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.

It's easy to pass judgement on people for bringing unpainted minis when you have been in the hobby for years, have loads of painted models, and just need to add the odd unit. Someone starting from scratch is going to need time to get them ready, and it seems a bit unfair to refuse to play them until they are all/mostly painted. I mean, minimum size for a game is usually around 1500 points (YMMV) which is a lot to get done just for the privilege of playing a game you might not like.

I think the best thing to do is offer incentives for getting models painted, e.g one VP for each unit finished since the last club night, prizes for best painted armies, escalation leagues with bonuses for getting units finished etc.

I love to build, and paint the kits, I'll set up a list I think works for me, collect up what I don't have, build and paint it. Unfortunately the last time I played was 6th ed, at a tournament, about three years ago. So its really the opposite for me. I would however, play against someone who has unpainted models, and kits. I would ask why they haven't painted, and encourage them to paint. If they say they can't paint, or wouldn't know where to start, I would assist them in whatever ways possible. I used to enjoy painting with good friends over beers and such.
I can see the attraction to 40K vs the Hero Click games. Some folks love the build, but may not have time to paint, or perhaps they just don't know how.

Like many here, I have a "live and let live apart" attitude towards folks who don't paint their miniatures. It basically boils down to "that's fine for you, but you'll have to find someone else to play against." though I'm wiling to make exceptions for folks in-progress. Still, I'm not so relativistic as to be willing to give as much weight and approval to those who don't paint and say that they're involvement in the hobby is "just as good as mine".

Like any activity, there is something of of a hierarchy of involvement in the hobby, with those who play with painted miniatures bringing more "to the table" and those with grey hordes as "less". It may sound elitist, harsh, and no one seems to like the word "hierarchy" anymore, but consider that every other hobby activity has standards, by which they judge a member's degree of involvement and commitment to the hobby. Why should wargaming be any different than these hobbies that require painting or any other hobby with standards?

-If you're a part of a car club, but don't paint or keep your car up, you're going to be viewed differently.
-If you're part of a military modeling club, but just assemble and convert your models, but don't paint them, no one is going to think that you've "finished" them or want you to display with the club.
-If you show up to a train club with a bunch of ready-to-run "Bachman" models with plastic wheels eyebrows may raise.

Likewise, if you show up to the table with grey hordes and aren't actively painting them, you simply "aren't there yet", and I'm not going to applaud you for your "approach" to the hobby. That does not make you (or me) a bad person, it does not reflect on your character, or your behavior outside of wargaming. However, make no mistake, painted models are part of wargaming and have always been. If you're content to repeatedly bring your bondoed-up camaro to the car show that's your choice, but don't expect the same level of esteem and approval. Like any hobby, there's loads of people out there ready with tips and techiques to help you get your stuff done (or will do it for you for a price), and ready with encouragement to do so, but it's up to you see that it gets done.

Lastly, I realize that this applies to myself as well. I paint my minis with fairly quick block paint schemes and a dip. It's a standard I'm happy with and looks good on the tabletop, but I don't expect to get the same kind of props or respect as someone who paints their miniatures to a higher standard. In fact, sometimes I'm actually a tiny bit disappointed that things have gotten so bad that I receive quite a bit of kudos for figures that are tabletop painted, just because they are all painted.

Sum up, the hobby has standards. If you choose not to meet them, then that's up to you, but they do exist.

I had all my miniatures get painted.

I love the fluff of 40k and the fluff and rules of WHFB, but I absolutely hate painting. Like, really hate it! So I just have them painted by professionals and still enjoy the game

 Eilif wrote:
Like many here, I have a "live and let live apart" attitude towards folks who don't paint their miniatures. It basically boils down to "that's fine for you, but you'll have to find someone else to play against." though I'm wiling to make exceptions for folks in-progress. Still, I'm not so relativistic as to be willing to give as much weight and approval to those who don't paint and say that they're involvement in the hobby is "just as good as mine".

Like any activity, there is something of of a hierarchy of involvement in the hobby, with those who play with painted miniatures bringing more "to the table" and those with grey hordes as "less". It may sound elitist, harsh, and no one seems to like the word "hierarchy" anymore, but consider that every other hobby activity has standards, by which they judge a member's degree of involvement and commitment to the hobby. Why should wargaming be any different than these hobbies that require painting or any other hobby with standards?

