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.

Playing in public is better with painted armies - you know what belongs to someone - there's not a pair of kids somewhere going 'Thats my avatar!' 'No, its mine!'
Ownership is a lot easier to determine.

But I'd play against unpainted quite happily. I'm not fussed, as long as my opponant isn't a ****.

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:
quotes

A couple taken out of context (the one talking about not playing against someone I think was because he got the impression he would not like that specific other player's attitude during a game, so he would prefer not to play against them at all, for instance) and a couple talking about minimum painting requirements at clubs and tournaments not none actually saying that unpainted models shouldn't be able to play the game at all.

Then there's the stereotyping..

... which was flying thick and fast on "both sides", not that it is particularly excusable in any light.

And then there's those who want people to be forced to paint just to please them.

Again, taken out of context. Besides which I have already explained it was a poor choice of words for the concept that, IMO, people who are encouraged to paint, almost regardless of what spurs them on, form a greater attachment to their models than those who don't paint them at all. It is not a case of them being forced to paint for my pleasure

Was teasing ya with that last bit, also that one I felt was him talking about the models in general from the gist of his post.

 SilverMK2 wrote:

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:
Since there is plenty of people saying they shouldn't be allowed to play at all up in this thread.

I'd be interested to see you find anyone seriously saying that people should not be able to play at all unless you have painted models. There were a few people saying they remembered when GW stores had a no paint, no play rules. However, I don't recall reading anyone saying either that they would not play unplainted armies, or that unpainted armies should not be allowed to play at all.

Well, in theory I wouldn't play an unpainted army myself, because I'd expect to "wear my sunday best" against somebody I don't really know - that would include a friendly and open disposition, good manners, personal hygiene, a rather unemotional, if not even laissez-faire attiture for rules discussions ("last round we went with your interpretation, let's go with mine this time and discuss the unclear rule after the game") and, yes, a fully painted army. It's simply a standard I'd set for myself. As for my opponent - in theory I'd prefer to not play against an unpainted army - or one with more than just a couple of unpainted units. I wouldn't want to enforce anything, but I can courteously decline without anyone having to feel somehow ostracized by it(knowing that there will always be people who resent something like that, but what can you do?).

It's not so much a matter of him doing it 'wrong' in some nebulous way but more a matter of somebody having obviously totally different priorities within the hobby than myself - and seeing that someone isn't interested in painting his stuff at all is pretty much an indication that our playing/hobbying styles might be simply incompatible. In RPGs there is the idea of a "social contract" - the realization that incompatible playstyles might kill the enjoyment for all parties included and therefore a common base should be found. And really - to me just "buying stuff from the same company" isn't much of a common base. That's not, I repeat *not*, to say that one way of handling the hobby is better or TRVE!, it's just that we might be better off playing with like minded people - and the degree to which an army is painted can be very well an indicator of that.

Then again - that's just theory anyway. I haven't played an anonymous pickup game in a store for well above 10 years, and within a group of friends it's way easier to get each other motivated to paint anyway.


Back on the actual topic at hand: I saw the rules as pretty *light-hearted* attempts at demonstrating what attitude the shop owner would prefer to see at the playing table. Pretty witty actually. But then again I'm rather thick-skinned and very, veeeeery slow to get personally offended by anything someone writes on a whiteboard at the other end of the world (or in a forum, for that matter).

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:
Was teasing ya with that last bit

I got that impression...

also that one I felt was him talking about the models in general from the gist of his post.

... however sometimes it is difficult to tell the tone and intent when dealing with written replies

I missed most of this thread but I like that the store is encouraging painting (they should after all) but not shutting the door on new players.

Three colours isn't even slightly difficult to achieve in a short space of time (greyscale).

From the managers perspective if you go to the trouble of sorting out some finished tables you don't really want to see unpainted plastic all over it plus the actual business reasons to boot.

I know from experience the type of attitude that tends to go with these policies. The LGS down the street from me is very painted-heavy. I had gone in there maybe four or five times, and played two games there, and got constant gak about having mostly partially-painted and some unpainted stuff. I went in the next week for a game and as I was agreeing to one with another player the owner runs up and says if I'm not fully painted I can't play there. I picked up my bag, walked out, and never went back. I've stopped buying there (I had previously made a purchase just about every time I went in as a show of good faith) and I've encouraged my friends to not buy from them as well.

