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.

I'm not a fan of the the majority of versions of 40k with their high model counts and have largely switched to rules that better support smaller games. Much easier to get everything done when the game requires less models.

Though I do get GW wanting to sell as many miniatures as possible, even if many people can't seem to find time to paint them all. Their rules basically are a marketing tool to maximize model sales.

Yeah but historical mass battle games have high model counts.

The number of figures in an average Ancients army for WRG or FoG or DBMM is probably 200.

I think the tradeoff point is base coated, that covers the 3 colour requirement on its own. If you can get a Devlin mud (equiv.) and some flock on the base you are golden.

When you're at the table the rule of three foot applies any way; which is to say standing 3' over the models you won't notice much differance between a basic paint job and one you have spent days on.

I agree. It's great that people spend a lot of time and effort to make every individual figure look awesome in close-up, but that can deter people from painting at all and it isn't necessary to do it to make an army look nice on table.

My own foray into historicals has taught me that it is far more about what I find fun and doing things on a project basis where I supply both sides, the terrain and the rules and put on a game as an event and invite people. I don't know why, but it feels completely different to me than when I decide to make a Warmachine or Dystopian Wars force.

 notprop wrote:
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.

I suppose I'd be less irked if they were just honest and forbade unpainted miniatures. There's something unpleasantly passive-aggressive about "Well, you can bring in unpainted stuff, but you'll find it harder to win or have fun games as a result."

People complain either way.

Of course, lots of "I play painted" players complained because the 'Ard Boyz tournaments relaxed the rules on using only fully painted models.

 Elemental wrote:

 notprop wrote:
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.

I suppose I'd be less irked if they were just honest and forbade unpainted miniatures. There's something unpleasantly passive-aggressive about "Well, you can bring in unpainted stuff, but you'll find it harder to win or have fun games as a result."

Hmmm you don't like passive encouragement. How about something friendly yet direct.....

Thankfully my club has never and will never feature unpainted models.

Its the cardinal sin as far as we are concerned.

No-one would even consider doing it!

 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.

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.

Would have*, hypothetical what-if statement.

I have 2 fully painted armies, and about 6 half-to-no paint. I enjoy collecting and gaming, and have never and will never refuse a game based on the paint job of my opponents model so long as I know what I'm looking at. Personally, I like miniature games for the miniatures themselves and the game. The hobby elements, while fun and interesting to me, really are the least interesting part of the game to me. I'd rather read my codex repeatedly than pick up a brush, and I'd rather roll some dice and have some laughs than pull out of pair of clippers and some green stuff. I don't thing that makes me "in the wrong hobby". I think it makes me a representative of a subset of hobby gamers that play a game to play a game, not to be an artist. I just find it odd when I read these posts of people who act like people who just want to play a game are ruining their hobby when all they want to do is play a game.

As for the store itself, I'd never play there obviously as I don't live there , but even if I did, I sure would hate to be told that I'm not allowed to play the $1000+ game the way I want to because it doesn't fit with what they want to showcase. If I sold a product to some one, they could sit and eat it in my store for all I care as long as they pay for it and enjoy themselves without hurting anyone or anything else.

 lucasbuffalo wrote:

 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.

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.

Would have*, hypothetical what-if statement.

I have 2 fully painted armies, and about 6 half-to-no paint. I enjoy collecting and gaming, and have never and will never refuse a game based on the paint job of my opponents model so long as I know what I'm looking at. Personally, I like miniature games for the miniatures themselves and the game. The hobby elements, while fun and interesting to me, really are the least interesting part of the game to me. I'd rather read my codex repeatedly than pick up a brush, and I'd rather roll some dice and have some laughs than pull out of pair of clippers and some green stuff. I don't thing that makes me "in the wrong hobby". I think it makes me a representative of a subset of hobby gamers that play a game to play a game, not to be an artist. I just find it odd when I read these posts of people who act like people who just want to play a game are ruining their hobby when all they want to do is play a game.

As for the store itself, I'd never play there obviously as I don't live there , but even if I did, I sure would hate to be told that I'm not allowed to play the $1000+ game the way I want to because it doesn't fit with what they want to showcase. If I sold a product to some one, they could sit and eat it in my store for all I care as long as they pay for it and enjoy themselves without hurting anyone or anything else.

QFT

All the "just paint your army!" posts on this thread are off base.

The question is not "should people take the time to paint" (which, we tend to answer in the affirmative with near unanimity)

The question is "should GW stores be imposing painted requirements in order to use the table space (or punishing non painted models in some way) "

Whatever you want to say about encouraging the hobby, or showcasing the game to prospective customers, its just bad customer service.

It would only be bad customer service (it isn't) if you hadn't painted your army.

Its awesome customer service if you have.

IF the sign in the OP isn't a joke and is actually enforced, this is yet another tactic which will hurt GW's business. What, am I not supposed to play in a store until my army is completely painted? Talk about discouraging people from using (and then buying more) of their products.

This thread is like something from rec.games.miniatures.warhammer circa 1998.

GW stores have a long tradition of not allowing unpainted minis for in-store gaming. This policy represents a loosening -- not tightening -- of their policy from their historical norm.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 frozenwastes wrote:
My own foray into historicals has taught me that it is far more about what I find fun and doing things on a project basis where I supply both sides, the terrain and the rules and put on a game as an event and invite people. I don't know why, but it feels completely different to me than when I decide to make a Warmachine or Dystopian Wars force.

Are you saying that historical players lack "a pair"?

Super Newb wrote:
IF the sign in the OP isn't a joke and is actually enforced, this is yet another tactic which will hurt GW's business. What, am I not supposed to play in a store until my army is completely painted? Talk about discouraging people from using (and then buying more) of their products.

