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.

 namiel wrote:
If you are such an "elitist" that you wont play a game against someone that isnt fully painted then you are a douche imo. I understand armies that are in pieces but if its at least built not playing because there isnt paint is lame as hell.

Am I also I douche if I don't want to do historical re-enacment with people who don't bother to get a costume?

Now, I play with people with unpainted models in tournaments and other such events, but I'm unlikely intentionally arrange games with such people otherwise. Visual aspect of the game is important to me; I understand its not for others, and they're no way bad people for it, but still, I'm perfectly entitled to use my spare time any way I want.


I also have an impression that attitudes have changed (for worse from my perspective), most peole used to paint their models before playing, now playing with unpainted ones seems to be pretty common practice. And as it has been already pointed out, in historical wargames unpainted armies are unthinkable. I don't know why the culture has changed in GW games; the designers themselves certainly promote the painting side of the hobby, and we of course never see (or even hear about) an unpainted army used in a game in WD.

 Crimson wrote:
and we of course never see (or even hear about) an unpainted army used in a game in WD.

Of course we are going to see the painted models in the magazine that's all about advertizing GW products. It's because it makes it look better to the consumer.

I can't remember when, but they had a WD game to showcase the latest army release. The actual wording they used was that they didn't care about point values, they just grabbed what was painted and ready for photos. Now is this WD advocating playing without point values as long as you have photo ready models? No! It's a glorified ad and they were only going to show painted models because it leads to better sales.

 Savageconvoy wrote:

 Crimson wrote:
and we of course never see (or even hear about) an unpainted army used in a game in WD.

Of course we are going to see the painted models in the magazine that's all about advertizing GW products. It's because it makes it look better to the consumer.

I can't remember when, but they had a WD game to showcase the latest army release. The actual wording they used was that they didn't care about point values, they just grabbed what was painted and ready for photos. Now is this WD advocating playing without point values as long as you have photo ready models? No! It's a glorified ad and they were only going to show painted models because it leads to better sales.

This example breaks down when you get your head out of GW's blinders and look around at the wider hobby. Why do game systems and wargaming magazines independent of companies that offer rules/miniatures combos feature fully painted armies? In all of Warlord Game's rulebooks there are miniatures from a variety of manufacturers. The miniatures from those other than Warlord are no less well painted. The same goes for Tomorrow's War - Ambush Alley Games and Osprey Publishing don't even have a line of miniatures, so why bother painting anything in the books if they're not trying to sell their products?

The fishing example works as well because you're just getting the equipment needed to play a game.

But you're ignoring the difference. Professional fishermen and men who literally live off of their income from fishing don't assemble their own lures for the most part. Companies that make lures don't sell them un-assembled and un-colored. But most wargaming miniature manufacturers do sell your their models unpainted and unembarrassed.

This is why the game analogy works. The game has multiple parts to it that some people may just avoid, in this case solo/co-op campaign and multiplayer; the hobby having painting, converting, basing, tactics, list building, terrain making, and so on. Now you're trying to say that the hobby is all encompassing and that buying into one automatically puts you into the other. Would you deny playing a campaign co-op with a friend on Halo simply because he hasn't unlocked all the armor varients in multiplayer? Absolutely not.

Again, you're missing the difference. There is a massive difference between using a default character in a game and using a grey blob of miniatures. A default character is still colored and looks like belongs in the game. A grey, colorless miniature doesn't.

It's just as Crimson said. I wouldn't expect to be treated well if I showed up to a historical reenactment in cargo shorts and a t-shirt, even though wearing that wouldn't affect my ability to perform in whatever role I was in. It's a purely aesthetic choice that's understood to be a critical and necessary part of the hobby to keep the immersion.

Is anyone else noticing that there are a lot of people in this thread being very intolerant about people expressing a preference for seeing fully painted models, and then accusing those people of being intolerant of their preference for not working.

