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.

 Las wrote:
Having a good kd ratio is not an inherent part of halo, painting miniatures simply is for wargaming.

I enjoy playing the actual table top game, if I could but models prepainted I would, as theyd look better. and I know its not, that's why I used that example. I personally don't feel like painting is as important as others in this thread, and possibly my gaming group, do.

I get what you're saying but you can understand why I view that as kind of an odd choice in a hobby right? Seeing as the minis are meant to be painted and that painting is such a large part of wargaming?

ah but I don't view it truly as a "hobby" involving more than playing. kinda like forge on halo, just to keep the game same, is necessary. sure it makes it more fun for many but not me.



side note I am paying for someone to paint my army as I want them to look cool

That's understandable you can goose to view anything however you wish. However viewing mini wargaming without painting is a bit like viewing basketball without running; sure you can take shots standing still all you like but the game is meant to be done differently.

Again I'm not tellin you or anyone else how to have fun, but wargaming as an activity is what it is. This becomes most glaringly apparent when you realise that not painting your army as a tendency of a player base does not really exist outside of GW games.

 Las wrote:
That's understandable you can goose to view anything however you wish. However viewing mini wargaming without painting is a bit like viewing basketball without running; sure you can take shots standing still all you like but the game is meant to be done differently.

Again I'm not tellin you or anyone else how to have fun, but wargaming as an activity is what it is. This becomes most glaringly apparent when you realise that not painting your army as a tendency of a player base does not really exist outside of GW games.

That analogy doesn't work, because there's nothing cosmetic about the basketball game. I suppose you could say instead that rather then watching it in the stadium, you were watching it at home and that isn't right because it's a slightly different experience.

But all painting is to to actual game itself, is cosmetic and not necessary, and before you trot out the models "not needing to be assembled", it's for WYSIWYG, because it'd be like basketball without the jerseys identifying players on which team is which.

 Las wrote:


No, there are a variety of reasons why you might have an unpainted army. However choosing to completely ignore painting and make no effort to work towards accomplishing painting goals is laziness.

Wow.

That's a pretty fething elitist statement.

I don't like you. IGNORED

Wow.

That's a pretty fething elitist statement.

I don't like you. IGNORED

Kronk you just restored my faith in humanity. lol I was staring to think I was the only one thinking that way (referring to the "elitist" thing).

 Las wrote:
I get what you're saying but you can understand why I view that as kind of an odd choice in a hobby right? Seeing as the minis are meant to be painted and that painting is such a large part of wargaming?

You do understand that hobbies evolve, right?
I like playing games. I've never been involved in a game where someone - at any time - called me lazy because I didn't paint. And that's from historicals to sci-fi to ... well anything. AK47 was the only one that they didn't want to let me use my non-painted technicals, but that's because they had plenty of painted ones available and the pictures we were taking would look better.

It's a large part of your wargaming experience. It is not, by definition, part of everyone's experience nor must it be.

 infinite_array wrote:
Hey, pal.

That's not very friendly.

I know you're new and all, but do you want to try quoting the right people?

The Edit button is a wonderful thing.

Tycho wrote:

Guy walks in with new unpainted Riptide:Hey guys you don't mind that (Insert stupid long tau name)is unpainted?That's OK.
5 months later:Sets down grey lump of plastic on table.Us:If your going to spend 85 euro on a model and not paint it that's OK.But it. Ruins how good the game looks AND it makes you look like a dumbass for spending so much money on something then making it look stupid.And it makes you look lazy.

OR it makes you and your group look like intolerant "game snobs" because of the amount of unfounded assumptions you make about someone with almost no real basis. I realize the guy with the unpainted Riptide is having fun wrong, and I am also well aware of the fact that you and your group probably have Golden Demon quality paint jobs (because I refuse to play against anyone who has less than GD quality paint - it ruins my immersion and it makes you look like DUMBASSES for spending all that money on and time on those models to have less than Top-of-the Line Pro Quality work), but seriously ... you might be taking your war-dollies too seriously.

