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.

 don_mondo 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.

Riiiight. Whatever.

There is a reason I have Las on ignore. People quoting him just reminds me. Keep on, keeping on man.

Did anyone read Eilif's excellent blog article? I suggest you do in order to have a much better explained example of my point of view on the subject. I'd like to know what some of you think.

http://chicagoskirmish.blogspot.ca/2014/08/painting-matters-in-defense-of-hobby.html

 Las wrote:


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.

But what does this rule, exceptions or not, get you?

I mean, let's be honest, if I put down some unpainted units, would you really think that through? I'm guessing not. My guess is that you'd see unpainted and your mind would default to 'lazy' because that is how the human brain works. You've got your assumption, and it makes you feel better about yourself, so why change it?

But again, what does calling other people lazy, and making up levels of 'dedication' gain you?


Edit: That "essay" uuughhhhh. The same "I'm not saying YOU'RE bad, I'm just saying that I'm SO MUCH BETTER" bull.

 curran12 wrote:

 Las wrote:


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.

But what does this rule, exceptions or not, get you?

I mean, let's be honest, if I put down some unpainted units, would you really think that through? I'm guessing not. My guess is that you'd see unpainted and your mind would default to 'lazy' because that is how the human brain works. You've got your assumption, and it makes you feel better about yourself, so why change it?

But again, what does calling other people lazy, and making up levels of 'dedication' gain you?

It doesn't 'gain' me anything, its just an opinion on the subject.

Look at it this way; I like biking. I do it every other day. It consider myself a cyclist of sorts. However, I have a friend that actively maintains and constructs his bikes, I do not. He follows professional cycling, I do not. He keeps track of his times and constantly tries to improve himself through research and technical skill. I could do all those things but I do not for the same reason many in this thread don't paint. I am perfectly capable of doing so. I could allocate more of the time I devote to biking to these things, however they don't interest me as much and seem like a chore. As a result, I am without a doubt less of a cyclist than he is. This is despite the fact that I have probably spent hundreds of hours of my life on a bike.

Yeah, this jumped out at me right off the bat:

"Like many here, I have a "live and let live apart" attitude towards folks who don't paint their miniatures. My philosophy is generally, "That's fine for you, but you'll have to find someone else to play against," "

That's what I'm talking about when I say elitest attitude. You are certainly going to encourage someone to get more involved in gaming with that attitude. And that's not "Live and let live", that's do it my way or I won't play with you.

Does he have another article talking about how many games you have to play every week before you can be considered a "complete gamer" Or does this elitism only apply to painting?

In other words, you read the opening paragraph and then stopped. I can only assume as much because you didn't even mention or confront the meat of the article.

Nope, read the whole thing. But thanks for once again assuming something about me. And it's all pretty much the same BS you've been spouting.

And I think I'm done with you. Have a wonderful day.

D'aw, you'll be back.

For real, though. Why are you so worked up about this? Methinks there's a nerve being struck.

It's not an opinion on the "subject" though. It is an opinion levied against those you play against. The cycling analogy falls short because, unlike cycling, wargaming requires at least two to tango. Indeed, wargaming is an exceptionally social game. While certainly, you can cycle in groups and participate in any number of social organizations around cycling, but you do not need to.

You can get the full cycling experience alone. You cannot wargame without another player.

And here's the crux of the matter. This opinion is not "I like playing against nicely-painted armies". I totally understand and agree with that, as a matter of fact. There's a great spectacle in two good-looking armies on a good-looking table that is very memorable and enjoyable. However, that is not your opinion, or at least that is not what you said. What you said is "stop being lazy", a strike against those who are necessary to participate in the hobby. You said "you are not fully a wargamer" to the people you might play with. Those are attacks, plain and simple.

As Don mentioned. It is not "live and let live", it is "my way or the highway." THAT'S where my problem is, not in that you like painted armies.

 curran12 wrote:
It's not an opinion on the "subject" though. It is an opinion levied against those you play against. The cycling analogy falls short because, unlike cycling, wargaming requires at least two to tango. Indeed, wargaming is an exceptionally social game. While certainly, you can cycle in groups and participate in any number of social organizations around cycling, but you do not need to.

