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:
There's a disconnect here. In one breath you say that assembly is mandatory to play the game because of the tlos mechanic. Then when we point out that you can play the game by the book without a single assembled model, you turn around and say it's ok. Which is it?

There is no disconnect there. I personally don't think that playing with unassembled models works, because the rules require the physical model. If you and your opponent are happy to work around that, though, what business is it of mine?

Why is assembly so important and painting so unimportant?

Because one has an impact on the game rules, and the other doesn't.

Could it be because it's a drag for you to play against unassembled models? Does it lessen your game experience to play against bases with tokens and ruler heights? Are you starting to get it now?

No, I still don't get why you wouldn't just not play against someone if the standard of their army upsets you that badly.

Personally, I only play with painted models, aside from the occasional stand-in to try something new. I prefer to play against painted armies, and I prefer to play on tables with nice-looking terrain.

However, I accept that not everybody has the same priorities as I do. I accept that not everyone cares as much about the aesthetic aspect of the game. And I accept that because it's just a game.

If playing against an unpainted army is going to affect my enjoyment of the game, I can just not play against that unpainted army. There is absolutely no reason for me to try to convince that army's owner that they are not engaging in their hobby the 'right' way... because what they choose to do with their hobby is absolutely none of my business.

 insaniak wrote:

...having to ask what model is equipped with what because you can't tell due to it being a grey mess.

People keep saying this as if it's actually a thing.

Given how many paintjobs are just a flat colour with no shading or highlighting, I'm not really seeing how trying to identify a flat grey piece of plastic is any different to trying to identify, say, a piece of flat black plastic.

One of my friends used to do worse than that. He'd highlight, but his highlights were such that he'd smoosh the brush in to the model too much, so the actual raised that was supposed to be highlighted was darker and there was a ring around it that was brighter, but then the crevices were still darker again.

It was worse than being unhighllighted because it was very visually confusing. I often had to ask what models were equipped with or get in close for a careful look because the units (WHFB) were just an indecipherable sea of blurry colours.

This whole substituting armies of marines is what has gotten this trend of unpainted units to grow. People don't want to commit to a chapter even though they have Imperial fists, they want to play space wolves today and blah blah next week, etc.

If substituting doesn't matter than why paint at all. Why assemble at all. Why use miniatures at all. It's a slippery slope of fail.

I don't think GW intended their units to be left unpainted. Otherwise they would have began a line of prepainted like D&D. It must be written somewhere that units should have at least some coloration prior to fielding.

 Vigilant wrote:
This whole substituting armies of marines is what has gotten this trend of unpainted units to grow. People don't want to commit to a chapter even though they have Imperial fists, they want to play space wolves today and blah blah next week, etc.

I disagree. I see unpainted armies of all types and always have. Most of the games I played between 10 and 15 years of age (the 90's) were against unpainted WHFB armies.

If substituting doesn't matter than why paint at all. Why assemble at all. Why use miniatures at all. It's a slippery slope of fail.

No, it's not a slippery slope because those other things you mentioned do affect the game aspect of the game. Painting only affects the aesthetic aspect. If you don't assemble, models aren't WYSIWYG. You can't properly draw LOS.

I don't think GW intended their units to be left unpainted. Otherwise they would have began a line of prepainted like D&D. 

I don't think GW's intentions are relevant these days, they are so disconnected from the community I couldn't care less what their intentions were. Funnily enough, in the 90's when GW was booming in my area, the local GW had the "3 color" rule, which resulted in many poorly painted armies. These days, the local GW has given up on that and lets people play with unpainted models.

Melevolence wrote:

 jreilly89 wrote:
Man, half this thread reminded why there is an ignore button. Why are painted models so damn important to half of you? Does it physically kill brain cells to play an unpainted army?

It doesn't. But look at it this way. Do you really want to spend the next 4 hours looking at a grey mess and not really be able to tell the difference between their models? It's actually mentally draining because it's horrible to the eye. It's pretty Human in nature to enjoy brightly colored things. They appeal to us more. Hence why we don't live in dank grey mess of a house, or drive boring colored cars very often unless you just absolutely love drab color. Painting your army also shows a little pride in your purchases as well.

