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.

 DukeBadham wrote:
I know people who have verbally insulted me for my crappy painting,

First of all, let me ask... Was it the variety of friendly crap-talking that you see among mouthbreathing neckbeards you find at any FLGS? They tend not to have good communication skills, and shades of aspergers. So normally don't take it to heart.

I'm a terrible painter, and I have a hard time with it. My space wolves I painted two years ago when I started are comically bad... Two years of occasional effort, maybe 3-4 paint sessions a month, lasting 4-6 hours each... I've drastically improved, though I'm still not even close to decent. No one makes fun of my new painted models anymore, which is a reward in itself. When I fully complete a model, I actually feel proud showing it off now, so I feel it's worth the occasional effort. I typically listen to standup comedies while I paint by the way. And yes, most of my models are either grey or base coated, but look at my signature... Too many models, I just go slow.

I play for the fluff, and the tactics, by the way. Not the painted models. And I hear some stores penalize unpainted models in their house rules and tournaments.. I just avoid those places.

 Las wrote:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
I didn't say that, I said those particular sci-fi games are more mainstream and the mainstreamers, at least in my opinion would be more attracted to the social aspects than the non-social aspects (I have not attempted to gather evidence, it just seems logical to me).

I don't really understand. What do you mean by 'mainstream'? Its a weird assumption to pose that a group of people would arbitrarily not enjoy social aspects to a social hobby

I feel like you're having some fundamental misunderstanding of what I'm saying.

I'm not saying that historic gamers would not enjoy the social aspects.

Wargaming is a niche, but 40k/WHFB/Warmachine are vastly less of a niche than historics. My hypothesis is that people traditionally drawn to historics are the sort of people who are likely to enjoy both the social and non social (or in many cases, only the non social) aspects of the hobby otherwise they would be less likely to be drawn to it in the first place. Because 40k/WHFB/Warmachine have a much wider sphere of influence (ie. more mainstream), they are more likely to encompass people who are only interested in the social aspect in addition to those who are interested in both the social aspect and non-social or only the non social aspect.

I'm not saying all historic wargamers are hermits and all 40k/WHFB/Warmachine gamers are social butterflies... I'm saying the latter group encompasses a larger slice of the community at large and so it's constituents are more likely to have wider ranges of specific interests and that is not a bad thing (unless you have the "get off my lawn" attitude and would rather wargaming stay as niche as possible so it doesn't water down what you personally like about it).

Thanks for elaborating. I disagree but I can see where you're coming from.

Actually, you know what? I do agree with you, however 'mainstream' isn't the word I'd use.

 Pyeatt wrote:

 DukeBadham wrote:
I know people who have verbally insulted me for my crappy painting,

First of all, let me ask... Was it the variety of friendly crap-talking that you see among mouthbreathing neckbeards you find at any FLGS? They tend not to have good communication skills, and shades of aspergers. So normally don't take it to heart.

I'm a terrible painter, and I have a hard time with it. My space wolves I painted two years ago when I started are comically bad... Two years of occasional effort, maybe 3-4 paint sessions a month, lasting 4-6 hours each... I've drastically improved, though I'm still not even close to decent. No one makes fun of my new painted models anymore, which is a reward in itself. When I fully complete a model, I actually feel proud showing it off now, so I feel it's worth the occasional effort. I typically listen to standup comedies while I paint by the way. And yes, most of my models are either grey or base coated, but look at my signature... Too many models, I just go slow.

I play for the fluff, and the tactics, by the way. Not the painted models. And I hear some stores penalize unpainted models in their house rules and tournaments.. I just avoid those places.

It was the "dude your painting is gak" and stuff of that ilk from people I considered friends, wasnt a joke or something just actually insulting my painting.

 Las wrote:

but don't act like one facet of the hobby is somehow a more ridiculous way to spend your time than the other in the grand scheme of things.

But it is.
Facet 1. The game itself, putting models on the table and playing the game. For ME, that's number 1 and what all the other facets are there to support.
Facet 2. Assembling models, cause yeah, even I think it's silly to put out a base with legs on it or the box that vehicle came in or a coke can .
Facet 3, and the least important to me personally, the one that I will ignore for either of the other facets and for the many other things that occur in life, painting. It's drudgery. It's boring. It's time consuming, because I suck at painting but I'm going to try and do a decent job anyways, so a single model can take a couple of hours or more. And I just flat out don't like doing it. But I do, and eventually things get painted. In the meantime, when I'm ready to game I pack those unpainted or partially painted models into the case and I use them as they are. Don't like it, tough, deal with it.

