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.

Who cares? It's a HOBBY, do w/e you want and get w/e you want out of it. There's no set way to go about this... I just don't understand why people let it emotionally affect them when it's not their army or their models lol.

Some people prefer to play against a fully painted army as it helps them get into the spirit of things.

My army is not painted, and if someone did not want to play against me because of that, it's their choice.

Because it's a part of the gaming hobby.

Yes, the hobby in and of itself is segregated, some collect and paint, some model, some play, some do a combination of any or all of those things.

However, the gaming/play side of it is supposed to be done properly, that means with legally modelled and painted miniatures.

Someone who fields an army of grey plastic miniatures which require their own assembly and painting can be seen by an opponent to be half-arsing it, i.e. putting in half the effort and only partaking in half the hobby.

Frankly, I'm inclined to agree with them. Why? Because if it was any other aspect of the hobby it wouldn't matter as much because it doesn't directly affect the other hobbyist. However, battling with unpainted figures does have a direct impact on the other persons interaction/enjoyment of the hobby.

Some people honestly value the hobby aspect over the actual game itself, usually citing the fact that you spend much longer painting and modeling than you do playing (though on a long enough timeline, i challenge that assumption).

Others are just elitist gakkers.

I love to play against painted armies. I would never refuse to play someone because their army isn't painted. Ever.



I paint incredibly slowly and with painstaking attention to detail (for my skill level), and i'm hyper critical of my work. I will not be happy with a mini until it's "right", which leads me to have armies i've been collecting for years that are still getting paint on them. Admittedly, i enjoy the modeling side of the hobby probably more than painting, but i do like to paint.

If someone didn't want to play against me because my force is in a half state of paint, i wouldn't bother taking the time to explain the above paragraph to them ; they are likely not someone i would have a good time playing either, so we're both better off just finding other opponents - they, so my half painted army doesn't wound their delicate sensibilities, and me, because i don't like playing with holier than thou people.

Yes i'm coming off a bit biased and possibly a touch jerky. I just can't fathom wrinkling my nose and refusing to play someone because their army isn't painted. That just screams of being a jerk to me.


(War)Gamers are such a marginalized subculture as it is, why further sub-marginalize each other ?

*shrug*

 Anfauglir wrote:
Because it's a part of the gaming hobby.

Yes, the hobby in and of itself is segregated, some collect and paint, some model, some play, some do a combination of any or all of those things.

However, the gaming/play side of it is supposed to be done properly, that means with legally modelled and painted miniatures.

Someone who fields an army of grey plastic miniatures which require their own assembly and painting can be seen by an opponent to be half-arsing it, i.e. putting in half the effort and only partaking in half the hobby.

Frankly, I'm inclined to agree with them. Why? Because if it was any other aspect of the hobby it wouldn't matter as much because it doesn't directly affect the other hobbyist. However, battling with unpainted figures does have a direct impact on the other persons interaction/enjoyment of the hobby.

There's no rules in a hobby... You partake in your own hobby any way you want to. I don't see in the rule book anything stating armies must be painted. My army is painted and I do that because that's how I justify my own purchase, but honestly, I could give a rats ass if my opponents stuff is painted. It affects me in no way shape or form and who am I to tell someone else what to do with their time and money? If they want to play, come play! It's a game that's meant for fun. I honestly see the only people getting upset about this sort of thing are the self loathing neck beards.

Its not unpainted models in general, but its what they can connote. Say you could be a flavour of the month player, new army comes out, you buy the most abuse able army available then once the meta has changed to meet the new army, you sell yours on ebay (You get a better deal if you leave models unpainted) and get your next army. Or maybe because some people play for the spirit of the game, and having my lovingly painted wood elves being wailed on by new High elves when most of them are simply legs and torsos is fairly disheartening and not in MY spirit of the game. If someone is genuinely busy, or its a new army, then I'd gladly play them and say no more about it. But if its a years old army, then I'd much prefer playing against a painted army (not even well painted, it doesn't take much to get them to 'table top' standard) then an unpainted/unassembled army because it helps me get into the feeling more. How can I get into a universe, when half built models keep reminding me I'm playing a board game?

Not speaking for myself of course, but I think it might be a sort of insult, as in: "I took the time to paint my army, this person didn't even bother." Which I sort of get. Why spend the thousands on an army for 40k, something that is built around showing off your army as much as (if not more than sometimes) playing the game, and then just do NOTHING with the figures. *shrug*

A form of elitism maybe? In tournament play I know the armies have to be painted, or mostly anyway, for judging reasons.