I wouldn't say painting is mandatory, but it's just...boring to look at. I at first was worried I'd do a terrible job, so for a few months I didn't paint. But I picked up a brush one night after work, and now 95% of my army has a passable paintjob. Passable is better than nothing. And that's key. I enjoy putting my models on the table more than I did before because I put effort in them. It DOES give you more enjoyment out of the games. Whenever someone sees my Warboss and tells me "That looks REALLY good!" and I tel them I've only been painting for a few months, that felt DAMN good. It still does any time I get a compliment. AND I get MORE games than I did before, because now the blob of models is distinguishable, and colorful and WAAAAGH!

No I agree, hence why I paint my models or at least prime them/basecoat em. My paint is people seem to take a personal offense to which I don't understand. The only thing I can think of is that its a sense of elitism to them ("Oh, you don't paint? You're not as much of a wargamer here") or that someone is that insane that grey armies physically hurt them. I wouldn't go so far as to its mentally draining, yeah it sucks seeing people play grey only armies, but its not the end of the world.

 jreilly89 wrote:

Melevolence wrote:

 jreilly89 wrote:
Man, half this thread reminded why there is an ignore button. Why are painted models so damn important to half of you? Does it physically kill brain cells to play an unpainted army?

It doesn't. But look at it this way. Do you really want to spend the next 4 hours looking at a grey mess and not really be able to tell the difference between their models? It's actually mentally draining because it's horrible to the eye. It's pretty Human in nature to enjoy brightly colored things. They appeal to us more. Hence why we don't live in dank grey mess of a house, or drive boring colored cars very often unless you just absolutely love drab color. Painting your army also shows a little pride in your purchases as well.

I wouldn't say painting is mandatory, but it's just...boring to look at. I at first was worried I'd do a terrible job, so for a few months I didn't paint. But I picked up a brush one night after work, and now 95% of my army has a passable paintjob. Passable is better than nothing. And that's key. I enjoy putting my models on the table more than I did before because I put effort in them. It DOES give you more enjoyment out of the games. Whenever someone sees my Warboss and tells me "That looks REALLY good!" and I tel them I've only been painting for a few months, that felt DAMN good. It still does any time I get a compliment. AND I get MORE games than I did before, because now the blob of models is distinguishable, and colorful and WAAAAGH!

No I agree, hence why I paint my models or at least prime them/basecoat em. My paint is people seem to take a personal offense to which I don't understand. The only thing I can think of is that its a sense of elitism to them ("Oh, you don't paint? You're not as much of a wargamer here") or that someone is that insane that grey armies physically hurt them. I wouldn't go so far as to its mentally draining, yeah it sucks seeing people play grey only armies, but its not the end of the world.

The irony is that many wargames don't require you to paint at all. Axis and Allies for example is a tabletop wargame that requires no assembly or painting. X-Wing doesn't require painting either. So I guess people that play those games aren't "Wargamers".

I personally enjoy seeing painted models. At least a 2-3 color minimum looks fine from a distance. I play against people with unpainted models very often, nothing you can really do about it.

 tyrannosaurus wrote:
Painting is a huge part of the hobby, suggesting it isn't is silly. Surely all of the painting competitions, books dedicated to painting, whole areas of forums dedicated to painting prove that?

Playing the game is a huge part of the hobby, suggesting it isn't is silly. Surely all of the tournaments (far more of these than painting competitions) websites dedicated to list building, tactics, and rules discussions prove that?

For me, the ideal is to have all of your models painted. Are all of mine painted? No. Do I intend to paint them? Yes. Is someone with a fully painted army better at the hobby than me? Yes. Someone refusing to even attempt to paint their models devalues the hobby for those who have bothered, in the same way that someone using cardboard tokens for models devalues the hobby for those who have bothered to assemble their models.

So... Not at all then? Okay, that's fine.
How one person enjoys their hobby doesn't change how I value/enjoy mine whatsoever.

I don't like assembling models, it is the worst part of the hobby for me, but I wouldn't get many games if I turned up with a load of pieces of card and said "I don't find assembling models fun and therefore it isn't part of the hobby to me". Why should painting be different?

Because properly assembled models change how the game plays. Painting doesn't.
It's almost like this exact statement has been made dozens of times in this thread and people ignore it.
And honestly, if your friends/opponents are okay with it - just do that. I don't know how likely it is you'll get a pickup game using cardboard tokens, but that doesn't mean you won't. Don't like playing against I painted armies? Don't. Just like I don't like playing against people who complain that my army is unpainted.