It's just an elitist attitude, at this store at least. It's in an upper-story space that hardly anyone ever walks into unless they mean to. So, in my experience, policies like this do more to drive off current customers than attract new ones.

There may be something to that but I think it has a lot to do with attitude. One store always had a painted only policy and they'd inform people by inviting them to their painting day or offering a demo of a different game that they had painted figures available for customer use.

I think it's only seen as elitist because so many other stores have literally no standards.

Well to me the biggest deal is that it is a lot easer to seperate units when they are painted. I played against unpainted 'nids the other day. According to his list there should have been 3 distinct squads of termigants on the feild, yet all I could see was a mass of 'gants crowding the board. It became very hard to figure out which squads had what, and there ended up being a lot of 'nids who got transfers mid-battle.

 frozenwastes wrote:
There may be something to that but I think it has a lot to do with attitude. One store always had a painted only policy and they'd inform people by inviting them to their painting day or offering a demo of a different game that they had painted figures available for customer use.

I think it's only seen as elitist because so many other stores have literally no standards.

Unless, of course, their standard is be polite, courteous, and do not curse as this is a family friendly area (my FLGS).


As long as we're postulating here, I'll add my own: As a new player, it can be intimidating to see fully painted armies and realize how long it must take before one can even get a game in (or even see if one enjoys the game!). I know this from my own experience. However, seeing people playing partially or totally unpainted alongside well above TT quality showed the benefits of painting (beautiful army) while still showing that one could be involved in the game. As I've stated before, it is up to each store/player to decide what standard they will hold to. But acting as though someone who only enjoys playing the game but doesn't enjoy the the painting aspect of it is in some way lazy, headed towards laziness, enjoying the hobby worng, or less valuable to the community is foolish and insulting.

It appears this is more of a 40k notion (which I know this store is) than the TTG community in general.

EDIT: For fair disclosure, I play fully painted 95% of the time, and don't normally field models that are unpainted.

For the most part I see painted armies at the clubs I have been to here and that's for most systems. Indeed I can not think of a historical game with unpainted minis.

Going beyond that I didn't rock up to the club with Zombiecide until I had it painted up.

That's not to say there aren't exceptions particularly where 40k/WarmaHordes/FoW are concerned.

I do think there is a definite distinction between experienced and new hobbyists though. And its a simple one of knowledge; anew chap my well be intimidated by the thought of brush painting a whole army (rightly so) but with a bit more experience I know that I can knock out a sizable force in a week using Sprays/Airbrush and washes to do it in grreyscale. I did a whole Zombiecide horde in a week of evenings for example and it looks pretty nice TT standard.

I would love to play against more painted figures. I would love to play against WYSIWYG armies with no proxies. But I also want someone to play against.

Paint your armies... Having two fully painted armies fighting each other on a well made table is what everyone should strive to do. If the store has a "rule" that you need to paint your armies, then do it. Or take your models and go home. I wish my store had a rule like this. Instead I have black templar players using dark vengeance termies as normal terminators dipped in black paint. :/

DanFST wrote:

 Forar wrote:

DanFST wrote:
In the time posters have spent arguing with the hatred rule, saying it's unfair. They could have painted at least a squad of troops.

You're allowed to paint at work?

Man, and I thought a little forum browsing/posting was pretty sweet...

Proof that sarcasm really is lost on North Americans!

And irony is apparently lost on the British...

DanFST wrote:
Edit: it's late here...... but i think i know what you're reply might be. *Self-facepalm*

Ah, not lost, merely delayed.

What if I really hated painted armies? What if the base colors grey plastic and metal were my favorite colors?

A pot of GW paint is about 3.50 to $4 depending on where you go. Telling players they must buy paints and must play with painted armies is lame. I have fully painted armies, simply because I enjoy painting. But I have friends who hate it. Why punish them for it?

The ironic part is the "positive attitudes" rule just after that. Lol

Ninjakinshu wrote:
A pot of GW paint is about 3.50 to $4 depending on where you go. Telling players they must buy paints and must play with painted armies is lame. I have fully painted armies, simply because I enjoy painting. But I have friends who hate it. Why punish them for it?