While I would rather play against a painted army, I will never turn down a game against a fully assembled but not painted army and I will have just as much fun. It's just a hobby and different people are in it for different reasons. Some people just don't like to paint. It's not fun for them, but they DO like everything else. I'm cool with that.

When did I say anything about Quality?Its nice to try.I wouldn't refuse to play against a unpainted army.I never mentioned that.Personnally I think that if you don't paint then you might as well just play with beercans as a deff dread(Actually a converted killa kan based on a can would be awesome.)Its just insane to spend hundreds on miniatures then just have a pile of plastic that has no soul.(Don't worry stormboyz.Someday You can be real orkz.But not today.next week.When I get more green paint.)And now that I look at it all this writing ended up inside the quote.

There are all sorts of reasons someone may not have painted their army.

Maybe they are just trying out a model without spending several hours getting it ready. I've done this. Maybe their painting skills is about what you would expect a 4 year old to do and they don't want to "ruin" the model

-- side note, my 4 year is starting a Tau army. He's painting it red with gold guns and I'm actually impressed with what he's done so far... of course, he is 4 so.

Maybe they are allergic to paint? Maybe they have kids and one of them drank a bottle of the stuff so the wife banned it from the house? -- I lost superglue privileges for about 6 months when one of my kids glued a couple fingers together; yes, it was put in a place they *shouldn't* have been able to get to...

Maybe, just maybe, they are more interested in the camaraderie and game itself than whether Sergeant Bob is yellow, red or blue.

That said, I would never refuse to play against an unpainted (or even horribly painted) army. Because, for me at least, it's not about who has the prettier toys. It's about having fun with a bunch of like minded individuals.

When you attend a costume party, it's somewhat assumed you'll actually wear a costume. There are likely a zillion reasons why you might attend a costume party without a costume, and I'm sure all of your friends will just be happy you're there, but it doesn't take away from the fact that you still attended a costume party without one.

In the end, it's just a game, it's just a much better one on a nicely terrained table with two well painted armies.

 Las wrote:
None of us freak out about unpainted armies. We DO see them as an indication of laziness, but most of us will still play against you. Stop painting (lolz) us as petty folks freaking out at grey plastic.

The important part of your statement is *MOST OF US*. Not all, but most are that way and I specifically am not refering to those people who would rather face painted armies, but happily play the game anyway no matter what without being jerks about it. I am specifically refering to those who go the extra mile to be jerks to people without painted armies and who DO freak about it. Been there and dealt with that in person at multiple tables, not always as a direct player either. If that isn't you then chill out because people aren't talking about you.

Gauging based on your other follow up posts, though, you actually *are* one of those people...

Skriker

The one thing I find interesting here is that people who will play with opponents with unpainted armies will not judge people for how they enjoy their hobby, but on the other hand attack anyone who dose not want to play an opponent with unpainted armies as elitist, rude, jerk and so forth.

It works both ways, it is how they enjoy their hobby like I stated before I don't care if your army is unpainted only that it is assembled but at the same time if some one dose not want to play me because my army is not fully painted than so be it.

We should Respect how everyone enjoys this hobby

 Las wrote:
Something weird is going on here. So you care enough about painting to spend two hours on a single troop choice mini but not enough to mind fielding grey armies?

So someone is supposed to care enough that they bought the minis, built them and learned the game, but then isn't supposed to care enough to paint well and instead is supposed to paint up their minis to a lousy TT standard that looks like crap up close and personal? Sorry, but you can't have it both ways. I will leave my minis unpainted until the time that I can paint them as I choose and to the standard I want to paint them too. I paint very well and I know plenty of tricks to speed up the process and give good results and I'm not going to paint my minis like crap to appease some judgemental guy at the LGS who assumes everyone who isn't painting is lazy.