There's a reason the term "paint Nazi" was coined back in the day, and I'm seeing a lot of that attitude here. So fine, don't want to play me because I have some unpainted or partially painted models. So be it, I can live with that. But to tell me to get out of the hobby or that I MUST paint before I can play. Well, as Flo used to say, Kiss My Grits.

I'm not telling you to get out. What some of us are saying is that you just aren't fully a wargamer.

What, there actually exist people that won't play you if you have unpainted models? Haha, that is so ridicilous. If someone was like that in my presence I'd just laugh in their face so bad.

 Las wrote:
I'm not telling you to get out. What some of us are saying is that you just aren't fully a wargamer.

Riiiight. Whatever.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 RunicFIN wrote:
What, there actually exist people that won't play you if you have unpainted models? Haha, that is so ridicilous. If someone was like that in my presence I'd just laugh in their face so bad.

Some in this thread....

 Las wrote:
I'm not telling you to get out. What some of us are saying is that you just aren't fully a wargamer.

Do I play a tabletop wargame? yes. Then how arent I a wargamer?

 DukeBadham wrote:

 Las wrote:
I'm not telling you to get out. What some of us are saying is that you just aren't fully a wargamer.

Do I play a tabletop wargame? yes. Then how arent I a wargamer?

I'd say you aren't one completely if you don't paint. As has been said before, there are levels of involvement and hierarchy in any hobby/activity.

 Las wrote:

 DukeBadham wrote:

 Las wrote:
I'm not telling you to get out. What some of us are saying is that you just aren't fully a wargamer.

Do I play a tabletop wargame? yes. Then how arent I a wargamer?

I'd say you aren't one completely if you don't paint. As has been said before, there are levels of involvement and hierarchy in any hobby/activity.

So people who get others to paint for them arent "complete wargamers" either?

And I guess those who play games that provide pre-painted miniatures are also not "complete wargamers"?

To be fair War gaming is a hobby and a game

You can be a hobbiest and never have to play the game

or you can be a gamer and never paint

but to be a "Wargamer" you generally should be doing both no?

 Desubot wrote:
To be fair War gaming is a hobby and a game

You can be a hobbiest and never have to play the game

or you can be a gamer and never paint

but to be a "Wargamer" you generally should be doing both no?

No. Because not all wargames require painting.

So let's just drop the elitest attitude that those that have the time, desire, inclination to paint are somehow better than those of use who don't care to paint or don't want to paint or don't have the time to paint. That's what irks me. "You're not a wargamer". Forget kissing my grits, you can kiss my .....

To me being a wargamer is playing the wargame, if you just collect the minis you are a collector and just painting the minis you are a painter, and you all always a hobbiest.

Just my take on it.

 don_mondo wrote:

 Desubot wrote:
To be fair War gaming is a hobby and a game

You can be a hobbiest and never have to play the game

or you can be a gamer and never paint

but to be a "Wargamer" you generally should be doing both no?

No. Because not all wargames require painting.

Are games like heroclicks, x-wings, n stuff marketed as a "wargame" ? Honestly never considered them as such.

 Desubot wrote:

 don_mondo wrote:

 Desubot wrote:
To be fair War gaming is a hobby and a game

You can be a hobbiest and never have to play the game

or you can be a gamer and never paint

but to be a "Wargamer" you generally should be doing both no?

No. Because not all wargames require painting.

Are games like heroclicks, x-wings, n stuff marketed as a "wargame" ? Honestly never considered them as such.

Chess is a wargame. Never heard of anyone fussing because a chess set wasn't painted.

 don_mondo wrote:

Chess is a wargame. Never heard of anyone fussing because a chess set wasn't painted.

Really? iv always seen it as a board game. a classic at that.

 don_mondo wrote:

 Desubot wrote:
To be fair War gaming is a hobby and a game

You can be a hobbiest and never have to play the game

or you can be a gamer and never paint

but to be a "Wargamer" you generally should be doing both no?

No. Because not all wargames require painting.

So let's just drop the elitest attitude that those that have the time, desire, inclination to paint are somehow better than those of use who don't care to paint or don't want to paint or don't have the time to paint. That's what irks me. "You're not a wargamer". Forget kissing my grits, you can kiss my .....