-If you're a part of a car club, but don't paint or keep your car up, you're going to be viewed differently.
-If you're part of a military modeling club, but just assemble and convert your models, but don't paint them, no one is going to think that you've "finished" them or want you to display with the club.
-If you show up to a train club with a bunch of ready-to-run "Bachman" models with plastic wheels eyebrows may raise.

Likewise, if you show up to the table with grey hordes and aren't actively painting them, you simply "aren't there yet", and I'm not going to applaud you for your "approach" to the hobby. That does not make you (or me) a bad person, it does not reflect on your character, or your behavior outside of wargaming. However, make no mistake, painted models are part of wargaming and have always been. If you're content to repeatedly bring your bondoed-up camaro to the car show that's your choice, but don't expect the same level of esteem and approval. Like any hobby, there's loads of people out there ready with tips and techiques to help you get your stuff done (or will do it for you for a price), and ready with encouragement to do so, but it's up to you see that it gets done.

Lastly, I realize that this applies to myself as well. I paint my minis with fairly quick block paint schemes and a dip. It's a standard I'm happy with and looks good on the tabletop, but I don't expect to get the same kind of props or respect as someone who paints their miniatures to a higher standard. In fact, sometimes I'm actually a tiny bit disappointed that things have gotten so bad that I receive quite a bit of kudos for figures that are tabletop painted, just because they are all painted.

Sum up, the hobby has standards. If you choose not to meet them, then that's up to you, but they do exist.

Standards of a hobby are created by the vast majority of the participants. When looking around stores and this thread, having everything painted doesn't seem to be a standard at all. About one in ten players has their entire army painted in more than two colors. The few people who have completely painted armies are admired and commented on a job well done - you wouldn't do that to people who just meet standards.

Not even GW tells us that you need to paint your miniatures when describing the hobby. They tell us that painting a very satisfying and fun aspect of the hobby. It's an annoying chore to me. Why should I spend my free time with an annoying chore? Because someone who likes painting tells me to? Painting models, converting models and gaming with models are all separate hobbies which happen to be sold under the label of "Warhammer40k". No one is forced to play with their models, no one is forced to convert or kitbash models. Somehow painters still think that everyone is forced to paint their models. Should I look down on people who haven't fully magnetized their units? Should I look down on people who don't use greenstuff anywhere in their army? Should I look down on people who have a bunch of models that don't combine into a functioning army?

I accept that someone who put a lot effort into his army wants to see it fight another painted army. After all, you obviously care more about aesthetics of a game than me. What I do not accept is someone being condescending about having his army painted and telling me to get the feth out of his hobby.

I guess it just comes down to who cares and who doesn't

-If you're a part of a car club, but don't paint or keep your car up, you're going to be viewed differently.
-If you're part of a military modeling club, but just assemble and convert your models, but don't paint them, no one is going to think that you've "finished" them or want you to display with the club.
-If you show up to a train club with a bunch of ready-to-run "Bachman" models with plastic wheels eyebrows may raise.

Aside from the first, the other ones don't also have an aspect beyond 'modeling' being the only part of the hobby, where as 40k has actual game playing. Some people just hate painting and would rather just play the game.

 Tigramans wrote:
It's the same thing if I asked: "Why some people like toast, but hate to eat its edges?"

There are different people, liking and hating different things

People who don't eat the edge of the toast are like those who don't eat the pizza crust, they're not to be trusted.

As has been pointed out very well: your version of "the hobby" could very well not match mine.
There are so many other ways to up your skills/game that there are few ways we can all match.

I want conscripts for my IG/AM army so I am leaning on the 3 part soldier models (base, body, gun/arm) which are cheaper and fast to assemble.
They are not as nice as the 7 part models (base, legs, arms rh/llh, torso, head, ammo/canteen belt items) but when painted, do not detract much.
Someone "could" take offense to that as well.

Not painting, not removing mold lines, not gap filling joins, using/not using magnets, block painting only, 3 part blending only, not customizing, making a custom army (non-canon), one guy I know cringes when he sees people who paint fully assembled rather than with arms out of the way: the list is endless of what is "ideal".