What I think everyone here has to take a step back and think about for a bit, is that this is a game played between two or more people. You can paint by yourself, or collect grey legions by yourself. If you go to a table for a game, you are going to have to deal with their standards, their preference for how the game is played and for what the models look like. Sure, you may be fine with grey legions, but maybe they really like seeing two or more fully painted armies squared off against each other. Really, you're hurting their enjoyment, much like they could hurt your enjoyment by refusing to play you. It's the same thing really. Now, as socially functional human beings, I am sure we all recognize the need for compromise. I will play your unpainted army, but, all else being equal, I will play a fully painted army. This way, we each get to enjoy ourselves about half the time. If you want to enjoy yourself more often, you can paint your army, meaning that I will enjoy playing you more, and so will play you more. Everyone now wins with you painting your army.

 infinite_array wrote:

 Savageconvoy wrote:

 Crimson wrote:
and we of course never see (or even hear about) an unpainted army used in a game in WD.

Of course we are going to see the painted models in the magazine that's all about advertizing GW products. It's because it makes it look better to the consumer.

I can't remember when, but they had a WD game to showcase the latest army release. The actual wording they used was that they didn't care about point values, they just grabbed what was painted and ready for photos. Now is this WD advocating playing without point values as long as you have photo ready models? No! It's a glorified ad and they were only going to show painted models because it leads to better sales.

This example breaks down when you get your head out of GW's blinders and look around at the wider hobby. Why do game systems and wargaming magazines independent of companies that offer rules/miniatures combos feature fully painted armies? In all of Warlord Game's rulebooks there are miniatures from a variety of manufacturers. The miniatures from those other than Warlord are no less well painted. The same goes for Tomorrow's War - Ambush Alley Games and Osprey Publishing don't even have a line of miniatures, so why bother painting anything in the books if they're not trying to sell their products?

No, your giving more support to the painted for ads to lead to better sell of there stuff, that he was point out. Not the other way around, I'm more likely to buy that "wargaming magazines independent of companies" if it has pretty pics. It the same reason Warload Game's rulebook have pretty pic.

Noir wrote:

 infinite_array wrote:

 Savageconvoy wrote:

 Crimson wrote:
and we of course never see (or even hear about) an unpainted army used in a game in WD.

Of course we are going to see the painted models in the magazine that's all about advertizing GW products. It's because it makes it look better to the consumer.

I can't remember when, but they had a WD game to showcase the latest army release. The actual wording they used was that they didn't care about point values, they just grabbed what was painted and ready for photos. Now is this WD advocating playing without point values as long as you have photo ready models? No! It's a glorified ad and they were only going to show painted models because it leads to better sales.

This example breaks down when you get your head out of GW's blinders and look around at the wider hobby. Why do game systems and wargaming magazines independent of companies that offer rules/miniatures combos feature fully painted armies? In all of Warlord Game's rulebooks there are miniatures from a variety of manufacturers. The miniatures from those other than Warlord are no less well painted. The same goes for Tomorrow's War - Ambush Alley Games and Osprey Publishing don't even have a line of miniatures, so why bother painting anything in the books if they're not trying to sell their products?

No, your giving more support to the painted for ads to lead to better sell of there stuff, that he was point out. Not the other way around, I'm more likely to buy that "wargaming magazines independent of companies" if it has pretty pics. It the same reason Warload Game's rulebook have pretty pic.

Really? That's why gaming magazines feature painted armies? To sell product?

It couldn't possibly be because of the decades of tradition surrounding assembling and painting miniatures could it? A tradition that probably so enthralled the founders of these smaller game companies to get into this business in the first case could it? Could it?

 infinite_array wrote:

This example breaks down when you get your head out of GW's blinders and look around at the wider hobby. Why do game systems and wargaming magazines independent of companies that offer rules/miniatures combos feature fully painted armies? In all of Warlord Game's rulebooks there are miniatures from a variety of manufacturers. The miniatures from those other than Warlord are no less well painted. The same goes for Tomorrow's War - Ambush Alley Games and Osprey Publishing don't even have a line of miniatures, so why bother painting anything in the books if they're not trying to sell their products?

