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:
If you don't want to go all the way with wargaming that's okay, just admit it.

Is it really, though? I mean the fact that this thread even exists, and that it isn't the first one either, kind of suggests to me that it's not considered okay; rather viewed as some kind of serious problem that needs "fixing".

I have a feeling if the OP's friend did just admit it, it would still be an issue and everyone would still be here debating about it.

Updated OP, changed Title.

Out of consideration for my opponent's enjoyment, I try to avoid using unpainted models.

Unpainted models cause the game to be less immersive for the participants. Frankly, I think grey plastic cheapens the experience.

 Pyeatt wrote:


Thank you fresh-faced user Bubz for defining this hobby and this forum. Everyone else, feel free to attack the fallacy which I just commited.

Concession: MODELS DO NEED TO BE BUILT. This is so you can tell what kind of dread the guy is running, or where the sergeant is, so the opponent cant make stuff up. Anything else is fair game.

Way to imply that my participation in this specific forum is the entirety of my experience within wargaming/40k. It's not.

40k is a hobby comprised of three parts, on which hobbyists put different emphasis. That is an assertion that no one has argued with in this thread. All I'm saying is that those who only choose to participate in 66% of the hobby are choosing to fall below the bare minimum of partaking in each part of the hobby in at least some extent.

It's fine if people don't play with painted models, it'd just be nice if they stopped trying to dress it up as anything other than being lazy and uninvested.

According to Gw them selves the HHHobby is collecting

everything is gravy and whatever the collectors want to do.

 bubz wrote:
40k is a hobby comprised of three parts

No, it's not. It's up to 3 hobbies in one. That doesn't mean your 40k is the same as my 40k.

Just like my chess (that includes purchasing individual models and posing/building/painting/playing) includes 3 hobbies while yours (purchasing a chessboard and pieces, playing) includes one doesn't mean either of us is chessing wrong.
But thanks for calling me lazy. It really helps move the discussion forward. I just dislike painting and don't see it as a requirement.

I wouldn't have the models I own painted except I wanted to do well at tournaments with a paint score.

rigeld2 wrote:

 bubz wrote:
40k is a hobby comprised of three parts

No, it's not. It's up to 3 hobbies in one. That doesn't mean your 40k is the same as my 40k.

Just like my chess (that includes purchasing individual models and posing/building/painting/playing) includes 3 hobbies while yours (purchasing a chessboard and pieces, playing) includes one doesn't mean either of us is chessing wrong.
But thanks for calling me lazy. It really helps move the discussion forward. I just dislike painting and don't see it as a requirement.

I wouldn't have the models I own painted except I wanted to do well at tournaments with a paint score.

Haha, if you buy warhammer just for the "strategy" gaming aspect...you're doing it wrong... It's overpriced because it's a ddetailed miniature model requiring assembly and paint. Go play risk if you're all about da strategy or monopoly. You know, games that aren't meant to be played with painted bits.

Seriously, tabletop games are pretty much a community game. Meaning that there are standards set by the community. For warhammer, people spend alot of time painting and setting up their miniatures.

You sound like tfg in my car club. Everyone was modding their v8, mustang, camaro, or challenger. The rule was that you had to have a v8...tfg knew the club president through family and would bring his 90s v6 mustang. Ugly POS beat up ride that just ruined the mood and the club image of late model v8s.

Dont be that guy that comes in with not up to par gear and third wheels their way onto the nerve of guys that actually try.

rigeld2 wrote:

 bubz wrote:
40k is a hobby comprised of three parts

No, it's not. It's up to 3 hobbies in one. That doesn't mean your 40k is the same as my 40k.

Just like my chess (that includes purchasing individual models and posing/building/painting/playing) includes 3 hobbies while yours (purchasing a chessboard and pieces, playing) includes one doesn't mean either of us is chessing wrong.
But thanks for calling me lazy. It really helps move the discussion forward. I just dislike painting and don't see it as a requirement.

I wouldn't have the models I own painted except I wanted to do well at tournaments with a paint score.

You don't see how "3 hobbies in one" and "a hobby comprised of 3 parts" is kind of the same thing?

As someone who puts a lot of effort into their chess building/painting would you not be slightly disagreeable to the statement that I am just as much of a chess player as you despite the fact that I consciously choose to not do half of the activities associated with "your chess" ? I'm aware that people build and paint their own chess pieces and I choose to play with chess pieces that I buy and do nothing with other than play. So would it not be logical to say that while I'm not "chessing" incorrectly, I am definitely not as invested in the hobby of chess as you are?

rigeld2 wrote:

 bubz wrote:
40k is a hobby comprised of three parts

No, it's not. It's up to 3 hobbies in one. That doesn't mean your 40k is the same as my 40k.