40k can be looked at as playing a board game, it is not necessary for the mechanics of the game for there to be paint.
WYSIWYG is just for proper representation of the units on the table (so partially assembled models can fall contrary to that).
I enjoy playing with and against fully painted armies.
Armies not painted do not prevent me playing them however.

What were we discussing again? My train of thought derailed: there were no survivors...

 TheSilo wrote:

 Tigramans wrote:
It's the same thing if I asked: "Why some people like toast, but hate to eat its edges?"

There are different people, liking and hating different things

People who don't eat the edge of the toast are like those who don't eat the pizza crust, they're not to be crusted.

fixed that for you

If you have time to play, you have time to paint.

 Crablezworth wrote:
If you have time to play, you have time to paint.

Playing is fun, painting isn't.

 Crablezworth wrote:
If you have time to play, you have time to paint.

Or you have time for one or the other but not both. For me, I leave for work at 0530, get home around 1930. So on the rare occasion when I get time to do one or the other, I'm going to choose to play if possible. Sure, I prefer to field a painted army, but it ain't always gonna happen.

 NurglesTurtle wrote:

 TheSilo wrote:

 Tigramans wrote:
It's the same thing if I asked: "Why some people like toast, but hate to eat its edges?"

There are different people, liking and hating different things

People who don't eat the edge of the toast are like those who don't eat the pizza crust, they're not to be crusted.

fixed that for you

Thanks, that's what I meant.

 Jidmah wrote:
[
Standards of a hobby are created by the vast majority of the participants. When looking around stores and this thread, having everything painted doesn't seem to be a standard at all. About one in ten players has their entire army painted in more than two colors. The few people who have completely painted armies are admired and commented on a job well done - you wouldn't do that to people who just meet standards.

Not even GW tells us that you need to paint your miniatures when describing the hobby. They tell us that painting a very satisfying and fun aspect of the hobby. It's an annoying chore to me. Why should I spend my free time with an annoying chore? Because someone who likes painting tells me to? Painting models, converting models and gaming with models are all separate hobbies which happen to be sold under the label of "Warhammer40k". No one is forced to play with their models, no one is forced to convert or kitbash models. Somehow painters still think that everyone is forced to paint their models. Should I look down on people who haven't fully magnetized their units? Should I look down on people who don't use greenstuff anywhere in their army? Should I look down on people who have a bunch of models that don't combine into a functioning army?

I accept that someone who put a lot effort into his army wants to see it fight another painted army. After all, you obviously care more about aesthetics of a game than me. What I do not accept is someone being condescending about having his army painted and telling me to get the feth out of his hobby.

Stores and this thread do not represent the entirety of the wargaming hobby nor the history of the wargaming hobby. The "painting doesn't matter" opinion is really only something you see alot in the 40k/WM/WHFB crowd. Historical wargamers don't try to defend not painting your models or try to water down the value of having painted models, nor is such a perspective something that the wargming hobby has endorsed historically. If you really don't think GW supports (explicitly or implicitly) painted armies, then show me how many GW-published game reports feature unpainted armies, or how many GW-sponsored events (when they had them) allowed unpainted armies.

Greenstuff and magnetization have never been standards for the community, rather they have always been indicators of "going the extra mile".

I do understand that many groups of wargamers don't care, but that doesn't mean that painting is therefore not a vital part of the wargaming hobby. I'm not going to tell you to get out of the hobby, but I'm not going to applaud you for having an unpainted army. Having standards is not condescending. Metaphorically patting someone on the head and saying "you didn't meet standards, but your army is just as good as anyone else's" is condescending.

ZebioLizard2 wrote:

-If you're a part of a car club, but don't paint or keep your car up, you're going to be viewed differently.
-If you're part of a military modeling club, but just assemble and convert your models, but don't paint them, no one is going to think that you've "finished" them or want you to display with the club.
-If you show up to a train club with a bunch of ready-to-run "Bachman" models with plastic wheels eyebrows may raise.

Aside from the first, the other ones don't also have an aspect beyond 'modeling' being the only part of the hobby, where as 40k has actual game playing. Some people just hate painting and would rather just play the game.