 Vigilant wrote:
People don't want to commit to a chapter even though they have Imperial fists, they want to play space wolves today and blah blah next week, etc.

Why do you present that in a negative context and as somehow being a problem in your eyes?

If a model is WYSIWYG surely it doesn't matter what colour it is.
Is it a problem that my Dark Angels are black, my Black Templars are white, my White Scars are grey or my Space Wolves are green - if the models are WYSIWYG and it is made perfectly clear what codex you are currently facing?

Is it a problem if my Eldar use the Iyanden Supplemental Codex if they are painted as Ulthwé (a craftworld that no longer have specific rules)?
Would it be a problem if Ulthwé still had specific rules if it was made clear to you that you are facing an Iyanden army?
Would it be better if the models were painted in a generic colour scheme not related to a known craftworld?

Is it a problem that my Deff Skullz Ork army (dominated by blue colours) really like to use a lot of bikes and trukks?

It is inarguable that assembly is more important than painting, because it gives the models a literal form.

There are of course some grey (excuse the pun) areas where colour scheme can matter - Space Marine chapters, for example. However these two are not rigidly defined by colour scheme. Offshoots, homebrew and well, anything creative, is encouraged by GW and should be encouraged by you. To be honest, I don't even care if someone wants to jump between different chapters, so long as Thunderwolves are obviously cavalry combat marines (Bikes wouldn't work as a counts as, because SW have bike units) or Deathwing Knights are not just combat Terminators.

The most important thing when playing the game is clarity. When I look at a unit, I want to be able to instantly go: 'Oh a Sternguard unit.' or 'Oh genestealers'. Painting doesn't define this. It can contribute, but not to any great extent.

However, would I rather play against painted models? Obviously. It just looks better. An army that is coherently painted, even if to a lower standard, looks far better on the battlefield than a half-painted army that is of a higher skill level. But of course, just because one looks better than the other doesn't mean I will only play against one.

Umbros wrote:

There are of course some grey (excuse the pun) areas where colour scheme can matter - Space Marine chapters, for example. However these two are not rigidly defined by colour scheme. Offshoots, homebrew and well, anything creative, is encouraged by GW and should be encouraged by you. To be honest, I don't even care if someone wants to jump between different chapters, so long as Thunderwolves are obviously cavalry combat marines (Bikes wouldn't work as a counts as, because SW have bike units) or Deathwing Knights are not just combat Terminators.

I very much agree. Clarity is of great importance.

The bike example is particularly good. The fact that the bike is an already existing unit would make the distinctions unclear, especially if both Bikes and Thunderwolves were present in an army at the same time ("These bikes are Bikes, but those bikes with the fancy paint-job are Thunderwolves" ).
If one were to build some type of quad-bikes or dune buggies, and call those Thunderwolves, it would be much clearer and acceptable IMO.

I am one of those cretins that play Whatever Marines. When I wanted to play Grey Knights I found, that I couldn't use my existing "standard" marines to represent Grey Knights. At least not in a way that satisfied my own standards of clarity.
So I bought "proper" Grey Knights models to use in that army.

When it came to playing Space Wolves I made my own Thunderwolves/Beast Cavalry (from Blood Crushers).

Old WIP snap.

Steelmage99 wrote:

Umbros wrote:

There are of course some grey (excuse the pun) areas where colour scheme can matter - Space Marine chapters, for example. However these two are not rigidly defined by colour scheme. Offshoots, homebrew and well, anything creative, is encouraged by GW and should be encouraged by you. To be honest, I don't even care if someone wants to jump between different chapters, so long as Thunderwolves are obviously cavalry combat marines (Bikes wouldn't work as a counts as, because SW have bike units) or Deathwing Knights are not just combat Terminators.

I very much agree. Clarity is of great importance.

The bike example is particularly good. The fact that the bike is an already existing unit would make the distinctions unclear, especially if both Bikes and Thunderwolves were present in an army at the same time ("These bikes are Bikes, but those bikes with the fancy paint-job are Thunderwolves" ).
If one were to build some type of quad-bikes or dune buggies, and call those Thunderwolves, it would be much clearer and acceptable IMO.