Afraid I'm not familiar with works outside of GW and Forgeworld. However this doesn't change the issue at hand. GW has printed two WD that I know of (at least) where they mishandled rules to push a battle report. I'm sure you've heard of the SoB update where they got a free Fortress of Redemption. The one where the point costs were left to the wayside was DA vs. CSM if I remember right. Does this mean they advocate giving away free Fortifications and loosely handling point values? Giving units more special weapons than they are allowed? Absolutely not. A company that posts up painted models does so because they are trying to show something more asthetically appealing than the bare models. I know of no rules that require a unit (aside form red paint job) to be painted to any color let alone a minimum of three colors and a wash. If it's not part of the rules you can't expect another player to really be aware of this "standard" in the game.

But you're ignoring the difference. Professional fishermen and men who literally live off of their income from fishing don't assemble their own lures for the most part. Companies that make lures don't sell them un-assembled and un-colored. But most wargaming miniature manufacturers do sell your their models unpainted and unembarrassed.

Again, you're missing the difference. There is a massive difference between using a default character in a game and using a grey blob of miniatures. A default character is still colored and looks like belongs in the game. A grey, colorless miniature doesn't.

Do you understand how an analogy works? If I said that jumping without looking is like drinking from a bottle without reading the label there are several differences. Jumping doesn't come in a container. I get it. There are differences. You can point out the differences all day long, but you however ignore the point I was making. Multiplayer options come with the purchase of the game. Much like the option to paint comes with the purchase of models, since you couldn't paint the model without first purchasing it. The option to paint however is not mandatory to enjoy playing the actual game, much like how with the game you can enjoy the campaign without the actual multiplayer aspect. Purchasing lures and bait is an option just like putting in more effort than required to go look for and prepare your own bait and tackle.

Again, look at the gaming analogy. You're brushing it off because to you it seems stupid. Why would someone be upset at someone wanting to play a co-op game just because they haven't spent several hours grinding away at a multiplayer game that has no effect on the actual game play? It sounds silly because it is silly. You're trying to include several aspects of a game that you decide is necessary. What about making your own terrain? That's certainly part of the hobby. Why not bring that into the game as well. Would you accept a game with someone who doesn't bring his own varied set of terrain pieces?

 Savageconvoy wrote:

Again, look at the gaming analogy. You're brushing it off because to you it seems stupid. Why would someone be upset at someone wanting to play a co-op game just because they haven't spent several hours grinding away at a multiplayer game that has no effect on the actual game play? It sounds silly because it is silly. You're trying to include several aspects of a game that you decide is necessary. What about making your own terrain? That's certainly part of the hobby. Why not bring that into the game as well. Would you accept a game with someone who doesn't bring his own varied set of terrain pieces?

I'm 'brushing off' your video game analogy because it's a fundamentally bad analogy. I am saying you cannot compare miniatures to a video game character. Yes, both can require an extended period of time to look different from what they began as. But a video game model doesn't start out without any textures or colors. Your basic character will be fully colored and will look they belong in the game.

If, perhaps, we were talking about X-Wing, or another game that used pre-painted miniatures, then your analogy would make sense (and even then, you can find people who will either touch-up the pre-paint job or strip the miniature to start over). But your default Warhammer figures - in fact, most of your default wargaming miniatures - do not start out colored and looking like they belong in the universe/setting they're portrayed in.

Terrain is another question all together. I would probably be miffed if I showed up at someone's house or club and saw a table with nothing on it and be expected to play on it. And the same would be on me if I was hosting a game or was a part a club and didn't pitch in and make terrain. Which I do - I've taken the time to cut out felt and flock treas for forests, bought, painted, and assembled terrain and even commissioned other pieces when I felt what I wanted was beyond my skill.

The game analogy just doesn't hold up, it's way too different. I see what you're going for in the whole "Im having fun my way" train of thought, but it just isn't the same.