Wrong. All those hobbies have an active and cooperative part of the hobby as well as a modeling part. In fact almost every hobby or activity has a social part of the hobby that involves sharing it with others as well as standards of measurement of quality. Ours is gaming. As for others...
-Car clubs go cruising and have shows, and some even race and have cross country ralles
-Military Modeling clubs take their models to exhibitions and have competitions.
-Train clubs run their trains and some even simulate schedules, freight exchanges and all manner of railroad operating procedures.

Talizvar wrote:
Not painting, not removing mold lines, not gap filling joins, using/not using magnets, block painting only, 3 part blending only, not customizing, making a custom army (non-canon), one guy I know cringes when he sees people who paint fully assembled rather than with arms out of the way: the list is endless of what is "ideal".

40k can be looked at as playing a board game, it is not necessary for the mechanics of the game for there to be paint.
WYSIWYG is just for proper representation of the units on the table (so partially assembled models can fall contrary to that).
I enjoy playing with and against fully painted armies.
Armies not painted do not prevent me playing them however.

All the details you mention other than painting are varrying degrees of quality of finsihing a model and folks will rate the models accordingly based on the results. None of that changes that painted models are part of the wargaming hobby.

As for 40k being a board game. It's simply not. It's not played on a boardgame, It's a tabletop war game.

What I'm pushing back against is the bland relativism that says "there are no standards". Such an approach dilutes the hobby as a whole. I'm not endorsing abusing those who don't hold to the standards, or denying them the right to play the way they want to. However, abandoning those standards does the hobby no favors and makes no sense when compared to how other hobbies deliberately maintain high standards.

 Eilif wrote:
Stores and this thread do not represent the entirety of the wargaming hobby nor the history of the wargaming hobby.

History is just that: History. The American history had standards about where people were allowed to sit on a bus, depending on their color of skin. I think neither of us mourns the departure of those standards. Ever since I started playing a couple of years ago, unpainted armies have been the norm among newer players, only veterans who have played for more than a decade tend to keep everything painted. Times change.

The "painting doesn't matter" opinion is really only something you see alot in the 40k/WM/WHFB crowd. Historical wargamers don't try to defend not painting your models or try to water down the value of having painted models, nor is such a perspective something that the wargming hobby has endorsed historically.

So, apparently "painting doesn't matter" seems to be a standard about the hobby in question, right?
Also, no one is watering down the value of painted models. As I explained, the common response to fully painted armies is usually awe, not shrugging one's shoulders. I also like painted models, especially if they are well done. Painted models is not the same as painting models. As you can see, many people on this thread have had other people paint their army. Sadly I don't know anyone who would paint my army for a reasonable price, so I don't have all my models painted.

If you really don't think GW supports (explicitly or implicitly) painted armies, then show me how many GW-published game reports feature unpainted armies, or how many GW-sponsored events (when they had them) allowed unpainted armies.

I've only participated in a single GW-sponsored event (War on Armageddon campaign) before they axed them, and no one had a problem with unpainted models. In fact, I remember losing my half-painted 30 kopta formation when an unpainted baneblade exploded.

Greenstuff and magnetization have never been standards for the community, rather they have always been indicators of "going the extra mile".

So, I'm not allowed to modify models unless I paint them?

I do understand that many groups of wargamers don't care, but that doesn't mean that painting is therefore not a vital part of the wargaming hobby.

Well... it's not a vital part. You can do everything in Warhammer 40k without painting, which would make it not vital. If anything, the only vital part of the wargaming hobby is assembling the model at all. You can't do anything without assembling the models.

I'm not going to tell you to get out of the hobby, but I'm not going to applaud you for having an unpainted army. Having standards is not condescending. Metaphorically patting someone on the head and saying "you didn't meet standards, but your army is just as good as anyone else's" is condescending.

Applauding and accepting unpainted armies are two things. No one is asking for applause - most are just asking for the condescending behavior a la "If you have time to play, you have time to paint" to stop. It's not as if non-painters were some lower-class hobbyist which have to sit in the back of the bus - which is also the vibe you're implicitly putting in your posts.

ZebioLizard2 wrote:All the details you mention other than painting are varrying degrees of quality of finsihing a model and folks will rate the models accordingly based on the results. None of that changes that painted models are part of the wargaming hobby.

So, hypothetically, if all my models were unpainted, I wouldn't be part of the hobby?

As for 40k being a board game. It's simply not. It's not played on a boardgame, It's a tabletop war game.