I am one of those cretins that play Whatever Marines. When I wanted to play Grey Knights I found, that I couldn't use my existing "standard" marines to represent Grey Knights. At least not in a way that satisfied my own standards of clarity.
So I bought "proper" Grey Knights models to use in that army.

When it came to playing Space Wolves I made my own Thunderwolves/Beast Cavalry (from Blood Crushers).

Old WIP snap.

They look really good. How did you get that fur texture?

Steelmage99 wrote:

 Vigilant wrote:
People don't want to commit to a chapter even though they have Imperial fists, they want to play space wolves today and blah blah next week, etc.

Why do you present that in a negative context and as somehow being a problem in your eyes?

If a model is WYSIWYG surely it doesn't matter what colour it is.
Is it a problem that my Dark Angels are black, my Black Templars are white, my White Scars are grey or my Space Wolves are green - if the models are WYSIWYG and it is made perfectly clear what codex you are currently facing?

Is it a problem if my Eldar use the Iyanden Supplemental Codex if they are painted as Ulthwé (a craftworld that no longer have specific rules)?
Would it be a problem if Ulthwé still had specific rules if it was made clear to you that you are facing an Iyanden army?
Would it be better if the models were painted in a generic colour scheme not related to a known craftworld?

Is it a problem that my Deff Skullz Ork army (dominated by blue colours) really like to use a lot of bikes and trukks?

It isn't, though the thing is, vanilla Marines all have one thing that those other armies don't. And that's that each Chapter has unique advantages and disadvantages. Marines can gain a specific edge over their opponents, just by declaring they are Marines, just slightly DIFFERENT Marines. Me claiming my Orks are Goffs but they have a boatload of Bikers doesn't do anything extra for my army. I gain no buffs for saying I am using Goffs, or Bad Moons. And with this, it makes knowing what you are up against really difficult if they don't adhere to a paint scheme. You can tell from a glance that a grey kight is a grey knight, or a space wolf is a space wolf. I can expect to know what their rules are. But a vanilla marine army, you don't know just by looking, unless they paint it that chapter's specific color. It could be one of what...7 different chapters with their own unique special rules? Granted, painting them a unique color that pleases your own eye still poses this problem, but at least they LOOK cool to make up for it XD

I dislike a Marine player's excuse for not painting because they don't want to be bound to a single chapter. And that's fine. It's valid they want flexible Marines. So, the answer is pretty simple. Paint them whatever color you want. GW is pretty blatant in that they want player's to customize their army, that there is no real 'required' paint scheme for armies. Hell, I have red AND green skinned Orks. Just because my Orks have red skin, doesn't mean they become less playable or any less Orky.

You could paint your vanilla marines hot pink, and then have them be anything you wanted each game, and no one would care. Because at least you put paint on them. And hot pink is far more pleasing on the eye then drab, gross, depressing black or grey.

And the great thing about your other examples, is those all work. WYSIWYG has no baring on color schemes. You could have pink Space Wolves, or yellow armored Eldar, or hunting orange Tau. Each army has a 'recommended' color set forth by the company for how their armies look in the fluff and by GW's original vision. But no where do they say you HAVE to paint them this or that. It's what makes this hobby so damn awesome. Your imagination is really the limit. There's no real excuse not to at least give painting a try.

I was worried i'd ruin my models. The only models I still don't paint are my bigger vehicles, because I really want them to look good. I have a friend who is far superior and can paint faster. So I pay him to paint my Trukks and large walkers. (Only vehicles I've ever painted successfully to my liking are my Kanz.) I love my army, and I feel like I've come a long way ever since I picked up a brush. People can be surprised by how easy it is to paint, especially just in their downtime while watching Netflix or listening to some tunes. I've found it's become my favorite way to unwind after a rough day at work.

In the end, I get that people may still hate painting. and that's cool too. But these players really can't get mad that other player's find their army boring to look at. It comes with the territory, sadly. People will be drawn to others who have brightly colored dudes to fight their own brightly colored dudes, because it's interesting and it's fun to see the work put into them. I still play unpainted and even proxy armies. But, I can't lie just to make you feel better. The games ARE inherently less fun. I like to give compliments to people's armies, or a well painted mini in particular. It's the rewarding part of the hobby too. I love it when my Warboss gets a thumbs up from my opponents, and I love to return that compliment if I see a particularly awesome character or MC or vehicle that was painted up nice.