Skriker


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Las wrote:
That's understandable you can goose to view anything however you wish. However viewing mini wargaming without painting is a bit like viewing basketball without running; sure you can take shots standing still all you like but the game is meant to be done differently.

Actually no your comparison is off. Mini gaming without painting is like playing basketball with a ball that isn't orange or without the teams wearing uniforms. You still have all the skills, rules and equipment you need to play the game, but you just haven't uniformed up to make it really "look" like a professional basketball game. Your comparison to running is not even remotely close and would be more akin to trying to play mini games without having dice or not having any minis, but not having unpainted minis. To play a miniatures game you need *built* minis for your army, whatever the game is and whatever the army is. Your minis are built whether they are painted or not. Also I've played historicals for a good 10+ years longer than 40k and their are plenty of people who have used unpainted or primered armies through those decades that I kind of laugh at the attitude that unpainted minis only appear in 40k or WFB. The primary difference is that the painting elitists on the historical side are much bigger jerks.

Skriker



Automatically Appended Next Post:

Alpha 1 wrote:
The one thing I find interesting here is that people who will play with opponents with unpainted armies will not judge people for how they enjoy their hobby, but on the other hand attack anyone who dose not want to play an opponent with unpainted armies as elitist, rude, jerk and so forth.

It works both ways, it is how they enjoy their hobby like I stated before I don't care if your army is unpainted only that it is assembled but at the same time if some one dose not want to play me because my army is not fully painted than so be it.

We should Respect how everyone enjoys this hobby

It is not the desire to not play an opponent with unpainted armies that gets people labeled as rude, elitist jerks. It is the attitude that they espouse that people who don't paint MUST be lazy bums lacking in any kind of time management skills because, after all, even though they have a full time job they still found the time to paint *their* army so why doesn't everyone else. Or the attitude that those people are doing the hobby "wrong" in some way. Making such snap judgements with the only evidence being miniatures that are unpainted IS rude and elitist. If people weren't writing this junk in their posts they wouldn't be getting called out on it.

Skriker

Skriker
Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Las wrote:
That's understandable you can goose to view anything however you wish. However viewing mini wargaming without painting is a bit like viewing basketball without running; sure you can take shots standing still all you like but the game is meant to be done differently.

Actually no your comparison is off. Mini gaming without painting is like playing basketball with a ball that isn't orange or without the teams wearing uniforms. You still have all the skills, rules and equipment you need to play the game, but you just haven't uniformed up to make it really "look" like a professional basketball game. Your comparison to running is not even remotely close and would be more akin to trying to play mini games without having dice or not having any minis, but not having unpainted minis. To play a miniatures game you need *built* minis for your army, whatever the game is and whatever the army is. Your minis are built whether they are painted or not. Also I've played historicals for a good 10+ years longer than 40k and their are plenty of people who have used unpainted or primered armies through those decades that I kind of laugh at the attitude that unpainted minis only appear in 40k or WFB. The primary difference is that the painting elitists on the historical side are much bigger jerks.

Skriker

That's actually probable the best comparisson that I have seen all thread.

I see your point Striker but this topic asks for their opinion and it seems to be an opinion that is based off first impressions and who is to say they do not change their opinion after getting to know the player behind the unpainted army.

A lot of people are assuming that these people who think this way are disrespectful to the other players (I know some are) but that may not be the case. If they decline in a respectful manner than no harm. If they insult or put down the other player for not having a painted army that's a different story those are the elitist jerks who are rude and should be called out on it.

But like I said calling someone a jerk for an opinion is a little harsh in my opinion

Since I have unpainted armies my self I am sure I fall under their category as lazy and than again I really don't care what people think of me so I never feel the need to justify my self to them. (Not saying anyone here is doing that)

What I am trying to say is that WE ALL should respect how everyone enjoys the hobby even if it dose not fit to our personal standards.

anchorbine wrote:
When you attend a costume party, it's somewhat assumed you'll actually wear a costume. There are likely a zillion reasons why you might attend a costume party without a costume, and I'm sure all of your friends will just be happy you're there, but it doesn't take away from the fact that you still attended a costume party without one.