You're splitting hairs. It's a tabletop game. Tabletop games can, but don't need to include any modeling activities. The aforementioned heroclix and X-Wing games are proof of that. You can enjoy Warhammer40k by reading books, building models and playing the game without even owning a single pot of paint.

What I'm pushing back against is the bland relativism that says "there are no standards". Such an approach dilutes the hobby as a whole. I'm not endorsing abusing those who don't hold to the standards, or denying them the right to play the way they want to. However, abandoning those standards does the hobby no favors and makes no sense when compared to how other hobbies deliberately maintain high standards.

Didn't you just say that you're not telling me to get the feth out?

Well painted models look awesome. They still will if no one gives a gak about painting anymore. However, there is no magic standard which makes the game more enjoyable when there is paint or primer on your models. As I described earlier on this thread, I purposely leave my models unprimed, so you can still see orks in them, rather than black blobs of something. I've played a tau player who painted his army white/grey/black - he used some strange paint, so the entire thing looked as if he had painted them using thick toothpaste which basically deleted all details of the plastic and he was so bad at painting that the black details he meant to highlight were more like black smears on this toothpaste soldiers and tanks. However, according to your standards, his army was somehow more acceptable than mine. Why? Even though his army defeats all the reasons given in this thread for having painted armies, it's fine? There are some competitive players who turn their armies into modern pieces of art, paying absolutely no heed to the model itself, but rather painting them in some quickly done 3-colored pattern using three colors of primers because the tournament enforced an "at least three colors" rule.

Unlike the other hobbies you named, a lot of players aren't in it for the modeling and painting aspect. I doubt someone joins a train club with the top priority looking at his trains drive in a circle.
Many have moved to the game due to the Dawn of War PC games, which have nothing to do with that aspect at all. If you like strategic games, you're mostly limited to PC games, but the appeal of Warhammer40k is that you're able to get out and play a game with real people, while still having access to all the stuff you know from StarCraft, Dawn of War or Command&Conquer. Painting was actually what kept me away from 40k for years - when I finally started I was still in college and had and overabundance of time, so I simply sat down and got my stuff painted when I had nothing better to do, often cursing loudly and even throwing a model out the window when I missed its tusk for the eighth time. However, about 2500 points of orks later, I've probably painted more models than most marine players and I'm sick of painting. Due to a lot less time available, I also no longer have times when I have nothing better to do, so me starting painting out of boredom is not going to happen anytime soon.

Enforcing those standards doesn't do a thing for the hobby, but tell people who don't like painting to suck it or go away. People going away isn't good for the hobby.

I really wish GW would just sell pre-painted models.

 Jidmah wrote:
There are some competitive players who turn their armies into modern pieces of art, paying absolutely no heed to the model itself, but rather painting them in some quickly done 3-colored pattern using three colors of primers because the tournament enforced an "at least three colors" rule.

Yep, still remember an army at one of the US GW GTs, guy used an airbrush to paint the legs yellow, the torso red and left the head white, And not neatly, just waved it across the models. Yet he met the "fully painted in three colors" requirement. Those GTs did have a no unpainted models rule and I actually saw them make a player take an unpainted unit off the table. One of the reasons I used to finish an army was for the GTs, but now, less time and energy means newer stuff takes a lot longer to finish. Can't remember the last time I went anywhere, whether open gaming or tournament, that required fully painted armies. Probably NOVA (2-3 years ago?) or some such, one of the large organized events.

A few points relating to Jidmah's post above.

-Some standards are worth letting go, and some are worth holding on to. I think that this is one that is worth holding on to.

-I don't make a distinction between the 40k hobby and the wargaming hobby as a whole.

-Prepainted minis are not something I have a problem with any more than having someone else paint your minis.. They are still painted after all. I even have some prepainted minis that I've rebased and dipped and used in my KoW army. You and I are in agreement about 40k selling prepainted minis. For the ridiculous prices that they charge, there should be an option for them to come prepainted.

-I said no such thing about greenstuffing and magnetizing.

-Using the example of the odd player who seems to literally throw paint at his models as an argument against standards of painting is silly. He's an outlier, and an exception.

-If all your models are unpainted, you are still "in the hobby" but your army is going to get as much respect as the bondoed camaro I mentioned earlier.