Just like my chess (that includes purchasing individual models and posing/building/painting/playing) includes 3 hobbies while yours (purchasing a chessboard and pieces, playing) includes one doesn't mean either of us is chessing wrong.
But thanks for calling me lazy. It really helps move the discussion forward. I just dislike painting and don't see it as a requirement.

I wouldn't have the models I own painted except I wanted to do well at tournaments with a paint score.

Is it, though? Let's do a little research.

From Wikipedia:

Chess is a two-player strategy board game played on a chessboard, a checkered gameboard with 64 squares arranged in an eight-by-eight grid. It is one of the world's most popular games, played by millions of people worldwide in homes, parks, clubs, online, by correspondence, and in tournaments.

Hmm, no mention of painting or building. I'm sure that's a thing people do, a hobby in it's own right, but I'd hesitate to use those activities to define what chess is. Now let's take a look at 40k...

Warhammer 40,000 (informally known as Warhammer 40K, WH40K or simply 40K) is a tabletop miniature wargame produced by Games Workshop, set in a dystopian science-fantasy universe... Players can assemble and paint individual, 28-millimetre (1.1 in) scale miniature figures that represent futuristic soldiers, creatures and vehicles of war.

Notice anything? Those activities are central to what tabletop wargaming, and specifically 40k are. That's because the models are intended to be painted, assembled and used to play games. Of course you can choose to partake in any combination of those activities and call it 'your 40k' or whatever mental gymnastics you want to use to rationalize the fact that a better interpretation would be 'the parts of 40k I do." You paid for those models, you can do what you like with them, of course. But don't freak out at people for simply pointing out what 40k and tabletop wargaming objectively are.

 Las wrote:

Notice anything? Those activities are central to what tabletop wargaming, and specifically 40k are. Of course you can choose to partake in any combination of those activities and call it 'your 40k' or whatever mental gymnastics you want to use to rationalize the fact that a better interpretation would be 'the parts of 40k I do." You paid for those models, you can do what you like with them, of course. But don't freak out at people for simply pointing out what 40k and tabletop wargaming objectively are.

You are misusing the word 'objectively' in this quote. There is a definite bias in that statement, which goes against the definition as used.

For me, 40k and tabletop wargaming have three main sections: building, collecting, and playing. If your view is that there are four sectors, that is fine. However, don't say that I am any less a wargamer or that you are 'better' then me because you paint and I don't.

I have 2.5k of Marines and 1k of Orks, of which a Tactical Squad, Dreadnought and Librarian is painted (rather badly IMHO). I like seeing how others paint, but I wouldn't want to do so.

This does not mean that I am 'lazy', or 'uninvested' in the hobby, it means that I want to spend my time elsewhere in the hobby where I actually enjoy it. The fact that people look down upon unpainted armies to the point of being condescending is one of the two reasons why I left (the other being a move), and is something that I am heavily against.

Let people do what they want. If someone hates painting, don't try to force your ways upon them.


Pardon the rant. (I deleted a bunch of lines to make sure that I treated the other posters with civility)

It's not a question of "looking down" on someone, its a question of definition.

I can play basketball without dribbling if I don't like dribbling. Maybe I find dribbling boring, or I'm bad at it and I don't want to take the time developing the skill when I can spend time playing my version of basketball. The game is still playable. I can find opponents who are likeminded and we're still playing a form of basketball, however that doesn't change the fact that basketball includes dribbling.

Whether or not I choose to dribble has no impact on that fact.

 Las wrote:
It's not a question of "looking down" on someone, its a question of definition.

I can play basketball without dribbling if I don't like dribbling. Maybe I find dribbling boring, or I'm bad at it and I don't want to take the time developing the skill when I can spend time playing my version of basketball. The game is still playable. I can find opponents who are likeminded and we're still playing a form of basketball, however that doesn't change the fact that basketball includes dribbling.

Whether or not I choose to dribble has no impact on that fact.

Except dribbling is an actual rule, being the legal method of movement with rules for it's usage and rules against over-dribbling.

There are no rules in 40k for Painting, thus you've pretty much chosen the worst argument you could use for, because there is literally nothing included within the actual ruleset of 40k for painting, there are no benefits to painting, there are no mechanics to painting, and there are no penalties for it.