You can get the full cycling experience alone. You cannot wargame without another player.

And here's the crux of the matter. This opinion is not "I like playing against nicely-painted armies". I totally understand and agree with that, as a matter of fact. There's a great spectacle in two good-looking armies on a good-looking table that is very memorable and enjoyable. However, that is not your opinion, or at least that is not what you said. What you said is "stop being lazy", a strike against those who are necessary to participate in the hobby. You said "you are not fully a wargamer" to the people you might play with. Those are attacks, plain and simple.

As Don mentioned. It is not "live and let live", it is "my way or the highway." THAT'S where my problem is, not in that you like painted armies.

I have not called anyone lazy for not painting.

What I have said and continued to say, is that those who do not paint (medical impairments aside of-holycowwhywouldIevenneedtosaythis-course) do not participate in the entirety of the hobby and prioritize segments of it over the whole. Therefore they are not as into wargaming as an enthusiast who participates in every aspect of the hobby. AND THAT IS TOTALLY FINE. But it is still a thing.

For the record, I do play against grey armies and have never once derided someone for having unpainted models, outside of close friends ripping on eachother.

I wouldn't call a person with no arms lazy for not painting and I wouldn't do it to you either.

So you would call someone lazy for not painting for other reasons?

 curran12 wrote:

I wouldn't call a person with no arms lazy for not painting and I wouldn't do it to you either.

So you would call someone lazy for not painting for other reasons?

Well, my buddy has been procrastinating on an ork trukk for a month and because I know him to enjoy painting and to do it regularly, yeah I'd jab him for it in fun.

Would I blanket state that everyone who doesn't paint is lazy? No.

 Las wrote:


For real, though. Why are you so worked up about this? Methinks there's a nerve being struck.

Nope, just don't like ass-hats with a "holier than thou" attitude. And yes, you have one (from what I've seen of your posts).

 don_mondo wrote:

 Las wrote:


For real, though. Why are you so worked up about this? Methinks there's a nerve being struck.

Nope, just don't like ass-hats with a "holier than thou" attitude. And yes, you have one (from what I've seen of your posts).

To be fair, that opinion doesn't give you the right to insinuate that I'm an 'ass-hat' on this board.

That being said you can call me whatever ya like. And hey, you're back!

I look at it the way I look at participation in Dungeons and Dragons. In my group, everyone takes turns as Dungeon Master. If you're new we allow you a few sessions to get the hang of things before you're expected to participate in that aspect.

If someone in our group said "you know what guys, I just really don't feel like being Dungeon Master, ever. You guys just cover that, aight?" we would probably still let them play, but it'd be disappointing; a clear sign that they don't value our games (or our company) as much as the rest of us. Not everyone likes DM'ing- we have a few players who groan when it's their turn. But they all put forth the effort, and that's appreciated.

Wow. In my group, the general consensus is one person (99% of the time me) is the DM, everyone else plays. No one else wants the hassle of writing or running a game.

I like the idea of defining some terms. I have myself been guilty of assuming shared definitions when there are variations.

Wargaming as a whole can encompass board wargaming, card wargaming and miniature wargaming.

Board and card wargaming don't tend to involve painted minatures, but the previously linked wikipedia entry makes it clear that "miniature wargaming" typically involves painted miniatures. It has been such throughout the entire history of "miniature Wargaming" which streteches back much further than games workshop, or the fairly recent (10 years or so) trend toward disregarding painting.

You can see more about the longer history of wargaming here
http://www-personal.umich.edu/~beattie/timeline2.html
Nothing groundbreaking, but it might help to put things in context a bit. The upshot is that not-painting wargames figures is a relatively recent aberration, and that based on the definition of "miniature wargaming", folks who are not painting their miniatures, are essentially participating in a different hobby.