Video games are meant to be able to be played in any of the modes offered and even modded to suit the needs of the player. Wargaming is simply about assembling and painting figures and then using them with a ruleset to simulate battles. That's just fact. Sure, you can choose to partake in any one or combination of these facets of the hobby and culture, but you shouldn't get so defensive when people call you out on not partaking in the hobby as it is supposed to be done.

The majority of tournaments (at least locally, but I'm fairly sure this applies in most places) require models to have three colours and be based. The implication being that you're meant to paint your models before using them. Whether this is out of politeness for your opponents, to prevent WAAC TFGs buying and assembling a flavour of the month power list two days beforehand, or simply to make the hobby look good is up to personal opinion.

Granted, if you don't play in tournaments you can ignore this. However, I take this, the fact that almost every model displayed in a codex or on a box is painted, and the fact that every similar wargame game system also has painted models to mean that you're supposed to paint your 40k minis.

What's with the stupid "taking toy soldiers too seriously" quotes? If you are playing this game and know the rules and play competitive you take it seriously too. Just because some of us want to see them painted doesn't mean we are elitist and taking it "too serious". Really? ONE more step is taking it too seriously? So let me get this straight....

Buy
Build
Learn
Play

That's just right

Buy
Build
PAINT
Learn
Play

Woah man! Take it back a step!! You are taking this waaaay too seriously. You need to chill!

You really can't accuse someone else of taking it too seriously for encouraging ONE more step.

To be honest the painting step pretty much engulfs all the others in terms of time spent unless you go all out on the building process or have been able to play tons of games.

I'll admit I'm guilty of fielding armies with very little painted models. 40k isn't my only hobby and I admit I struggle to paint unless in the mood (which college has made difficult to paint within such time constraints). I've spent hour upon hour on a single guardsman model trying to race out edges and paint some mud onto his form adding a glossy paint to make it look like he is sloshing through water. I try to and I gradually build my way up but I'll admit that painting is my least liked part of the hobby and I can never blame somebody for fielding the grey/black/white/etc.

That being said, there is some sense of entitlement (bad term just not sure what to say) among players of 40k. This hobby is rather niche and you can't deny there is something much more satisfying about playing an enemy army that is painted be it flamboyant pink or a smooth purple. The hobby isn't a competitive game by any means and even the tournaments tend to require 3 paints on every model. This becomes the general expectation that everything else is judged upon. Individually, you will likely find many that simply prefer painted armies but won't reject an individual that hasn't painted their army.

Finally, painting is a major aspect of the hobby. Heck there are many that focus upon the construction and painting of their models above the game itself. And.... there's nothing wrong with that opinion. It is what we do on our spare time and if we feel like it dampens are appreciation then we will chose not to attend such events.

When I got in the game years ago, the local store talked about having a 3 colours minimum to play (2 on the mini, and one more for the weapon) and based to play at the table..that might have been to sell paint. I did 2 squads of Cadians, then promply stopped due to lack of free time.

Restarted year ago (2 years ago now) and worked on getting a 1k force of IG to bring to (another) local store, all ready to play with my painted army, based with sand and grass, even had a squad with eyes and a couple with edging too.

Then I finally played; a foursome with people who didn't bother basing, painted their mini, when they were painted, by spraying them one colour and slapping boltgun metal on the weapon, maybe doing a should pad yellow and calling it 'well painted'. My mind was then opened up to the fact that painting and effort was no longer required, and went in a downward spiral made out of a single shade of grey..Memories of me playing with an autocannon team composed entirely of three 60mm bases with a 'A' scratched on them (to separate them from mortar team made out of three 60mm bases with an 'M' scratched on it), facing Xenos, Chaos and Marines, each of the same monotone, hazy colour, flows back to the surface of my most neutrally coloured nightmares. Leman Russes showing off glue residue on a dull grey plastic armour, armless guardsman storming the line, out of their minds, mostly because they lacked head, pushed to greater feats by a Green stuff Hat-wearing Commissar with matching popped greenstuff collar, all under the hard, watchful gaze of a metal commander half stuck in the base slit (because it's too tick to fit all the way down) and his old-inquisitor-warband-kit-proxing-as-veterans squad mates (The Inquisitor missing his sword arm being the Standard bearer)

But I got over it, thanks to group therapy...or not. Really, it's mostly because my army doubles as the only decoration in my apartment (see no point in having random vases, frames and other crap litter my place serving no other purpose than taking space) so might as well get something that flashes and strikes a better image than some grey bits that I might s well took out from some random board game.