Thus, it is not comparable to dribbling at all. Painting is more the color of the ball then anything, it doesn't change anything whether its orange, red, or blue, it's got no outcome on the game itself, it's there to make the ball look pretty.

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:

 Las wrote:
It's not a question of "looking down" on someone, its a question of definition.

I can play basketball without dribbling if I don't like dribbling. Maybe I find dribbling boring, or I'm bad at it and I don't want to take the time developing the skill when I can spend time playing my version of basketball. The game is still playable. I can find opponents who are likeminded and we're still playing a form of basketball, however that doesn't change the fact that basketball includes dribbling.

Whether or not I choose to dribble has no impact on that fact.

Except dribbling is an actual rule, being the legal method of movement with rules for it's usage and rules against over-dribbling.

There are no rules in 40k for Painting, thus you've pretty much chosen the worst argument you could use for, because there is literally nothing included within the actual ruleset of 40k for painting, there are no benefits to painting, there are no mechanics to painting, and there are no penalties for it.

Thus, it is not comparable to dribbling at all. Painting is more the color of the ball then anything, it doesn't change anything whether its orange, red, or blue, it's got no outcome on the game itself, it's there to make the ball look pretty.

Of course the analogy isn't a 1:1 example. However, it is analogous because aesthetics are as central to 40k as actual game rules are to basketball. Modelling/painting and general aesthetics are impossible to overemphasize. As I said before, I can play with an army of legs glued to bases with tokens beside certain models to differentiate load outs. The game is still playable, but I'd be partaking in a tiny fraction of 40k by doing so.

If you're playing with fully assembled, unpainted models then youre participating in 2/3 of 40k. That's fine, but don't shy away from that by redefining what 40k is in the first place. Just own up to it. "My 40k" indeed.

 Las wrote:

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:

 Las wrote:
It's not a question of "looking down" on someone, its a question of definition.

I can play basketball without dribbling if I don't like dribbling. Maybe I find dribbling boring, or I'm bad at it and I don't want to take the time developing the skill when I can spend time playing my version of basketball. The game is still playable. I can find opponents who are likeminded and we're still playing a form of basketball, however that doesn't change the fact that basketball includes dribbling.

Whether or not I choose to dribble has no impact on that fact.

Except dribbling is an actual rule, being the legal method of movement with rules for it's usage and rules against over-dribbling.

There are no rules in 40k for Painting, thus you've pretty much chosen the worst argument you could use for, because there is literally nothing included within the actual ruleset of 40k for painting, there are no benefits to painting, there are no mechanics to painting, and there are no penalties for it.

Thus, it is not comparable to dribbling at all. Painting is more the color of the ball then anything, it doesn't change anything whether its orange, red, or blue, it's got no outcome on the game itself, it's there to make the ball look pretty.

Of course the analogy isn't a 1:1 example. However, it is analogous because aesthetics are as central to 40k as actual game rules are to basketball. Modelling/painting and general aesthetics are impossible to overemphasize. As I said before, I can play with an army of legs glued to bases with tokens beside certain models to differentiate load outs. The game is still playable, but I'd be partaking in a tiny fraction of 40k by doing so.

If you're playing with fully assembled, unpainted models then youre participating in 2/3 of 40k. That's fine, but don't shy away from that by redefining what 40k is in the first place. Just own up to it. "My 40k" indeed.

Of course not, you need the full model for TLOS purposes, unless one would prefer the RAW of you have no eyes and cannot see, at least make sure there's a cutout with proper support.

And no, Aesthetics are not central as actual rules are, there is no comparison between them.

Also you yourself are redefining what 40k is in the first place as well, GW only cares about the modeling part of the equation, thus you are adding "painting" to something 40k never was, just own up to it that you are trying to define 40k as something it never was.

Well, all my opponents agree I can play with my leg marines. Who are you to tell me how to play my 40k or that I'm doing it wrong? Who are you to define what the models are supposed to be? Just because the kits come with torsos doesn't mean they're intended to be glued on.

 Las wrote:
Well, all my opponents agree I can play with my leg marines. Who are you to tell me how to play my 40k?

That's fine, more glory to you.

But you are telling everyone else they aren't involved in the "hobby" or "wargamers", and that is your issue with your version of 40k.

You just told me that I need the model for LoS. I can stand a ruler up and correspond LOS with the height value. First I needed the model to play and now I don't? Which is it?