Ya know I would amused as the real reason for GW policy at that store (from the picture being posted on this topic) has to do with sales of paints. Don't think paint is flying off the shelves now eh? Heh heh heh.... Let the revenue streamlining process continue!!!

On a serious note if you look and read all 50+ pages of the most recent financial report you do get a real picture on how well they did in the second half of the their financial year. They did not do so well, and this is another measure to make revenue on their declining customer base. That is my take on this from a different perspective.

I would love all players (that I game against) to have a painted army when they play, but I would encourage those to at least try to make progress a little at a time on their unpainted armies. It does not take that much time to do this if you put a little effort into it. A little bit a week working on your army is what I ask out of anyone.

 d-usa wrote:
I played a game at my local GW store today and I noticed the "rules" of the store that were posted:



Looks like GW, or at least this store, is punishing people for not having a painted army.

Now I will admit that I enjoy a game between two fully painted armies, but I know that not everybody has the time to actually paint all their minis before playing. Especially with the push towards giant units that we are seeing in WFB. One of my Skaven units was not painted, so they suffered from the house rule at the store. I also wonder if this is just to push people more towards the "HHHobby" and to make sure that people have fully painted armies that they are playing with so that the store gets the maximum benefit of the free advertisement from having people play at their store.

I guess it could also be a quick cash grap for the store since I could have decided to purchase three pots of paint and a brush and put three colors on the base to meet this "standard" at the store.

Anybody else see something similar at their store?

NO WAAGH?

They should take this rule to Gamesday

 lucasbuffalo wrote:
What if I really hated painted armies? What if the base colors grey plastic and metal were my favorite colors?

Then you have joined the wrong hobby.

Polls indicate that 96% of DakkaDakka members prefer to play with painted models, so you are in a very small minority. That does not invalidate your preference, of course, but it will make it harder to find people who share your preferences.

 pities2004 wrote:
NO WAAGH?

They should take this rule to Gamesday

You have misread the rule.

It's saying you don't get to Waaagh! unless you shout 'Waaagh!' when you want to do so...

It's an implied "if/then" statement.
"If you don't do the WAAAAGH! shout, then you don't get the WAAAAGH! rolls."

 Adam LongWalker wrote:

Ninjakinshu wrote:
A pot of GW paint is about 3.50 to $4 depending on where you go. Telling players they must buy paints and must play with painted armies is lame. I have fully painted armies, simply because I enjoy painting. But I have friends who hate it. Why punish them for it?

Ya know I would amused as the real reason for GW policy at that store (from the picture being posted on this topic) has to do with sales of paints. Don't think paint is flying off the shelves now eh? Heh heh heh.... Let the revenue streamlining process continue!!!

On a serious note if you look and read all 50+ pages of the most recent financial report you do get a real picture on how well they did in the second half of the their financial year. They did not do so well, and this is another measure to make revenue on their declining customer base. ...

I'm sorry, but that analysis is just complete pants.

Asking for all painted armies is likely to slow down sales, if anything, so that people only buy what they can reasonably expect to paint.

Secondly, that instruction is a one-off; good on the manager I say, but there's no suggestion, bar some people's love of conspiracy theories, that it's being rolled out.

Thirdly, while sales are only up by around 7.5% compared to, say, 2009, GW's result are pretty good and have impressed the city. Second half figures are down by around 1.5% compared to the same period last year, but are still better than the two previous years.

So speculating that the results influenced a notice on a white board in one store is like blaming the Tory Government because your kid got detention for not doing homework.

Still, full points for showing how an eminently reasonable one-off policy, expressed with humour, can like every other unconnected fact, be construed as more evidence of GW's evil corporate mindset.

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 lucasbuffalo wrote:
What if I really hated painted armies? What if the base colors grey plastic and metal were my favorite colors?

Then you have joined the wrong hobby.

Yep. Hating painted armies and then taking up miniature wargaming is like taking up soccer, but deciding you don't like kicking things, or model railroading, but you don't like trains.