Don't get so defensive. I didn't say you were a bad person. People who paint, play and model aren't "better" than those who only do 2 of 3, however they are unquestionably more complete, full and dedicated wargamers.

 don_mondo wrote:
But it is.

No, it's not. Sure, you can have your own opinions and values and split the hobby in whichever way you see fit. But it's all subjective to you. For example:

...For ME, that's number 1...
...the least important to me personally...

This is the right way to express your thoughts on the matter, it's just that you only seem to be half applying it as you soon return to:

It's drudgery. It's boring.

To you, maybe. Others could just as easily say they find trying to battle against grey plastic as drudgery and boring, they may be into the hobby for the fluff, background, aesthetics and storytelling reasons first and for the maths and dice throwing second.

It's time consuming, because I suck at painting but I'm going to try and do a decent job anyways, so a single model can take a couple of hours or more.

I see this excuse time and time again in these types of threads... "I suck at painting", "It takes too long", "I'll never get them looking perfect so I'll just not bother", etc. Sorry, but it doesn't stick with me. Why? Because it basically boils down to people moaning about not being able to churn out batches of minis to 'Eavy Metal standard from the starting line. No, you start off and you probably suck at first because painting, like any skill, takes practice to get better. However, after the first few models you settle into in and get better. And then you get even better, and faster. Then muscle memory kicks in and familiarity with the materials, and you're now even better and even faster at it. It takes even less effort to reach a more than satisfactory table top standard. Seriously, three colours, base -> wash -> dry/highlight -> done... with even a little bit of practice this looks good on the table and far superior to leaving them bare. Still not "good enough" for you? Time for a reality check on your expectations.

Is the same not true of building them? Converting them? List building? I bet you sucked at these too and they took forever when you first started. But you keep trying and you get better. The trouble seems to be that some people do this with the building and gaming and let the painting fall further and further behind... until before you know it you've got multiple armies assembled and plenty of games under your belt but a wall of grey starring at you and no experience on the painting table... well of course it's a chore/takes too long now, because you didn't put the time and effort in back when it was more manageable!

Sorry... that became a rant about the issue on a more general level and with that particular excuse that I see come up a lot. It's not all just directed at you, Don Mondo. Getting back to your post:

And I just flat out don't like doing it. But I do, and eventually things get painted.

I commend you for this. If you gain zero enjoyment from it but still make an effort to get your stuff painted, that's dedication and kudos to you.

This should help with people's definitions. It's hard to hold a coherent discussion when definitions can't be agreed upon.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wargaming

Sure, it's a board game. Is there a reason that a board game cannot also e a wargame? Risk. Axis and Allies. All the Avalon Hill board games based on historical battles/campaigns/wars. I'm sure there are many others that can be listed.

And yes, I also consider the clix games, X-Wing, etc to be wargames.
Do you have to use a strategic element building a list? Yes.
Do you have to use tactical elements in game? Yes.
Are they "wargames"? Yes

Glad to see that I'm not as dedicated to my hobby because I am unable to hold a brush still because of nerve damage. Insecure elitism is all over the place here with this kind of "well you're not AS dedicated as me" nonsense.

 curran12 wrote:
Glad to see that I'm not as dedicated to my hobby because I am unable to hold a brush still because of nerve damage. Insecure elitism is all over the place here with this kind of "well you're not AS dedicated as me" nonsense.

I already clarified my position on this. Christ, no decent person would insinuate what you just said and niether would I.

Uh huh, spare me the line. I don't buy it.

Especially when the line comes with: "unquestionably more complete, full and dedicated wargamers". By that logic of yours, I am unable to be a complete and dedicated wargamer, plain and simple. I'm calling it as I see it; it's a backhanded compromise at best where you still try to grab onto a position of superiority because of your position. Couching it with a "you aren't a bad person" doesn't change that.

It's like saying "I'm not saying you're BAD...I'm just saying I'm better." That's what I'm hearing.

Anfaugir, sorry I left off the "IMO" and "to me" tags regarding painting being boring and drudgery. I guess I thought they were implicit from the first part of the post. Sure, some enjoy it. I don't. And I've been doing it for 20+ years.

And Las, 'More dedicated"? Really. How many tournaments and paint clinics and game demos have you run? FYI, I used to be a GW Outrider, so my answer is hundreds over the last 20 years. How many people have you introduced to and brought into gaming. Again, my answer is hundreds.