In the end, it's just a game, it's just a much better one on a nicely terrained table with two well painted armies.

exactly.You are wise.Your now one of the dark gawds of KAY-OSS.

 Las wrote:
I get what you're saying but you can understand why I view that as kind of an odd choice in a hobby right? Seeing as the minis are meant to be painted and that painting is such a large part of wargaming?

The things can be separated, so somebody will.

People have been happily competing in painting (only) aspects of the hobby (e.g. Golden Demon) without the gaming, so why shouldn't it be possible to do it the other way around?

Would you disqualify a Golden Demon entry if it's not game-legal and/or the artist can't quote the rules for the miniature he presents?

Of course, meeting that one person who does it all is always great, but some people rather only do painting, and don't bother with the game. Others only do gaming, and don't bother with the painting. It's no crime to focus on the one aspect you care about it, even if the entire hobby is actually larger.

I dont give a gak about playing people with unpainted armies, I will happily play them, but I try to paint all of mine.

Its ironic that people on both sides of the aisle are making mean spirited broad brush statements though. How is it unfair to slag off someone for being lazy and putting no effort in to painting, when they are responding to mean spirited broad brush statements about people that fully paint their armies are elitist fat neckbeards who don't go outside?


The OP is as guilty as anyone, if you want to slag people off, they have the right to sling some back in your direction.

I dont mind if people don't paint, but its much better when they do because its aesthetically pleasing. I suppose it isnt a big deal though, its just kinda like playing Bioshock Infinity at low graphics settings instead of high, I'm more than happy to have a go if there isn't anything else at hand, but its clearly better playing with everything maxed out. I suppose you could say that about terrain and board and fluff/background or campaign games though, clearly its better with the wholeshebang.

Although, I will point out that anybody who says otherwise is lying through their teeth to excuse their lack of effort.

Although, surely nobody is actually claiming that playing on a bare wooden board with shampoo bottles and soda can terrain and an unpainted plastic army is as cool as playing against nicely painted armies on well decorated boards right?

Alpha 1 wrote:
What I am trying to say is that WE ALL should respect how everyone enjoys the hobby even if it dose not fit to our personal standards.

Good stance...so let's.

For me a hobby is something that gives you relaxation and fun...if painting stresses you out, then it is not a hobby it is a chore. All I really care about is that my opponent has a built army for the game we are going to play, knows how their army works and has a passable understanding of at least the rules basics. Once I'm at the table all I want to do is play.

Whenever this subject comes up I start to chuckle because it always brings to mind a great example moment from many years ago in my gaming life. A friend had a game with a new opponent at a LGS and was pulling his fairly well painted orks out of the carriers and getting them ready for the game when his opponent starts ranting for the next 10 minutes because the bases on my friend's minis aren't flocked. They are painted, but no flocking anywhere. Apparently this completely ruins the visuals of the game for the opponent when mini bases aren't flocked. Where the chuckling comes in is that after 10 minutes of collecting scenery for the table and ranting about flocking making the game *look* terrible the guy starts getting out his army. All of the bases are flocked, but the minis themselves look like they were painted by a colorblind monkey with parkinson's disease...ranting for 10 minutes straight about no flocking on bases and then assaulting the eyes with his minis. Funniest thing ever. I don't say negative things about people's painting because not everyone is a good painter. It isn't a crime to not be a good painter and giving someone grief because they aren't is akin to making fun of someone who doesn't know how to play the piano, BUT if you are going to rant on and on about lack of flocking ruining the way the game looks then you better be pulling an out army from your carriers that looks ready for a golden daemon submission or you look like an idiot.