Dunno why people get annoyed. Why do people make posts on forums with a goal to insight an argument?

 Frankenberry wrote:
Not speaking for myself of course, but I think it might be a sort of insult, as in: "I took the time to paint my army, this person didn't even bother." Which I sort of get. Why spend the thousands on an army for 40k, something that is built around showing off your army as much as (if not more than sometimes) playing the game, and then just do NOTHING with the figures. *shrug*

A form of elitism maybe? In tournament play I know the armies have to be painted, or mostly anyway, for judging reasons.

Dunno why people get annoyed. Why do people make posts on forums with a goal to insight an argument?

Why do people try to insight arguments on forums?! That's another thing I never understood!

I will play against someone with an unpainted army.

However, I won't enjoy it anywhere near as much as if the army was painted. 40k is much cooler when you're playing against a specific chapter of Space Marines, rather than a collection of grey army men (especially for fluff bunnies such as myself).

Personally, I view painting and modelling as a vital part of the hobby (I know this view isn't shared by all). This leads to me expecting to see signs of progress on an army. It doesn't have to be much, just a layer of undercoat one month and two or three basecoated infantry models the next shows that you're at least putting some time in occasionally and means I'll be happy to keep playing you.

It's the height of arrogance, I know, but there you have it.

Dalymiddleboro wrote:
There's no rules in a hobby...

I didn't say it was a rule, I said it was the proper way to play. Because it is.

I could give a rats ass if my opponents stuff is painted. It affects me in no way shape or form.

Okay. That's fine, more power to you. You can only speak for yourself, however. Does it make me mad or refuse a game when someone pulls out an unpainted army? No, it doesn't. Does it affect the quality of the game/immersion in the hobby? Yes, most definitely.

 ALEXisAWESOME wrote:
Its not unpainted models in general, but its what they can connote. Say you could be a flavour of the month player, new army comes out, you buy the most abuse able army available then once the meta has changed to meet the new army, you sell yours on ebay (You get a better deal if you leave models unpainted) and get your next army. Or maybe because some people play for the spirit of the game, and having my lovingly painted wood elves being wailed on by new High elves when most of them are simply legs and torsos is fairly disheartening and not in MY spirit of the game. If someone is genuinely busy, or its a new army, then I'd gladly play them and say no more about it. But if its a years old army, then I'd much prefer playing against a painted army (not even well painted, it doesn't take much to get them to 'table top' standard) then an unpainted/unassembled army because it helps me get into the feeling more. How can I get into a universe, when half built models keep reminding me I'm playing a board game?

Exactly.

If i'm going to play someone I prefer it to at least liik like they are making an effort. I would never play an opponent with an entierly grey plastic army, or a massive load of stand ins/ proxys becuase it detracts from the game so much, if its helf painted and eveything if undecoated, i'll go with it, becuase at least they are having a go.

 Anfauglir wrote:

Dalymiddleboro wrote:
There's no rules in a hobby...

I didn't say it was a rule, I said it was the proper way to play. Because it is.

I could give a rats ass if my opponents stuff is painted. It affects me in no way shape or form.

Okay. That's fine, more power to you. You can only speak for yourself, however. Does it make me mad or refuse a game when someone pulls out an unpainted army? No, it doesn't. Does it affect the quality of the game/immersion in the hobby? Yes, most definitely.

 ALEXisAWESOME wrote:
Its not unpainted models in general, but its what they can connote. Say you could be a flavour of the month player, new army comes out, you buy the most abuse able army available then once the meta has changed to meet the new army, you sell yours on ebay (You get a better deal if you leave models unpainted) and get your next army. Or maybe because some people play for the spirit of the game, and having my lovingly painted wood elves being wailed on by new High elves when most of them are simply legs and torsos is fairly disheartening and not in MY spirit of the game. If someone is genuinely busy, or its a new army, then I'd gladly play them and say no more about it. But if its a years old army, then I'd much prefer playing against a painted army (not even well painted, it doesn't take much to get them to 'table top' standard) then an unpainted/unassembled army because it helps me get into the feeling more. How can I get into a universe, when half built models keep reminding me I'm playing a board game?

Exactly.