I'm rambling...but, you get my point ^_^

Verviedi wrote:

They look really good. How did you get that fur texture?

Thank you.

It is "just" a matter of doing small sections of the model at a time, and poking and prodding at the green stuff long enough.

I think most of the trick lies in trying to avoid straight parallel lines.

 Vigilant wrote:
People don't want to commit to a chapter even though they have Imperial fists, they want to play space wolves today and blah blah next week, etc.

I know what you mean, this seems to constitute about 80% of 2nd hand collections I look at. Typical composition: A tactical squad of ultramarines. And a red rhino. And some white bikers which I'll presume are white scars. And I black predator. It's always a warning light to me, because the painting on modelling on such collections is usually terrible.

But that brings up another reason why its a bad idea for beginners to start churning out painted units, and definately not if they haven't even fixed on a chapter and paint scheme. Should develop their skills by painting figures one at a time, then start squad painting.

Melevolence wrote:


You could paint your vanilla marines hot pink, and then have them be anything you wanted each game, and no one would care.

Cool. That was all I was asking about.

Because at least you put paint on them. And hot pink is far more pleasing on the eye then drab, gross, depressing black or grey.

Hey! You bad mouthing my colour scheme?




I just want to make something clear. I thoroughly enjoy painting. I have several pretty large painted armies.
My objections stem from the fact that I can't stand idly by when person A tells person B how to enjoy the hobby, and additionally argues that person B is lazy, boring, stupid, inbred, inconsiderate and destructive (take your pick).

Good ramble, though.

Its one of those things where I don't care except for clarity. I play against an army of grey space marines I really struggle to pick out the devestator squads from the normal and the special weapons etc.

It wouldn't be so bad if it wasn't a sea of marines army - you know if there were rhinos and whatnot so instead of that I've just got a mass of grey.

The paint serves to highlight detail, even if its a half assed crap paint job.

Melevolence wrote:


In the end, I get that people may still hate painting. and that's cool too. But these players really can't get mad that other player's find their army boring to look at. It comes with the territory, sadly.

Who is getting mad about that? Who is raging here? Players who run into painted armies or players who run into unpainted armies?

 insaniak wrote:
No, I still don't get why you wouldn't just not play against someone if the standard of their army upsets you that badly.

I think a lot of the problems in this hobby stem from people having to play with people with a different mindset about the game, because there is no one else for miles.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 jreilly89 wrote:
"Oh, you don't paint? You're not as much of a wargamer here"

That, and other things. You don't paint ? you must be TFG WAAC <insert other pointless acronym> !


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Steelmage99 wrote:
Is it a problem that my Deff Skullz Ork army (dominated by blue colours) really like to use a lot of bikes and trukks?

Why yes, how do you expect them to go fast without the red ?

As anyone reading my posts on the subject will know, I come down on the side of painted. I'm part of a club for which our standard is to never put an unpainted model on the table. It's worked well for 4 years now. Lest you think us "elitist", know that we always keep painted models on hand for newbies and visitors. This allows us to always be open and welcoming while making sure that everyone knows that when they come to our bi-weekly game night, they are guaranteed to see nothing but the spectacle of painted models clashing on beautiful terrain.

 insaniak wrote:

 tyrannosaurus wrote:
Painting is a huge part of the hobby, suggesting it isn't is silly. Surely all of the painting competitions, books dedicated to painting, whole areas of forums dedicated to painting prove that?

They prove that painting is a part of some people's hobby. There is no such thing as 'THE hobby'.

This is the essential point of contention.
We can all agree that people approach "the hobby" of tabletop wargaming differently.
However, where I draw a line is holding to the fact that "the wargaming hobby" does have standards and certain things have always been part of wargaming. That people choosing to practice "their hobby" differently doesn't change the essential nature of the tabletop wargaming hobby itself.

From Kriegspiel and Little Wars (though this was fought on the floor) through the present day, wargaming has a long history of painted miniatures. There have always been folks who choose not to use painted models -though it's far more common in popular sci-fi and fantasy games than in historical- but that does not change the fact that the essential definition of the wargaming hobby includes the painted miniatures.