 Las wrote:
You just told me that I need the model for LoS. I can stand a ruler up and correspond LOS with the height value. First I needed the model to play and now I don't? Which is it?

Twisting words to try and make a point? Here's what I wrote before

Of course not, you need the full model for TLOS purposes, unless one would prefer the RAW of you have no eyes and cannot see, at least make sure there's a cutout with proper support.

While a ruler could be used for LoS purposes it makes it far harder for width purposes, but hey if it floats your boat, which apparently went from "Painting is 100% mandatory and is just as important as the rules itself" to "We are fine with just legs"

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:

 Las wrote:
You just told me that I need the model for LoS. I can stand a ruler up and correspond LOS with the height value. First I needed the model to play and now I don't? Which is it?

Twisting words to try and make a point? Here's what I wrote before

Of course not, you need the full model for TLOS purposes, unless one would prefer the RAW of you have no eyes and cannot see, at least make sure there's a cutout with proper support.

While a ruler could be used for LoS purposes it makes it far harder for width purposes, but hey if it floats your boat, which apparently went from "Painting is 100% mandatory and is just as important as the rules itself" to "We are fine with just legs"

Really?

Of course not, you need the full model for TLOS purposes, unless one would prefer the RAW of you have no eyes and cannot see, at least make sure there's a cutout with proper support.

No where in the rulebook does it say that I have to fully assemble the model for TLOS. If I want an army of marines that really are just legs, that's perfectly within my right to do. In my fluff the marines have eyes on their butts, and their knees are their weapons. I carved an 'x' into the ones that have plasma guns etc. The game can still be played by the book, same as otherwise. I'd be a dick for doing so, but there's nothing that says I can't.

Also, you are doing some excellent word twisting yourself. I didn't say painting was 100% mandatory, I said that it is as much a part of the hobby as playing and building. You assume building is mandatory because the models come unassembled and it helps enrich the quality of the game (true). I am asserting that while it isn't mandatory, it should be done -as that is how they were intended to be used- and the same is true for painting because they come unpainted and it puts the game to its full potential. Neither are mandatory in order to play 40k, but the hobby is composed of more than just the game.

Again, however you choose to partake in the hobby is FINE, just stop drawing arbitrary lines all over it depending on what parts of it you are willing to do. The definition of 40k/tabletop wargaming already exists.

Vigilant wrote:Haha, if you buy warhammer just for the "strategy" gaming aspect...you're doing it wrong... It's overpriced because it's a ddetailed miniature model requiring assembly and paint. Go play risk if you're all about da strategy or monopoly. You know, games that aren't meant to be played with painted bits.

Seriously, tabletop games are pretty much a community game. Meaning that there are standards set by the community. For warhammer, people spend alot of time painting and setting up their miniatures.

You sound like tfg in my car club. Everyone was modding their v8, mustang, camaro, or challenger. The rule was that you had to have a v8...tfg knew the club president through family and would bring his 90s v6 mustang. Ugly POS beat up ride that just ruined the mood and the club image of late model v8s.

Dont be that guy that comes in with not up to par gear and third wheels their way onto the nerve of guys that actually try.

I don't play it for the strategy game - I play it for the fun of who I play it with (mostly nowadays anyway). I played in 5th against tuned tournament lists and had lots of fun, grey plastic or not.

bubz wrote:You don't see how "3 hobbies in one" and "a hobby comprised of 3 parts" is kind of the same thing?

Nope.

As someone who puts a lot of effort into their chess building/painting would you not be slightly disagreeable to the statement that I am just as much of a chess player as you despite the fact that I consciously choose to not do half of the activities associated with "your chess" ? I'm aware that people build and paint their own chess pieces and I choose to play with chess pieces that I buy and do nothing with other than play. So would it not be logical to say that while I'm not "chessing" incorrectly, I am definitely not as invested in the hobby of chess as you are?

No, you just chess differently. It's not bad, worse, or anything - just different. You're as invested as you want to be. Why is that relevant?

Las wrote:

Warhammer 40,000 (informally known as Warhammer 40K, WH40K or simply 40K) is a tabletop miniature wargame produced by Games Workshop, set in a dystopian science-fantasy universe... Players can assemble and paint individual, 28-millimetre (1.1 in) scale miniature figures that represent futuristic soldiers, creatures and vehicles of war.