I don't think having painted models is the proper way to play. I think it's a matter of personal preference.

 ALEXisAWESOME wrote:
How can I get into a universe, when half built models keep reminding me I'm playing a board game?

Man, if unpainted models takes away from the "feel", I'd hate to think what open bottles of beer would do to the universe...

I started played almost 3 months ago but have worked my tail off trying to paint my entire army (orks). I am sick of painting ork boy after ork boy but I do it because when you get the armies on the table it looks 1000 times better when they are painted. I think it's easier to get lost in the game that way and makes it more enjoyable. I'm not saying I'd turn down a game with someone who had an unpainted army but if I had a choice I'd rather play the guy that put the time in to paint everything. But like people above me said, some people like to play others like to paint. Do what you want and get the most enjoyment out of your investment which ever way you decide to go.

I think it comes down to personal preference generally. But to be honest, it looks way cooler when painted armies are 'smashing' each other.

I'll play anyone, painted or no, but painted armies fighting does look pretty cool.

Dalymiddleboro wrote:
I don't think having painted models is the proper way to play. I think it's a matter of personal preference.

You think wrong.

Everyone enjoys their hobby differently. I have friends who hate painting. I personally enjoy it, but I have so much stuff there's no way I could get it all painted. For some of us, it's definitely a time constraint to get it all painted. Chances are, I can build and play or build and paint. If I feel like playing, a couple models might get painted because I'm super excited about them. Others might not. If people refused to play me because my army wasn't painted, it's there choice. However, chances are they're people I wouldn't want to associate with, if they have that attitude, so no loss on my part.

 Anfauglir wrote:

Dalymiddleboro wrote:
I don't think having painted models is the proper way to play. I think it's a matter of personal preference.

You think wrong.

There's no proper way to play. The book encourages forging a narrative, and even playing the rules differently if you would like to. You're wrong sir, people are welcome to play this game in any fashion. As long as both people agree, there's no wrong way to skin a cat.

I mean, I don't know if I'd say it makes me MAD if someone doesn't paint their army.... Its just one of those things where it gets kind of lame to go play unpainted stuff week after week.

I can only speak from extremely limited experience but what drew me to the hobby before 3rd edition was seeing my cousin's painted models. He is a very good painter. So I'm biased...

But looking at it from my POV, I go out to play a game once a week. Most of the people there are there week after week.

I think its just a shame to see people that have MASSIVE armies, or more than one massive army and nothing is even painted, or its just primed and painted like garbage..

It doesn't make me MAD, its just flat out not as cool to me.

Now, a lot of these guys are REALLY into 40k and know a ton more about the game and rules than I do, I'm sure it annoys them that I am such a novice but at least my army looks good.That's how I look at it. Its 2 different sets of values for people I guess.

If I REALLY want to take it to the nth degree I'd say the whole buy a bunch of minis and never paint them just creates a ton of demand for the product which shoots the prices up...

Imagine if people actually painted what they bought before buying dozens and dozens of kits and never finishing anything...

I know that's kind of extreme, but if a perfect world I think that would be ideal haha.

Just my .02 on it.

Dalymiddleboro wrote:

 Anfauglir wrote:

Dalymiddleboro wrote:
I don't think having painted models is the proper way to play. I think it's a matter of personal preference.

You think wrong.

There's no proper way to play. The book encourages forging a narrative, and even playing the rules differently if you would like to. You're wrong sir, people are welcome to play this game in any fashion. As long as both people agree, there's no wrong way to skin a cat.

Not saying it's impossible, but how does one 'forge a narrative' from primered/unpainted armies clashing on a dinner table? Imagination aside, those factors make creating an epic battle REALLY hard

from a pratical standpoint painting also allows easier reckongization of whose minis are what. even when they're painted up in the same paint scheme you can useally tell whose minis are whose.

Case in point, my last game was my ultramarines against someone else's space marines, likewise painted ultramarines. our style was slightly differnt so we could easily tell whose where whose (I used a darker blue)

Dalymiddleboro wrote:
There's no proper way to play.

Yes, there is. The hobby, in its full form, is designed, produced, packaged, sold and enjoyed by many in its natural, intended form. That is, someone buys a rulebook, army book, a collection of minis, assembles and paints said minis (to whatever degree/ability), and plays the TT game against another/others who have done likewise. This is the standard, socially accepted, "proper" or "normal" way to play games of WHFB/40K etc. This is not up for debate, it's simply the way it is. Period.