-You said that assembling the models is a the only vital part of the wargaming hobby. That's a slippery slope and why stop there, why not just play with bases or appropriately sized cubes? If just just playing is enough, then there's no real reason to have miniatures at all and it ceases to be miniatures wargaming. That's what happens when you start dropping standards and why I'll continue to insist that painted models be a standard in the tabletop wargaming hobby.

 Jidmah wrote:

So, apparently "painting doesn't matter" seems to be a standard about the hobby in question, right?
Also, no one is watering down the value of painted models. As I explained, the common response to fully painted armies is usually awe, not shrugging one's shoulders. I also like painted models, especially if they are well done. Painted models is not the same as painting models. As you can see, many people on this thread have had other people paint their army. Sadly I don't know anyone who would paint my army for a reasonable price, so I don't have all my models painted.

GW and PP games, despite what people think, exist in the larger cultural umbrella of 'wargaming.' Most wargamers paint their models. Grey and half painted hordes is very much a phenomenon almost exclusively seen in these specific games. It really says something about the player base.

Commander OB wrote:
I myself have adhd so I dont get much painted. I also have so many armies and I enjoy the modeling possibilities. I enjoy customizing and building models. I seem to find building the models more fun then painting, although I have recently slowed down my model purchasing in hopes of getting more models painted.

I recognise a lot of this
I absolutely love assembling, converting and customising new models. I get bored when working on one army for too long (which is why I have a lot of very small armies). I do try to get everything painted, but I tend to get distracted very easily, so I am a very slow painter. Painting also takes too much time, so by the time I finish a single unit, I am usually bored of painting and have started working on assembling an entirely new army already.
It is kinda a problem, because I don't want to use unpainted units, so my pool of available units for a game is usually very small.

 Eilif wrote:
-You said that assembling the models is a the only vital part of the wargaming hobby. That's a slippery slope and why stop there, why not just play with bases or appropriately sized cubes? If just just playing is enough, then there's no real reason to have miniatures at all and it ceases to be miniatures wargaming. That's what happens when you start dropping standards and why I'll continue to insist that painted models be a standard in the tabletop wargaming hobby.

The rules actually require you to have assembled models, both explicitly and implicitly, so that point is kind of moot. The details of a model have impact on the game (for example, when determining cover or fire arcs), so you can't really do without.

Otherwise I think we can agree to disagree. We come from different backgrounds - you are obviously seeing WH40k as just another modeling hobby with an attached game, while I see WH40k as a game first and models as no more than pretty game pieces. I respect that you want a game to be moving diorama for your models, so I'd appreciate if you could respect that other people are just playing a game. Not applaud, not play them. Just respect them.

Jidmah,
The application of respect (as an active thing rather than a passive acceptance) is a fine line. I try to always respect the person, you won't find me talking down to other folks at the FLGS for their unpainted armies. I accept that their view of the hobby is different than mine and they seem to be enjoying it. However I don't see anything to be gained in actively giving respect to an approach to the game that I think is diluting the quality of the hobby.

I agree that we have different views on the hobby, and I'm fine with agreeing to disagree. However, I would disagree with your assessment that I "see it as just another modeling hobby with an attached game". My perspective is quite different in that I don't see one as preeminent , but rather view both as equally integral parts of the tabletop miniature wargaming experience.

 don_mondo wrote:
So Eilif, a new guy shows up at your local gaming group, has all his new toys assembled but not painted. Will you play him? Are you going to give this newcomer to the gaming community a hard time because he hasn't (and may not want to) painted his toys before bringing them out? That's the other slippery slope, the turning away of newcomers into the hobby with what we used to call the 'paint Nazi" attitude (I think GW has a trademark out on the phrase... J/K). GW stores (DC area, including Northern VA and Baltimore - where the US HQ used to be) used to have a painted model restriction. They dropped that when so many players quit coming to their stores to go elsewhere. It's one thing to " insist that painted models be a standard" and another to encourage fellow gamers to paint. The second is far more acceptable. Just sayin'.

I'm glad you brought this up. We don't use either approach, but rather have found a third way. At our club we only play painted minis, though we do make exceptions for in-progress minis sometimes. However, we've made a point of ALWAYS having enough painted minis available for any guest to play whatever game we are playing on a given night. Our "painted only, but we've got minis to share" is known by all club members and one of the core values of the club.