But to answer the post's question, after all that effort made, it's sorta of a let down seeing the other guy not putting as much effort as you do into something you like. It's like work; you and Some guy work at doing X, but Some guy does X partially; but you both get a paycheck of the same value at the end of the week with no consequences for Some guy by doing his work partially.

I don't mind playing against some half painted army if there is progress in the painting, but we had one guy at my local store that never painted his stuff, So we other players were always ribbing him about it during play.

I've never had any complaints. Ever. I play all my armies (list is in my sig.) Of my 3+ companies of Marines (all chapters), ~1.5 companies worth are painted. None of the Xenos stuff is painted. I'm starting to get stuff painted (finishing up a fluffy company, have a blog on that going.)
I guess people get mad because they feel like unpainted armies defeat the point of wargaming. I admit, painted minis are more fun to play with/against, but if it takes me 2 hours (+ basing) to get a mini to a quality I am comfortable with for basic troopers. Considering the sheer number of minis I have...
My 2 bits.

_e

I can see both sides of this issue.

To me, the single most enjoyable part of this hobby is to have a pretty table set-up. I love it when a random passer-by stops to ask what we're doing and to admire how awesome the table looks with the two armies ranging across it. In that regard, playing against a grey army is always a little bit of a let-down. (But I take solace that my army looks much more awesome in comparison.)

By the flip token, I hate painting. I get absolutely no joy out of the process of painting my minis--quite the contrary: it's boring, usually pisses me off, and is physically painful. So I can totally understand it when someone doesn't want to go through that. The joy I get from someone admiring my (our) armies is enough to entice me to go through the ordeal, but I can easily see other people being less enthused by that particular goal.

Not to sound like a total tool but really anyone who says "I enjoy playing against painted armies so if your army is not painted in a friendly game I refuse to play you" IMO sounds pretty childish, especially if said individual has not asked or inquired WHY the models are not painted or in process of being painted. For example, I have work, I am in the military, I have to spend time with my girl, I work out and I have school. That does not leave me alot of time to sit down and paint an army and as mentioned, chances are it would not turn out very well if I did. The idea someone would look at my army and say "sorry your army is not painted so I dont want to play you" really seems to come out in a negative light. Not attacking y'all that feel that way as you have the right to, just realize that you may come off in a negative aspect.

To all those that say not painting your models isn't fully taking part in the hobby, than surely by that logic, people who paint, but don't play are also not fully taking part and are equally worthing of your contempt correct?

 Krellnus wrote:
To all those that say not painting your models isn't fully taking part in the hobby, than surely by that logic, people who paint, but don't play are also not fully taking part and are equally worthing of your contempt correct?

Yes, people who only paint and don't play are not fully taking part in the hobby either. For some reason they don't complain about me not wanting to play against them...

Interested on the prevailing view on people who play with models others have painted (and done a much better job than anything the commisioner coudl have done).

Everyone should be happy - both sides have nicely painted models and someone else gets money as well.............

Or is the commissioner still doing the hobby "wrong" despite this as they don't paint thier own models?

 Mr Morden wrote:
Interested on the prevailing view on people who play with models others have painted (and done a much better job than anything the commisioner coudl have done).

Everyone should be happy - both sides have nicely painted models and someone else gets money as well.............

Or is the commissioner still doing the hobby "wrong" despite this as they don't paint thier own models?

That's completely fine by me. Similarly as I don't care why your models are not painted, I don't care why they are painted, as long as they are.