My point is, painting is only one part of the hobby, and anyone that wants to claim that someone who doesn't paint for whatever reason is not a wargamer or is less of a gamer than someone who does paint is wrong. What's next, do we have to play a certain number of games every week before we can count as a "complete gamer"? Do we have to possess a certain number of models and/or different armies before we are a "more complete, full and dedicated wargamers"? Is there going to be a requirement to play in a certain number of tournaments?

So get off your high horse, join those of us that are merely mortal, and just enjoy the game. And let others enjoy it as they see fit, without statements that they are not "complete, full and dedicated wargamers".

 curran12 wrote:
Uh huh, spare me the line. I don't buy it.

Especially when the line comes with: "unquestionably more complete, full and dedicated wargamers". By that logic of yours, I am unable to be a complete and dedicated wargamer, plain and simple. I'm calling it as I see it; it's a backhanded compromise at best where you still try to grab onto a position of superiority because of your position. Couching it with a "you aren't a bad person" doesn't change that.

It's like saying "I'm not saying you're BAD...I'm just saying I'm better." That's what I'm hearing.

Okay fine, believe whatever you want.

@don_mondo

I'm not going to have a dick measuring contest with you on the internet. If you don't like painting that's fine, but yeah you aren't as invested the hobby as a whole as someone who makes that extra effort.

This kind of crap pisses me off because it is pure insecurity lashing out. To me, and I could be wrong, you're not interested in furthering the hobby. You're interested in proving your worth, and you've decided to do this by going after those who you have deemed not as dedicated as you, as if 'dedication' meant something to a wargame.

And here's the thing, I do field painted armies, but I have to use commission painting services to do that, and that gets expensive (in both time and money). Because of my nerve damage, any time I want to expand an army, I have to buy it, find a commission service, spend money on them, ship the models, wait anywhere from a few weeks to half a year and THEN I can use them. But again, I apparently am not as 'dedicated'.

We all want to feel superior, I get that. But making up qualifiers (that you match, naturally) to elevate yourself over others doesn't really do that. It just makes you appear like a jackass.

 curran12 wrote:
This kind of crap pisses me off because it is pure insecurity lashing out. To me, and I could be wrong, you're not interested in furthering the hobby. You're interested in proving your worth, and you've decided to do this by going after those who you have deemed not as dedicated as you, as if 'dedication' meant something to a wargame.

And here's the thing, I do field painted armies, but I have to use commission painting services to do that, and that gets expensive (in both time and money). Because of my nerve damage, any time I want to expand an army, I have to buy it, find a commission service, spend money on them, ship the models, wait anywhere from a few weeks to half a year and THEN I can use them. But again, I apparently am not as 'dedicated'.

We all want to feel superior, I get that. But making up qualifiers (that you match, naturally) to elevate yourself over others doesn't really do that. It just makes you appear like a jackass.

Nerve damage is obviously an exception. I have stated this before. I wouldn't call a person with no arms lazy for not painting and I wouldn't do it to you either.

 Las wrote:

 curran12 wrote:
Uh huh, spare me the line. I don't buy it.

Especially when the line comes with: "unquestionably more complete, full and dedicated wargamers". By that logic of yours, I am unable to be a complete and dedicated wargamer, plain and simple. I'm calling it as I see it; it's a backhanded compromise at best where you still try to grab onto a position of superiority because of your position. Couching it with a "you aren't a bad person" doesn't change that.

It's like saying "I'm not saying you're BAD...I'm just saying I'm better." That's what I'm hearing.

Okay fine, believe whatever you want.

@don_mondo

I'm not going to have a dick measuring contest with you on the internet. If you don't like painting that's fine, but yeah you aren't as invested the hobby as a whole as someone who makes that extra effort.

But we already have the measuring tapes even. And I never said I didn't paint. In fact, read my earlier posts....

 don_mondo wrote:
But I do, and eventually things get painted.

Over the years I've painted at least 20 or more complete armies (1500-2000 points or more), many of them for single use at a GW Grand Tournament. And while I think my painting sucks, I've never been ashamed to put one of my armies on the table. It's a decent tabletop quality, I guess it's just that I hang around too many master-class, Golden Daemon winner, GT Best Army winners to think my painting is 'good'.

What I object to is the "I paint so I'm better than those who don't" attitude. So have a nice day.