person's models, purchased with their own money, should be held to.

They aren't doing that. What you do with your models is completely up to you.

They're just giving an incentive for painting your stuff. If you don't want to, they're not grabbing you by the balls until you buy a paint kit and a tutorial DVD.

Marcus Scipio wrote:

 Monster Rain wrote:
I love all of those rules, actually.

If it drives away the types of players that need these sort of things put into writing, more the better.

Agreed, I find as I get older that I enjoy playing untainted armies less and less...

Loki. The store might not be saying that but there seem to be plenty of people about who wished they would.

Ok so catching up on this thread I still think this is a stupid rule but I can see where the other side is coming from so let me just say this:

The WAAC players who never even intend to paint thier models should be punished, those of us who don't want to feel rushed however should NOT be lumped in with them and punished too.

nkelsch wrote:
And other FLGS have increased turnout when requiring all painted, as people will travel farther for a better event so you draw from a larger area... But every area has different customers. What works in one area may not work in another.

I don't currently play games that have tournaments, but if I did, I would definitely travel a bit further and put a higher priority on events that have a painting requirement.

I'm sure there are areas where in order to have a tournament you have to cater to players who either don't paint or don't like having painting standards, but I really hope that's the minority of locales.

Really, these kind of issues seem to boil down to "you can't tell me what to do" vs "Let's have a community standard".

"You can't tell...."
Everybody plays on an equal playing field, and it does make it easier for those for whom the game is the focus, but it does seem to often result (as I've seen at local FLGS's) in alot of grey plastic on the battlefield.

"...Community Standard"
Some folks loose out on some games (or a bonus roll) while they paint, but it does result in an better looking store and gaming room and encourages the painting side of the hobby.

I tend to find some intrinsic value (this is my own POV, mostly stemming from working with children) in having to work for something, and in the positive benifits of delayed gratification and self regulation. So unless the standards are onerous (I don't believe the painting standard in the OP is) I usually will favor higher standards.

Further, as the painting standards don't discriminate based on race, class, religion, etc. it's just the kind of merit/effort-based standard that I can get behind.

 Kanluwen wrote:
The only time I would ever really "pick on" someone for having something unpainted is if I know they hop from faction to faction as new books and netlists come out.

Oh I definitely agree with you on that as they are the types that are not going to change their mindset. The ones that are either just lazy or the "flavor of the month" players are the ones that should be dinged.

I don't have any problem with a store deciding policies like this. I take my custom where I find the most value. I don't play with unpainted models. But, I have 3 sons. All of whom have dabbled in this hobby or still do. Rules like this would preclude them from participating in the larger community (especially considering the large model count of armies and short attention spans). I like encouraging my kids to model, paint and play. However, I have had plenty of grouchy grognards who have already tarnished their enthusiasm without additional rules like this. I've actually run into enough wargamers who would delight in telling a 10-year old that he can't play because he only has 2 colors on his figures.

 Howard A Treesong wrote:
Warhammer arrived after historical war gaming was well established and unpainted figures were definitely frowned upon, partly because lead figures are not the nicest things to handle, but also the historical wargamers take themselves a bit more seriously.

Indeed. I've heard from a few historical gamers over the years who, on discovering the world of sci-fi and fantasy gaming, were quite surprised to find that there were people who didn't paint their armies. Until FoW came along and poached a large part of the previously 40K oriented gaming world into the historical realm, it was never in question... it tended to be just assumed in historical gaming circles that miniatures needed to be painted in order to be used on the table.

A large part of the negativity towards this policy seems to be just coming from the fact that many don't see painting as an expected part of the hobby, but just as something that you do if you want to... which is fine, everyone is entitled to stick to the parts of the hobby that actually interest them. But it's not worth getting as riled about as some people are here... If you don't want to play somewhere that expects painted armies, then don't. I disagree with the store in question requiring Ork players to yell when they want to Waaagh!, because I woudln't want to do that, and it's irritating as hell whenm others do it in a confined space.. but I'm not going to accuse them of having some sort of agenda or of hating me for not playing Orks the way they want me to. I just wouldn't play in that store so long as they had that rule.

Perspective, people. It's just toy soldiers.

Really, these kind of issues seem to boil down to "you can't tell me what to do" vs "Let's have a community standard".

No, the issue is that the "community standard" for those that want painting minimums is exclusive as it limits ones ability to play based solely upon the aesthetics of their models Their attitude seems to be I've chosen to paint my models and everyone else should paint theirs as well to my minimum standard. If they don't paint their models to my standard then they should not be able to participate, or have penalties against them if they are allowed to participate, as they are just not taking 40K serious enough for my taste.

Not having the painting requirement as a "community standard" is inclusive and encompasses a wider base of players who are more concerned about playing the game versus whether or not their models are painted.

I get a bad feeling when i look at that sign, if it were me being thrown under the bus because my army isn't fully painted i wouldnt like it much, but neither would anyone else. Sure to discourage frequent bandwagon jumpers and for a professional aesthetic for the hobby, just those two are situational. The hobby is expensive and people who have that kind of money and the mind to spend it on miniatures frequently should not be as big a problem as it sounds. And for people who get curious and see unpainted models, that enough isnt going to drive people away from the hobby or possible business, id say its more the people behind the army that are the real role models and not the actual miniature setting the example for the game being played.

Just my thoughts, those two reasons stood out to me the most.

 Doomsdave wrote:
I don't have any problem with a store deciding policies like this. I take my custom where I find the most value. I don't play with unpainted models. But, I have 3 sons. All of whom have dabbled in this hobby or still do. Rules like this would preclude them from participating in the larger community (especially considering the large model count of armies and short attention spans). I like encouraging my kids to model, paint and play. However, I have had plenty of grouchy grognards who have already tarnished their enthusiasm without additional rules like this. I've actually run into enough wargamers who would delight in telling a 10-year old that he can't play because he only has 2 colors on his figures.

I'm one of those Gronards that encourages the youth in anyway possible to continue this aspect of the hobby. People forget that fine manipulation skills, mental agility are some of the positive aspects of playing any sort of miniatures game. Some of the Old guard are incredibly narrow minded on what is "fun" suppose to be, and that is not my view point.

A great deal of time now these days to fully paint an army because on how fast paced our society has become and how much of your time it takes to keep yourself afloat in these still hard times we live in. We are in the New Economy and to the average middle class person is having a harder time living than in 2006. Encouragement of painting their armies is necessary and if people make as much time as possible and there is improvement on a weekly basis on their armies in question then they should encouraged to continue.

We of the old guard, those with +40 years of hobby experience, that truly believe that working deftly with your hands, which is a good thing mind you, are fading away. It is up to the youth to carry on what we can show them about the hobby and the skills that you will carry with you for the rest of your life.