What's with the stupid "taking toy soldiers too seriously" quotes? If you are playing this game and know the rules and play competitive you take it seriously too. Just because some of us want to see them painted doesn't mean we are elitist and taking it "too serious". Really? ONE more step is taking it too seriously? So let me get this straight....

Buy
Build
Learn
Play

That's just right

Buy
Build
PAINT
Learn
Play

Woah man! Take it back a step!! You are taking this waaaay too seriously. You need to chill!

You really can't accuse someone else of taking it too seriously for encouraging ONE more step.

Speaking for myself - it's not the "encouraging one more step" that bothers me. Problem is too many people are not encouraging that step. They are demanding it and looking down on anyone who doesn't take it. "i'd prefer to play against painted armies" is one thing. "Your unpainted model makes you look like a dumbass, you are ruining the game, and furthermore, I believe you are lazy" is another thing all together and there's way too much of that here. It's that second attitude that irritates me. Plus, playing against unpainted miniatures is still more "imersive" than not playing at all. I totally understand the preference of playing against painted armies over unpainted, but I will just never get the "I'd rather not play at all then play against an unpainted army" point of view.

Mr Morden wrote:
Interested on the prevailing view on people who play with models others have painted (and done a much better job than anything the commisioner coudl have done).

Everyone should be happy - both sides have nicely painted models and someone else gets money as well.............

Or is the commissioner still doing the hobby "wrong" despite this as they don't paint thier own models?

Doesn't bother me one bit when someone does this. If they have the money, want a painted army but don't enjoy doing it themselves then I say go for it!

Tycho wrote:
I totally understand the preference of playing against painted armies over unpainted, but I will just never get the "I'd rather not play at all then play against an unpainted army" point of view.

"I'd rather not go to a fantasy LARP at all than go to a Fantasy LARP where people don't have costumes." or "I'd rather not read a book at all than read 'Twilight'." Can you understand those?

"I'd rather not go to a fantasy LARP at all than go to a Fantasy LARP where people don't have costumes." or "I'd rather not read a book at all than read 'Twilight'." Can you understand those?

I'm not a LARPER myself but from what I understand of it, you actually NEED to have costumes in order to tell what character class everyone is. It's not really the same thing at all. If I show up to a LARP in a 3 piece suit and tell you I'm a wizard, and then later, when it becomes advantageous to me, I change my mind and tell someone else I'm a Elf or whatever - that actually DOES screw up the game. A Space Marine miniature is a Space Marine miniature whether it's painted or not.

I can certainly understand not wanting to read a Twighlight book, but again, an unpainted miniature doesn't suddenly turn 40k into "not 40k" ...

As I said earlier in the thread, chick dig painted minis. So paint your minis.

Also, shower (with soap) and use deodorant.

 Matt1785 wrote:
What's with the stupid "taking toy soldiers too seriously" quotes? If you are playing this game and know the rules and play competitive you take it seriously too. Just because some of us want to see them painted doesn't mean we are elitist and taking it "too serious". Really? ONE more step is taking it too seriously? So let me get this straight....

Buy
Build
Learn
Play

That's just right

Buy
Build
PAINT
Learn
Play

Woah man! Take it back a step!! You are taking this waaaay too seriously. You need to chill!

You really can't accuse someone else of taking it too seriously for encouraging ONE more step.

It's almost like those steps don't take an equal amount of time or something. That "ONE" more step is in actuality hundreds of hours for many people. And you're advocating doing that before moving on at all.

 Mr Morden wrote:
Interested on the prevailing view on people who play with models others have painted (and done a much better job than anything the commisioner coudl have done).

Everyone should be happy - both sides have nicely painted models and someone else gets money as well.............

Or is the commissioner still doing the hobby "wrong" despite this as they don't paint thier own models?

Oh, that's perfectly fine. I get to play a fully painted army, you don't have to paint an army... everyone wins. I'd only really have issue if there is some kind of painting prize you tried to get.