Notice anything? Those activities are central to what tabletop wargaming, and specifically 40k are. That's because the models are intended to be painted, assembled and used to play games. Of course you can choose to partake in any combination of those activities and call it 'your 40k' or whatever mental gymnastics you want to use to rationalize the fact that a better interpretation would be 'the parts of 40k I do." You paid for those models, you can do what you like with them, of course. But don't freak out at people for simply pointing out what 40k and tabletop wargaming objectively are.

So people who don't assemble or pain, but purchase assembled armies and use them - are they not "doing the hobby" right?
What about those who simply buy the minis to collect, assemble, and paint - are they "doing the hobby" right?

And as far as your "objective truth" you're objectively 100% wrong.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miniature_wargaming
"While such games could also be played with counters on a table with colored paper to denote terrain types, the visual attractiveness and tactile satisfaction of painted miniatures moving around on a table with model trees, hills and other scenery has such an alluring power to convince many wargamers to prefer model/miniature games over the cheaper and easier board-and-chits alternatives."
Unless you're going to call games like Squad Leader something other than tabletop wargames.

Miniature Wargaming has to have painting and assembling of models. Damn, someone should tell FFG.

Why are you putting "doing the hobby right" in quotations as if I said it?

 Las wrote:
Why are you putting "doing the hobby right" in quotations as if I said it?

I wasn't meaning to imply that - I was trying to show that by your argument people who aren't painting (or gaming, or purchase their stuff built and painted) are doing it wrong.
I was shortening a phrase to make it easier to type. Apologies if you thought I was intending to demean you.

Please respond to the content of the post, however, and don't nitpick one thing.

Vigilant wrote:
What about those who simply buy the minis to collect, assemble, and paint - are they "doing the hobby" right?

That's a differen't hobby. It already exists. It's called modelling.

Rigeld2 you just need to be more understanding man. You can do whatever you want but take note that things won't change no matter how much you rage at it. Painting is a large part of warhammer. Just because you don't feel like doing it doesn't make it any less a part of the hobby.

You are how people see you not how you see yourself man. If everyone says your doing it wrong. No amount of self perception will change that.

rigeld2 wrote:

 Las wrote:
Why are you putting "doing the hobby right" in quotations as if I said it?

I wasn't meaning to imply that - I was trying to show that by your argument people who aren't painting (or gaming, or purchase their stuff built and painted) are doing it wrong.
I was shortening a phrase to make it easier to type. Apologies if you thought I was intending to demean you.

Please respond to the content of the post, however, and don't nitpick one thing.

I will once I get to a computer, on my phone right now. I appreciate your courtesy though, really.

I will clarify, however, that my position has nothing to do with right or wrong ways to enjoy the hobby but that each of the three component parts are equal in regards to what the hobby is. What parts you choose to participate in is up to you but the hobby is still comprised of those parts regardless.

 Vigilant wrote:
Rigeld2 you just need to be more understanding man. You can do whatever you want but take note that things won't change no matter how much you rage at it. Painting is a large part of warhammer. Just because you don't feel like doing it doesn't make it any less a part of the hobby.

You are how people see you not how you see yourself man. If everyone says your doing it wrong. No amount of self perception will change that.

No, my point is that painting isn't a large part of warhammer. It's a part of the way some people - perhaps even most people - enjoy it, but there's no requirement for it to be done.
And I'm not raging at all. Normally it's the people who are vehement that it's part of "the hobby" (your words) are the ones that get angry when asked to prove it - and they can't.

It's part of your hobby. Not mine. We 40k differently - and I'm content with that. You, apparently, aren't.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Las wrote:
I will clarify, however, that my position has nothing to do with right or wrong ways to enjoy the hobby but that each of the three component parts are equal in regards to what the hobby is. What parts you choose to participate in is up to you but the hobby is still comprised of those parts regardless.

By dictating what "the hobby" is you're also saying that people who only participate in part of it is doing it wrong. That's my problem with your (and others') statements - it's not "the hobby", rather it's "my hobby".

Example of what's wrong here. We have a minority and a majority stating what is and isnt. In cases like this, the majority opinion takes the win. It's just how it is man. Claim that painting isn't important and continue being tfg. It doesn't make any difference.

Just know, you're tfg. Lol.

On what data are you basing your claim that yours is the majority opinion?

 insaniak wrote:
On what data are you basing your claim that yours is the majority opinion?

Personal experience going to clubs, shops, and lurking forums.

Do you want me to construct a selective response survey with validity and reliability manuals to satisfy your need to be a critical of my statement?

Use some common sense man. It's not like its some unknown mystery what the concensus is.