If you choose not to use painted miniatures, that's your business, but to pretend that paint is not part of "the hobby" is ridiculous. Consider the response one would get if they were to say that paint was not part of hobbies such as finescale modeling, classic car clubs, model railroading, etc. Every hobby has standards and ideals as dictated by tradition and history and wargaming is no different. They may be ignored on a personal level, but that does not negate them.

I wrote an expanded version of my thoughts called "Painting Matters: InDefense of Hobby Standards" on our club blog a bit over a month ago. You may find it interesting reading.
http://chicagoskirmish.blogspot.com/2014/08/painting-matters-in-defense-of-hobby.html
It was the most commented-on post we've ever had and even caused a rather lengthly discussion (not started or participated-in by me) on the WSS facebook page
https://www.facebook.com/WSSMagazine/posts/689490177767008

Jaq Draco lives wrote:
The paint serves to highlight detail, even if its a half assed crap paint job.

Actually, some paint jobs are more offending to the eye than primed / basecoated.

But I think people who don't really care should try black primer and then wide zenithal basecoat.

It takes maybe two hours for 5000 points and it brings them that much closer to being accepted in some tournaments.

Either way, I've played naked and prime stuff for a long while so I'm not one to judge.

Steelmage99 wrote:

I very much agree. Clarity is of great importance.

The bike example is particularly good. The fact that the bike is an already existing unit would make the distinctions unclear, especially if both Bikes and Thunderwolves were present in an army at the same time ("These bikes are Bikes, but those bikes with the fancy paint-job are Thunderwolves" ).
If one were to build some type of quad-bikes or dune buggies, and call those Thunderwolves, it would be much clearer and acceptable IMO.

I am one of those cretins that play Whatever Marines. When I wanted to play Grey Knights I found, that I couldn't use my existing "standard" marines to represent Grey Knights. At least not in a way that satisfied my own standards of clarity.
So I bought "proper" Grey Knights models to use in that army.

When it came to playing Space Wolves I made my own Thunderwolves/Beast Cavalry (from Blood Crushers).

Old WIP snap.

Those look great and are a great example of what I meant. If you tell someone that you are playing Space Wolves you know instantly what that unit is.

Another alternate option for Thunderwolves would be Mournfang, but yours looks very tasty indeed.

Umbros wrote:
Those look great and are a great example of what I meant. If you tell someone that you are playing Space Wolves you know instantly what that unit is.

Why ? Clearly they are ThunderGrizzly Cavalry !

Jaq Draco lives wrote:


The paint serves to highlight detail, even if its a half assed crap paint job.

That is certainly true.....IF the person doing the painting makes it so.

(some IG I painted for a friend of mine)


I, on the other hand, have seen plenty of models painted in such a way that having left them unpainted would have made it easier to identify them.
Another good friend of mine paints his Orks in a camo scheme, with little to no details picked out, making his units look like big brown/green blobs.

My point is that, "paint makes it easier to identify the models" is a bad argument.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

morgoth wrote:

Umbros wrote:
Those look great and are a great example of what I meant. If you tell someone that you are playing Space Wolves you know instantly what that unit is.

Why ? Clearly they are ThunderGrizzly Cavalry !

Actually, I know the limits of my own sculpting skills, and therefore call them my ThunderHamsters.

 Eilif wrote:
As anyone reading my posts on the subject will know, I come down on the side of painted. I'm part of a club for which our standard is to never put an unpainted model on the table. It's worked well for 4 years now. Lest you think us "elitist", know that we always keep painted models on hand for newbies and visitors. This allows us to always be open and welcoming while making sure that everyone knows that when they come to our bi-weekly game night, they are guaranteed to see nothing but the spectacle of painted models clashing on beautiful terrain.

 insaniak wrote:

 tyrannosaurus wrote:
Painting is a huge part of the hobby, suggesting it isn't is silly. Surely all of the painting competitions, books dedicated to painting, whole areas of forums dedicated to painting prove that?

They prove that painting is a part of some people's hobby. There is no such thing as 'THE hobby'.

This is the essential point of contention.
We can all agree that people approach "the hobby" of tabletop wargaming differently.
However, where I draw a line is holding to the fact that "the wargaming hobby" does have standards and certain things have always been part of wargaming. That people choosing to practice "their hobby" differently doesn't change the essential nature of the tabletop wargaming hobby itself.