Though we've made painted minis and great terrain a central tenet of the club, we are actually quite laid back as people and try not to put ANY barriers in the way of visitors and newbies having a good time with us.

A few ways we facilitate a club being both all-painted and all-welcoming

1-Playing alot of skirmish games. It's easy to provide all sides of a game when there's only 10-20 minis per side.
2- Planning ahead. If we're going to play a big game of 40k, Warpath, KoW or somesuch, it's always known ahead of time and we are able arrange to have forces available for guests or for members for whom that's not a game they collect.
3- Being flexible in miniature choices. While we try to stay relatively WYSIWYG, we play alot of generic rulesets where having the right brand of mini is not an issue and when we do play more commercial rulesets, rule of cool rules the day..
4-Painting for each other. We all have different strengths and no one wants to get burned out on painting hordes of troops, so members will frequently trade units for painting. I often make terrain for members in exchange for painting line troops.
5-Prepainted miniatures. When we wanted to try small scale gaming as a club, we went with 10mm prepainted mechwarrior clix units, rebased and used with various rulesets. This allowed a really low buy-in (A few bulk buys and folks each trading to get one or two factions) and a relatively low amount of effort required to get them to the table (just some new bases and basing). The object was to get everyone on board quickly as easily as possible. Some folks repainted theres, but most didn't.
6- Splitting armies. "Here buddy, why don't you take command of half of my Chaos hordes for this battle, we'll show those do-gooders who's boss." This means giving up some of your own units in a game and letting someone else handle them, but we've never had any major breakages and it's always fun to see what someone else will bring to the game.

All this to say, I think that holding to a painted-only standard doesn't mean you have to be an arrogant-illegitimate. We (and I suspect many other gamers would also) find that the minor sacrifices and inconveniences listed above are a small price to pay to never have to see one bare mini on the table while remaining welcoming. We're mostly 30 somethings with limited game time outside of our meetings on alternating Thursdays, so we're quite happy with the motto "Life is too short for unpainted miniatures".

 Eilif wrote:
All the details you mention other than painting are varrying degrees of quality of finsihing a model and folks will rate the models accordingly based on the results.

This is also representative of varying capability and effort vs. reward of the hobbiest.

None of that changes that painted models are part of the wargaming hobby.

They are part of it... where applicable.
It used to be good enough to be a cut piece of cardboard with a graphic on it.
We approach "wargaming" with different needs: some are purely tactical while others require an aesthetic.

As for 40k being a board game. It's simply not. It's not played on a boardgame, It's a tabletop war game.

We tend to play the game on "a board" since normal tables tend to not be the dimensions we need if we must quibble about it, but GW would love you to play on their modular boards.
When it comes to many mechanics there is little difference other than not being anywhere near as self contained.
I would not get too caught-up in saying it is vastly removed from board games that are out there now.

What I'm pushing back against is the bland relativism that says "there are no standards". Such an approach dilutes the hobby as a whole.

As pointed out: company hosted games would have the rule that only a painted army could play. Really easy way to set a minimum standard. Not sure how you as an individual can push things in that direction in a meaningful way. GW no longer officially or unofficially create conditions to force this.

I'm not endorsing abusing those who don't hold to the standards, or denying them the right to play the way they want to.

Sane way to approach things, it would be interesting to see you try!

However, abandoning those standards does the hobby no favors and makes no sense when compared to how other hobbies deliberately maintain high standards.

I take issue with "abandoning", most people hold what they do to a certain standard.
People playing "grey legion" models do not make me want to abandon my standard of playable models.
It makes me want to do a better job to shame them into at least making an attempt.

I personally agree with your viewpoint of the game is so much better with nicely painted miniatures but forcing your personal will on others can only go so-far.
You may have to accept that there are various "factions" of players within a specific game environment and you need to join with like-minded players.

In my club about 3 or 4 years ago most armies werent painted or at least not fully painted.

Nowadays 95% of the models fielded in any game system are painted and most of the time people field fully painted armies.

Why? People paint slow but they do it. I field unpainted models too but that is soon to be a thing of the past since around 80% of my army are already painted and the rest will be by the end of the year.