Because in a business that (rightly or wrongly) uses its shops as one of its main lines of advertising do you want painted armies on nice tables or white/grey plastic being pushed around?

The sign in question is a compromise and encouragement to get the best of both worlds.

So to answer your question yes you are supposed to paint your army before going to the store. Sometimes this isn't possible so they have kindly made a compromise.

If you are happy to play with bare models good for you; but everyone else shouldn't have to lower their standards or expectations to make you feel more comfortable about it.

 notprop wrote:
If you are happy to play with bare models good for you; but everyone else shouldn't have to lower their standards or expectations to make you feel more comfortable about it.

LOL Reading Comprehension fail. Who said I was happy to play with bare models? To quote a wise man, what is your major malfuncition?

Apparently expecting a sensible discussion with a child?

 Goliath wrote:

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...

This. I find it kind of embarrassing to have to field a model that isn't painted, because I feel it reflects badly on my army and painting.

Not to say that I won't, because an ork horde takes a while, but I don't enjoy having models that aren't painted.

Yeah, I get this, I really hate fielding something that isn't at least base coated/or painted well...

 notprop wrote:
Apparently expecting a sensible discussion with a child?

Oh so now I am a child?

My point was for some people, like me, who take a long time to paint, the general GW policy discourages them from playing, which probably ultimately discourages people from continuing in the hobby. But you decided to turn to insults and claim I have "low standards" and that I love playing with bare models. Oh and also, that I am a child. Are you this 'charming' in real life?


In any case, the sign is probably a joke and can be ignored by sensible opponents (and those with any honor at all). I would never demand my one painted army gets magic special powers over the other just because mine is painted and theirs isn't. Lol.

If you were making a point then you should have made it in the first place.

You yourself commented that "What, am I not supposed to play in a store until my army is completely painted?"

Which would clearly indicate that yes you do play in stores with unpainted models. Unpainted models are a lower standard than painted models, that is not an insult but a fact on the tabletop which your post would indicate you accept as being okay. Getting insulted by this seems puerile.

Perhaps it's you that needs to brush up on comprehension in the future?

I'm not a teacher so couldn't say. Perhaps you know some?

 notprop wrote:
If you were making a point then you should have made it in the first place.

You yourself commented that "What, am I not supposed to play in a store until my army is completely painted?"

Which would clearly indicate that yes you do play in stores with unpainted models. Unpainted models are a lower standard than painted models, that is not an insult but a fact on the tabletop which your post would indicate you accept as being okay. Getting insulted by this seems puerile.

Perhaps it's you that needs to brush up on comprehension in the future?

I'm not a teacher so couldn't say. Perhaps you know some?

Like I said before, reading comprehension fail, also a dishonest response, since it is clear from your snark and general bad attitude (and calling me a child) that you clearly aimed to insult. Please have some class and don't respond in this manner again.

Super Newb and notprop, this is some intense flaming for a simple discussion.

Then again Super - I don't play against players with unpainted armies. If you want to use a FLGS/GW store's tables outside of your den, paint your army

 Auxellion wrote:
paint your army

I am painting my armies. I never said I wasn't. The point is during the building / painting process am I not supposed to play? That kind of rule hardly encourages people to actively engage in the game itself. In any case, one army is almost entirely done (flocked and everything long ago). The other newer one I'm happy to say I finally built and primed 60 kitbashed models. I don't have tons of time, so I am happy I even managed to do that in the last few months. But to hear it from rude people like notprop, apparently I have low standards, love playing with unpainted models and I'm a child.

this is some intense flaming for a simple discussion.

notprop needs to ask himself why he has to be so rude to me based on the simple comment I made.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Auxellion wrote:
If you want to use a FLGS/GW store's tables outside of your den,

Forgot to add, luckily there is a FLGS that isn't absurd and realizes that building, priming and painting an army takes time...

Edited

Super Newb wrote:


notprop needs to ask himself why he has to be so rude to me based on the simple comment I made.

Following the thread, it seems like your comments were far more rude than his. Nothing he surmised from your posts seemed to be way off base, and you appear to love acting all offended.

To get the thread back on track, why not answer with simple direct responses?

Here, Ill start.

Yes, I wouldn't mind playing against unpainted models.

No, I don't think the rules at this GW are too unfair, because it isn't a particularly OP hindrance to your opponent.

Yes, I think a little incentive to paint is a good thing.

No, I would never refuse to play against someone who didn't paint their army.

See. Easily done, you seemed to be bouncing around a alittle, and perhaps that is what caused the issue, because I still cant actually tell if you play with unpainted models or not!

Quick note - ALL of the rules of this site apply to the PM system too.

So, do I get extra points if I prefer playing against painted miniatures, and so took my friends miniatures and painted them for him, knowing he'd never get around to doing it himself?

 Auxellion wrote:

Then again Super - I don't play against players with unpainted armies. If you want to use a FLGS/GW store's tables outside of your den, paint your army

I believe that "a" should be a "my" or a "certain" in this sentence, as I've never played at any FLGS that required players to have painted armies to use their tables. If I had been told that, I'd simply stop going to that store and go to one which let me play the game I was spending money on as I wished.

 notprop wrote:
if you go to someone else's store you play by their rules.

This is something that's oh so simple, and people still seem to have a huge problem with it.

 infinite_array wrote:
So, do I get extra points if I prefer playing against painted miniatures, and so took my friends miniatures and painted them for him, knowing he'd never get around to doing it himself?

I think you should get all the points, or at least some free meals on game nights!