Painting is such a part of miniature wargaming, that I hesitate to even apply the the term "miniature wargaming" to those who play without intent to paint. Sure they're wargaming of a sort, but to call it "miniature wargaming" seems like the awarding of a term to an activity that doesn't match the definition. Perhaps (only half kidding here) wargaming without the expectation of painting needs a new term. Maybe it could be called tactical wargaming, or "board-less" wargaming. Perhaps the most accurate term would be "The Games Workshop and Privateer Press Hobby".

You know in the early days of 40K, several units were nothing more than flat pieces of cardstock paper with an image printed on it, right?

Sure, a painted army looks better (usually. Hopefully.) but I don't care if I'm fighting Space Wolves-of-the-Grey-Legion because the other player cba to paint forty figures, a dozen wolves and three tanks. It just doesn't bother me.

Sisters? Sisters are easy. It's mostly gloss black, red and white.

 Eilif wrote:
Painting is such a part of miniature wargaming, that I hesitate to even apply the the term to those who play without intent to paint. Without paint, they might as well be tokens.

Oh, come on. Do you really believe that unpainted models have absolutely no aesthetic value at all? If paint is all that matters, why aren't you playing with painted tokens?

 Psienesis wrote:
You know in the early days of 40K, several units were nothing more than flat pieces of cardstock paper with an image printed on it, right$.

A few points:
-40k does not the entire wargaming hobby make.
-Rogue Trader was essentially an RPG with a squad of figs.
-Those cardstock standees were only intended as stopgap until one acquired the requisite models. I have the RT rulebook and the 2nd edition stand-up dreadnoughts (3 of them actually…)

I can think a blank canvas has aesthetic quality and hang one on my wall but I'd still be doing it wrong.

 Jidmah wrote:

 Eilif wrote:
Painting is such a part of miniature wargaming, that I hesitate to even apply the the term to those who play without intent to paint. Without paint, they might as well be tokens.

Oh, come on. Do you really believe that unpainted models have absolutely no aesthetic value at all? If paint is all that matters, why aren't you playing with painted tokens?

Unpainted models have aesthetic value so low that it would almost be playing with tokens, and it's moot anyway, since miniature wargaming is wargaming with painted miniatures.

I never said that paint is all that matters, (you can put that straw man right back in the barn) I've stated in various places that I stick to the entire definition of miniature wargaming.

 Psienesis wrote:
Wow. In my group, the general consensus is one person (99% of the time me) is the DM, everyone else plays. No one else wants the hassle of writing or running a game.

Yes, I understand that's how it works for most groups. But our group has been playing at least once a week for 14 years, and we've never suffered "DM burnout" or had any lasting grudges or disputes, which was pretty common in other groups I've played in. Everyone is expected to contribute to the fluff of our games worlds, and it's lead to some pretty awesome games. It felt pretty hodge-podge when we were all teenagers, but it's gotten a lot better.

For the record, they are called Grey Knights! That's why I leave them grey

 jreilly89 wrote:
For the record, they are called Grey Knights! That's why I leave them grey

So really they're almost like prepainted miniatures!
Another revolutionary product from Games Workshop!

It's obvious though that some individuals are more dedicated to their hobbies ( be it whatever ) than others. Someone not having the same amount of time for their hobby doesn't change this - the person investing more is still more dedicated, even if they have the advantage of not being busy with things that demand their attention ( family, work, whatever. ) I hit the gym as a hobby, and am serious about it, but my time is limited. I give it all I got with the time I have for said hobby. Someone spending twice my hours in there is still more dedicated, be it an amateur or a professional bodybuilder. Me not having the time doesn't change it at all.

If you can only spend 2 hours on something a week due to other things taking up your time, the guy without distractions who spends 12 hours a week is still more dedicated. That's just how it is, and not being capable to admit something like this is just being in denial.

 RunicFIN wrote:

If you can only spend 2 hours on something a week due to other things taking up your time, the guy without distractions who spends 12 hours a week is still more dedicated.

Chiming into the discussion for the first time, quoting the above for relevance. I have three points to make.

First -
I have limited free time. Given a choice between spending that limited free time painting, or playing a game....I'd prefer to play the game. I enjoy visualizing battles in my head while playing them out on the field, the chess-like move/counter-move turns ahead of time planning, the thrill of winning, especially with an underpowered army. That's the hobby I enjoy, and painting isn't part of it.