Skriker

I have much more fun against other painted minis.

in fact, the amount of fun I have goes up exponentially the more awesome the opponents paintjob/modelling conversions/cool stuff they have.


would I refuse to play an unpainted army? no, but i wont have as much fun, and will get tired of it if they keep bringing back the same grey plastic army time and time again.

 mattyrm wrote:
Although, surely nobody is actually claiming that playing on a bare wooden board with shampoo bottles and soda can terrain and an unpainted plastic army is as cool as playing against nicely painted armies on well decorated boards right?

No it isn't as cool, but you CAN still play the game and you CAN still have fun doing it that way too. I've played many a game with a sheet on the table with books underneath for hills, and anything and everything used to make terrain and the games were still lots of fun. I think that is the line that is missed. If you get hung up on what is missing from the experience all you get is annoyed and angry about it. If you focus on the fact that you've got a friend, or a potential friend for that matter, on the other side of the table and they want to take the time to play 40k with you it puts things in a different perspective. For me if I am angry while playing a game I stop playing the game and figure out why because it is SUPPOSED to be fun.

Life is about expectations and unhappiness comes into life not because of the actions of others, but because of the assumed expectations we place on the actions of others when we really have no control over others at all. It is very liberating when you can realize and actualize that no matter what someone else does you are the only one who can make you happy, sad or angry. If one player goes to the LGS to play a game with whomever, he doesn't mind, and just wants to have fun moving his minis around on the table with someone whether he wins or loses and has no other constraints on the experience and the 2nd player expects his opponent to have his army written up a certain way, painted to a certain standard, and know their army rules to a specific level, and he MUST win or be winning to be able to enjoy the game, is it really that hard to figure out which one is likely to be disappointed during the experience? If even one of the second player's expectations isn't met then suddenly they aren't/can't have fun anymore. What is the point of that? Gaming is supposed to be fun. On the extreme end some of these folks are the one's who destroy a mini when it does not perform properly or who throw temper tantrums at the table because something isn't exactly the way they wanted it to be...

Skriker

I think most people have some line about what is visually unacceptable. For some it is unpainted minis, for others it is bottle caps as space marines. (assume tall bottle caps so it's not about LoS.)

 Crimson wrote:
I think most people have some line about what is visually unacceptable. For some it is unpainted minis, for others it is bottle caps as space marines. (assume tall bottle caps so it's not about LoS.)

Well the one concession I will make to the other side is that to play a miniatures game you really should have some miniatures first. Though I have played against a friend using a tau army that was half actual minis and half paper armies representations of tau figures. He wanted to play a big game with his army, but didn't have the money to buy all the minis to increase the size of his army. The difference is, though, that the paper armies "figures" were clearly identifiable as kroot, kroot hounds, fire warriors, etc, unlike bottle caps.

Skriker

But if you paint the bottle caps...

I find that the rules for 40k are adequate at best and having a fully painted army with a nice terrain and board is the redeeming quality of 40k, which is why I find it funny that there are some people that only partake in the playing of the game. Warhammer 40k is a game designed to create cinematic battles and you cannot have cinematic battles without painted miniatures. When I see games of 40k being played without fully painted armies it is like seeing the Battle of Helms Deep but with the humans and Uruk Hai wearing normal everyday clothes, it is not immersive whatsoever, ultimately failing it's original purpose of being an epic immersive battle.

Now I can never look at two towers the same ever again.

I have no issue playing people without painted miniatures, but I find it detracts from the experience. How awesome is it when your opponent has a amazing looking army on the table? Don't you find it easier to immerse yourself in the experience?

I paint because I enjoy it & also as a sign of respect & to enhance the experience for my opponent.

I haven't painted all of my figures, as most of my time is spent getting rid of mould lines.
Drilling gun barrels comes before that, as does magnetising the arms.

I don't really mind playing against a grey horde.
But, I do object to making excuses for myself for too long.
A vehicle will be painted, but the pilot might not be sat on it. Immersion is gone, but WYSIWYG is all there.