You can enjoy the wargames hobby however you like, but it doesn't change the fact that painted miniatures are a core and integral part of the hobby.

Heh, I wonder what the manager of that GW would think of my local GW, where we use empty bases and dice if we are too lazy to bring our models out. (our manager is a-ok about it)


Lucarikx

 Adam LongWalker wrote:

Ninjakinshu wrote:
A pot of GW paint is about 3.50 to $4 depending on where you go. Telling players they must buy paints and must play with painted armies is lame. I have fully painted armies, simply because I enjoy painting. But I have friends who hate it. Why punish them for it?

Ya know I would amused as the real reason for GW policy at that store (from the picture being posted on this topic) has to do with sales of paints. Don't think paint is flying off the shelves now eh? Heh heh heh.... Let the revenue streamlining process continue!!!

On a serious note if you look and read all 50+ pages of the most recent financial report you do get a real picture on how well they did in the second half of the their financial year. They did not do so well, and this is another measure to make revenue on their declining customer base. That is my take on this from a different perspective.

I would love all players (that I game against) to have a painted army when they play, but I would encourage those to at least try to make progress a little at a time on their unpainted armies. It does not take that much time to do this if you put a little effort into it. A little bit a week working on your army is what I ask out of anyone.

no one ever said you had to buy GW paint. I paint with mostly paints from walmart but also use a bit of gamecolor and GW washes. The paints from walmart are about 1.50 for 10x more paint than is in a GW pot. It is an expensive hobby the argument that paints are expensive is silly.

rothrich wrote:

 Adam LongWalker wrote:

Ninjakinshu wrote:
A pot of GW paint is about 3.50 to $4 depending on where you go. Telling players they must buy paints and must play with painted armies is lame. I have fully painted armies, simply because I enjoy painting. But I have friends who hate it. Why punish them for it?

Ya know I would amused as the real reason for GW policy at that store (from the picture being posted on this topic) has to do with sales of paints. Don't think paint is flying off the shelves now eh? Heh heh heh.... Let the revenue streamlining process continue!!!

On a serious note if you look and read all 50+ pages of the most recent financial report you do get a real picture on how well they did in the second half of the their financial year. They did not do so well, and this is another measure to make revenue on their declining customer base. That is my take on this from a different perspective.

I would love all players (that I game against) to have a painted army when they play, but I would encourage those to at least try to make progress a little at a time on their unpainted armies. It does not take that much time to do this if you put a little effort into it. A little bit a week working on your army is what I ask out of anyone.

no one ever said you had to buy GW paint. I paint with mostly paints from walmart but also use a bit of gamecolor and GW washes. The paints from walmart are about 1.50 for 10x more paint than is in a GW pot. It is an expensive hobby the argument that paints are expensive is silly.

If you are using non GW paints in a GW store you will be asked to not to paint your model or leave that store. This what happens in my region in the US.

I've already posted years ago on what I painted my Tau Army with Deca Coat paints. It came out very well indeed. I sure as hell don't tell the GW manager what kinds of paints I use however when I do paint at there store it is GW paints.

I'm going to check around to see if in my region they are going to enforce the unpainted army rule.

Was going to say that many of us who grew up playing in GW stores in the late 80's/early to mid 90's this was a standard rule throughout the UK. I'm not sure when they relaxed it?

These days you are playing with standard armies significantly bigger than they used to be, certainly for WFB it's pretty imposing starting a new army, although this is countered to an extent by some of the new foundation paints (and shading tones) that reduce painting time.

It's really worth pointing out that, if you turn up with a nicely-painted army, you're more likely to get involved with the staff, other customers, more likely to get a game, probably more likely to start conversations and make friends. Who wouldn't want that?

Of course there will be people just can't be bothered. There always are.

I think painted armies are great, I enjoy playing against them and looking at them.
However, I myself do not have all that much time to paint, so my armies are only about 50% painted.
The thing is though, as I am a relatively young player, my paint jobs are far above the level of most of the people I play with, this is another reason why only about 50% is painted, because I spend a lot of time on each model.
Do you guys think this is a good trade off? Better quality for less % painted? Would you be annoyed to play against someone who had not a fully painted army, but instead had well painted models for those that were painted?