We have an environment where no one would look down on someone fielding non-painted miniatures (at least in 40k my flames of war and hordes armies are painted as well as 5 dreadball teams and a bunch of other stuff) but people paint them anyway since they see how awesome it is to see a bunch of ~1500pt armies that are all painted being fielded against each other.

Thats how you get others motivated to paint - not by complaining that their armies are grey.

 tyrannosaurus wrote:
It's easy to pass judgement on people for bringing unpainted minis when you have been in the hobby for years, have loads of painted models, and just need to add the odd unit. Someone starting from scratch is going to need time to get them ready, and it seems a bit unfair to refuse to play them until they are all/mostly painted. I mean, minimum size for a game is usually around 1500 points (YMMV) which is a lot to get done just for the privilege of playing a game you might not like.

I think the best thing to do is offer incentives for getting models painted, e.g one VP for each unit finished since the last club night, prizes for best painted armies, escalation leagues with bonuses for getting units finished etc.

The GW I started to play at when I started in highschool had a 'You cannot play if your army isn't painted" rule. 3 Color/Base min.

Forced me to paint my goofy Ultramarines army poorly and base it. That incentive to play painted started me into the hobby more then if they let me play a primed army (Which I was fine with doing)

The funny thing is when I asked why GW did away with the 3 color base rule I was told that they found a lot of people just doing the bare minimum or doing really badly rushed jobs on their miniatures so they could play. They said they prefer people taking their time and doing a good paint job, if the player was working hard and painting their miniatures to a high standard they had no problem with them fielding unpainted models, they would also prefer someone playing unpainted models than having someone field and army that poorly slapped on three random colors and based them so they could just play.

Alpha 1 wrote:
The funny thing is when I asked why GW did away with the 3 color base rule I was told that they found a lot of people just doing the bare minimum or doing really badly rushed jobs on their miniatures so they could play. They said they prefer people taking their time and doing a good paint job, if the player was working hard and painting their miniatures to a high standard they had no problem with them fielding unpainted models, they would also prefer someone playing unpainted models than having someone field and army that poorly slapped on three random colors and based them so they could just play.

Also a slippery slope.
Assembly is always fast for me, painting to 3 colors I did in two evenings only getting the block coloring done.
If you try even a little, assembly line painting can be quickly, heck, you can get base color in spray cans not just primer.

I remember my friend fielding Orks and most of his vehicles were still bare plastic.
He was finishing his moves and said "plus the one inch".
I asked "Why that?"
"Go fasta red!"
"Where?"
He then frowned, picked up a brush and paint-pot and smeared some red on the rolla on the front.
I then said, "Good, carry on".
Hehehe...
Sometimes there are things you just cannot ignore...

 Dalymiddleboro wrote:
Why not just play xwing or hero clix? How do non painters justify their cost of purchase?

well i dont really paint, but i love the WH40K lore and enjoying playing my friend

As for me if I had delusional "Standards" of painted armies them I'm pretty sure I would never get a game. end of. fact.

For me I have given 40k a break in terms of gaming as I find I have lost a lot of interest in the game as I feel its too "shooty" now these days..

What I do instead now is paint up my models, currently I am painting up my Khorne force and I also do a small commission business between my friends in my group as well, so for me I get a little bit extra out of painting

Do I enjoy painting? only if I like the process of how the colours are turning out and how the end result looks, sometimes I do find painting a chore if I don't know how to make a process of painting things to my own personal standard I do find it a chore.

All just my opinion.

 Talizvar wrote:
I remember my friend fielding Orks and most of his vehicles were still bare plastic.
He was finishing his moves and said "plus the one inch".
I asked "Why that?"
"Go fasta red!"
"Where?"
He then frowned, picked up a brush and paint-pot and smeared some red on the rolla on the front.
I then said, "Good, carry on".
Hehehe...
Sometimes there are things you just cannot ignore...

For me the "red paint job" on my Blood Axes' vehicles would be represented simply by the literal blood axes (twin crossed axes painted with Blood for the Blood God to represent them painting the emblem on with the blood of their enemies). Any more than that wouldn't really look right. But thankfully, it's a moot upgrade these days, so I don't have to worry about it.

(Oh, right, there was also my old Painboss trukk that had red crosses painted on it.)