The book encourages forging a narrative, and even playing the rules differently if you would like to. You're wrong sir, people are welcome to play this game in any fashion. As long as both people agree, there's no wrong way to skin a cat.

Correct. Proper =/= only. Also, what you refer to "the book" encouraging doesn't make any referece to the state of the models vis-a-vis painted/unpainted, only the manner in which the models are used once they reach the tabletop.

They're designed/intended to be painted, whether you choose to use them as such or not. End of story.

 Frankenberry wrote:

Dalymiddleboro wrote:

 Anfauglir wrote:

Dalymiddleboro wrote:
I don't think having painted models is the proper way to play. I think it's a matter of personal preference.

You think wrong.

There's no proper way to play. The book encourages forging a narrative, and even playing the rules differently if you would like to. You're wrong sir, people are welcome to play this game in any fashion. As long as both people agree, there's no wrong way to skin a cat.

Not saying it's impossible, but how does one 'forge a narrative' from primered/unpainted armies clashing on a dinner table? Imagination aside, those factors make creating an epic battle REALLY hard

Your opponents models got turned into stone. BOOM! Took only a second. I'm just saying the people who actually let this bother them to the point of not wanting to play are elitist neck beards, and anyone that does that in my opinion should get outside more often. People need to stop nerd raging over army guys.

So anyone who doesn't play the way you want them to are 'elitist neckbeards' that need to 'go outside' and stop 'nerd raging over army guys'.

You just insulted the vast majority of wargamers and they're the ones who are raging?

Also, did anyone else see the irony in all of this?

 Frankenberry wrote:
So anyone who doesn't play the way you want them to are 'elitist neckbeards' that need to 'go outside' and stop 'nerd raging over army guys'.

You just insulted the vast majority of wargamers and they're the ones who are raging?

Also, did anyone else see the irony in all of this?

I'm not raging though, wrote that calmly. It's true though... Anyone that genuinely gets upset over army guys needs to reevaluate their priorities.

The only person who appears to be nerd raging to any extent in this thread is you!

Honestly, where have you got the idea that not playing against unpainted models is anything more substantial than a preference for the overwhelming majority?

One assumes you'd have no problem with Robert Downey Jr standing in front of a green screen in t-shirt and jeans reading his lines in the next Avengers or Iron Man movie? Because, you know, you'd still get all the story right?

For the record, I don't mind playing unpainted armies, although I limit myself to only fielding painted models as it is a good way of keeping me focused on getting it done.

 azreal13 wrote:
The only person who appears to be nerd raging to any extent in this thread is you!

Honestly, where have you got the idea that not playing against unpainted models is anything more substantial than a preference for the overwhelming majority?

One assumes you'd have no problem with Robert Downey Jr standing in front of a green screen in t-shirt and jeans reading his lines in the next Avengers or Iron Man movie? Because, you know, you'd still get all the story right?

For the record, I don't mind playing unpainted armies, although I limit myself to only fielding painted models as it is a good way of keeping me focused on getting it done.

Opening up a discussion doesn't qualify one as nerd raging. I don't care what my oponents do or do not paint. I'm just wondering why it eats away at some people.

I agree with everyone for painting armies. The whole hobby is based on doing the hard yards of completing an army from start to finish to how you want it to look. So that when you bring your army to war, the opponent can actually visualise the story that's unfolding on the tabletop. If I battle an opponent who has an unpaired army I can't get into the story at all and I honestly don't care if I loose or win, I just want it over. It doesn't take much to paint an army. 10 years ago we basically only had white dwarf and our codex to compare to. Now we have internet tutorials and YouTube videos to basically full proof any painting we do. In my mind an opponent with an unpainted army won't be judged, I just wouldn't have much interest battling as I wouldn't get a story with it.

This is what baffles me, where have you got the idea that it eats away at people?

Sure, I'd choose a painted army over a non painted army to play against, but who wouldn't?

I just can't picture anyone being kept up at nights by it, or, perhaps, anyone who is has much deeper issues than that.

Dalymiddleboro wrote:
Who cares? It's a HOBBY, do w/e you want and get w/e you want out of it. There's no set way to go about this... I just don't understand why people let it emotionally affect them when it's not their army or their models lol.

Exactly, it's a hobby, so why would you not participate in the hobby aspect, which is painting the figures?