Tycho wrote:

I'm not a LARPER myself but from what I understand of it, you actually NEED to have costumes in order to tell what character class everyone is. It's not really the same thing at all. If I show up to a LARP in a 3 piece suit and tell you I'm a wizard, and then later, when it becomes advantageous to me, I change my mind and tell someone else I'm a Elf or whatever - that actually DOES screw up the game. A Space Marine miniature is a Space Marine miniature whether it's painted or not.

Yeah, that's not how LARPs work at all. Costumes are just for show, just like paintjobs on models*. You can't change you character any more than an unpainted space marine can change from Black Templar to a Space Wolf mid game.

* (well technically in some LARPs pieces of equipment like armour or weapons may have rules attached to them, but that's more analogous to WYSIWYG on miniatures.)

In my experience those that get most upset about unpainted miniatures are the "old school" 40k gamers, especially those who already have nice fully painted armies. I've had people refuse to play me or give me and others grief about unpainted models, etc. But, it has rarely been anything but polite and in good taste. For instance, our FLGS owner doesn't get to play very often at all, and when he does, his requirement is that his opponent field a fully painted and based army because that is how he most enjoys his gaming time.

I for one started out as a player. I bought models to play the game, I had no idea how to paint, didn't even understand proper base coating etc. It took me forever and I collected models 100 times faster than I could get them painted. I had a finite amount of free time and chose to use it to play the game instead of paint. I've also been in and out of the hobby twice for various reason and have had quite a bit of army turn over. I've always ended up with mostly basecoated armies with a few nicely painted miniatures in each. The only armies I ever painted I had to to play in tournaments.

Now, I'm thinning my collection and will have my first well painted army since I again got back into the hobby. I'm devoting most of my efforts toward tournament play because I enjoy it and have an easier time finding a weekend day to go to a tournament than find casual games during the week. My Farsight Enclave will be ready for a GT next month and I'm chipping away at what I have and painting a couple of hours each week.

I enjoy playing against and with painted models more, but that is not always feasible. I certainly would never hold playing with unfinished miniatures against someone as I would expect them to not hold my competitive, strategic, and rules conscious play against me.

We all play this hobby, many for different reasons. Who are we to judge how the other enjoy themselves?

 Savageconvoy wrote:

I'm sure you've heard of the SoB update where they got a free Fortress of Redemption. The one where the point costs were left to the wayside was DA vs. CSM if I remember right. Does this mean they advocate giving away free Fortifications and loosely handling point values? Giving units more special weapons than they are allowed? Absolutely not.

Off-topic, perhaps, but I would suggest that they were, in fact, advocating more "free-form" gaming, away from the constraints of the Force Org chart and the specifics of the army lists. Especially if they actually drew attention to that fact. Not to the extent that I'd prefer, but at least it's something.

As for the OP, I try to avoid using unpainted models; I find the look of an unpainted army (or an unpainted tabletop for that matter) unappealing. Given the choice, I would indeed avoid playing against an unpainted army, all else being equal. Sadly, it's not always equal; not everyone else agrees with me, so not everyone else has a fully-painted army. Or sometimes the person with the painted army is a jerk - or just prefers a different style of game to me, and I'd rather play against someone who will provide a more fun game, but at the cost of having an unpainted force.

There's a lot of people throwing around definitions of "The Hobby", as if it's an actual thing. Some people like collecting miniatures (and not even opening the packaging, let alone building them), some like painting, some like making scenery, some like the purely competitive gaming aspect and some like roleplaying. Some like different elements more than others. It's all "the hobby".

It seems to me that GW's - or at least their staff writers' - idea of "the hobby" does include playing with painted armies, but so what? That's not binding on anyone else. I don't think they'd say that cutthroat competitive tournament play is what they had in mind, but that doesn't bother anyone.

As an aside, I've heard it said by many small miniatures companies that having pictures of painted models as opposed to unpainted or black-washed castings on their website makes no real difference to sales. Certainly not enough to make up for the additional costs involved in painting and photographing everything.

The only person who gets to say what a "hobby" is is this man, and I sincerely hope that's not you.