Second-
I enjoy fluff as much as other people enjoy painting. I own most of the Black Library books. But a hobby is what you choose to do and enjoy. The title of this thread, "Why do people play 40k when they don't even paint" could easily be substituted for one of the following:
"Why do people play 40k when they don't even make competitive lists?"
"Why do people play 40k when they don't know their chapter/race/other" history?

Those are equally important parts. Painting isn't weighted heavier in what "makes this a hobby." Imagine this conversation: How can Space Wolves players possibly field their armies as other than counts as Chaos? Leman Russ was a lapdog of Horus, and the Space Wolves are pretty much solely responsible for the Horus Heresy in the 31st Millenium, and the 10,000 years of war since then. How can Space Wolves POSSIBLY field themselves allied to Space Marines? They are the REASON the 41st Millenium is the Grimdark.

To each their own. You might spend three hours a night painting, and enjoying it. I find more pleasure in spending that time reading. I remember being more excited about the release of "Prospero Burns" than over any Codex release.

Third-
People naturally enjoy what they are good at, unless forced to do something until they are good at it, at which point they will start to enjoy it. I am a terrible painter. I don't have steady hands. I've attended painting classes, tried the dipping method....it's just not for me. I spent two nights and probably 6 hours trying to do a good paint job on Mad Dok Grotsnik years ago, painstakingly painting under a magnifying glass and everything. It looked second rate when I was done, didn't have clean lines, and I was ashamed of having spent so much time on it. I don't enjoy doing it because I have no talent for it. My armies are still painted, but it was either my wife who painted them (My Pink Pajama Orks) or I had them professionally painted. Not because I prefer painted models over unpainted models, but because painting is compulsory in most organized events.

How you enjoy your hobby is only as right or wrong as you deem it. But your personal worldview should never be imposed on other people. So you don't think that people who don't paint are hobbyists. Well, I think that people who can't recite the Primarchs by memory, world of origin, and write detailed essays without references on the history of various races aren't hobbyists.

An Ork player who doesn't know about Brainboyz, and the genetic coding imbued in Orks that gives them tendencies to join different tribes and technical know-how? A Necron player who hasn't researched every possible rumor into whether the Omnissiah is a C'Tan? And did the Emperor really chain a C'Tan on Mars?

To each their own. For you...painting and playing. For me, fluff and playing. We're both right.

 RunicFIN wrote:
If you can only spend 2 hours on something a week due to other things taking up your time, the guy without distractions who spends 12 hours a week is still more dedicated. That's just how it is, and not being capable to admit something like this is just being in denial.

Or maybe they just don't see painting as of much of an important part of the hobby? But even if you're right....so what? Okay, you're....more "dedicated" at toy soldiers? Well done you!

I always find this discussion literally incomprehensible. I like painting, but I can accept some people don't like painting. Why on earth would I insist someone must do a part of the hobby they don't enjoy?

(edit) You know, I've never seen a thread where someone insists that someone who collects miniatures solely to paint is somehow lesser for not gaming with them. Has anyone else?

 Elemental wrote:

 RunicFIN wrote:
If you can only spend 2 hours on something a week due to other things taking up your time, the guy without distractions who spends 12 hours a week is still more dedicated. That's just how it is, and not being capable to admit something like this is just being in denial.

Or maybe they just don't see painting as of much of an important part of the hobby? But even if you're right....so what? Okay, you're....more "dedicated" at toy soldiers? Well done you!

I always find this discussion literally incomprehensible. I like painting, but I can accept some people don't like painting. Why on earth would I insist someone must do a part of the hobby they don't enjoy?

(edit) You know, I've never seen a thread where someone insists that someone who collects miniatures solely to paint is somehow lesser for not gaming with them. Has anyone else?

@your edit: because that's just called modeling, it's a similar but distinct hobby from miniature wargaming.

Why is this thread even open? It's stuff like this that gives Dakka a bad name.