From Kriegspiel and Little Wars (though this was fought on the floor) through the present day, wargaming has a long history of painted miniatures. There have always been folks who choose not to use painted models -though it's far more common in popular sci-fi and fantasy games than in historical- but that does not change the fact that the essential definition of the wargaming hobby includes the painted miniatures.

If you choose not to use painted miniatures, that's your business, but to pretend that paint is not part of "the hobby" is ridiculous. Consider the response one would get if they were to say that paint was not part of hobbies such as finescale modeling, classic car clubs, model railroading, etc. Every hobby has standards and ideals as dictated by tradition and history and wargaming is no different. They may be ignored on a personal level, but that does not negate them.

I wrote an expanded version of my thoughts called "Painting Matters: InDefense of Hobby Standards" on our club blog a bit over a month ago. You may find it interesting reading.
http://chicagoskirmish.blogspot.com/2014/08/painting-matters-in-defense-of-hobby.html
It was the most commented-on post we've ever had and even caused a rather lengthly discussion (not started or participated-in by me) on the WSS facebook page
https://www.facebook.com/WSSMagazine/posts/689490177767008

You used a lot of words to say "I think there are standards and people aren't meeting them by not painting their models".

But to address a few of your specific points...

but to pretend that paint is not part of "the hobby" is ridiculous.

No, insaniak (and I agree) was pointing out there is no "THE hobby".

Painting and wargaming, to me, are two separate hobbies that have overlap. There is no "THE hobby", I don't look down on people who paint models and never game with them and I don't see why anyone should look down on people who play the games but don't paint the models.

Every hobby has standards and ideals as dictated by tradition and history and wargaming is no different.

As long as I've been playing GW games, there have existing unpainted armies that people play with. Now, if we were talking historic gaming, you might have more of a point, and you know what, that tends to be slightly different because what tends to draw people to historic gaming is not only the "gaming" part but the "historic" part which lends itself to painting.

But there isn't really a tradition and history when it comes to 40k of exclusively painted models.

You may find it interesting reading.
http://chicagoskirmish.blogspot.com/2014/08/painting-matters-in-defense-of-hobby.html

I read it last time we had this discussion 2 months ago. I dug up that old thread and will just quote what I said then...

Yep, I read it, it reads like a fluff piece for people who like to be obnoxious to people who want to enjoy the hobby in different ways. I find that article more obnoxious than unpainted miniatures, because it actively tells people they suck (not directly, but obviously it is implied). Let's pull out some quotes from that article:

"Those who don't choose to paint their models have a different approach to the hobby and it's just as valid as yours."

Balderdash, I say! Pish posh and poppycock!

So, you're imposing your own view of the hobby on others.

*a bunch of pointless analogies*

I was going to discuss each of those analogies in turn, but after doing 1 realised I was wasting my time. I'll just say the analogies aren't analogous and thus aren't useful.

But I don't ever expect to get the same kind of props or respect as someone who paints their miniatures to a higher standard any more than I would expect a best-painted award at a convention.

Except no one is asking for "props" for not painting models. They are asking not to be attacked, called lazy, told they aren't wargamers, told they're "doing it wrong".

and does no one any favors.

Balderdash, I say! Pish posh and poppycock!

It does a lot of people favours, it opens up wargaming to a far larger set of people. Yes, obviously having unpainted models in games has its bad points. So does telling a bunch of people "no, you aren't allowed to join my hobby unless you spend 50 hours doing something you don't want to do first".

And frankly I can make the same argument for crappily painted models. Yes, I'd prefer to play against painted models than unpainted models... but I'd just as equally (if not more) prefer to play against WELL painted models than crappily painted models. It benefits the hobby if everyone spends time on their models to make them look good instead of just roughly painting 3 colours on. We could just as equally say allowing poorly painted models do no one any favours because well painted models look better, make for a more overall entertaining game and the aesthetic is more appealing to onlookers. To me, the level of standards looks something like this....

1. Well Painted models
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
2. Extremely poorly painted models
- <-------------------------------------------Where you are placing your "hobby standard" to be considered wargaming
3. Unpainted models
-
-
-
4. Well painted/printed 2D standing cut outs
-
-
5. Flat tokens with a nice image on them
-
-
6. Flat tokens with names on them


Obviously I prefer to play against #1, but frankly I consider all of it "wargaming" and unpainted vs poorly painted is rather close in my personal opinion because I find poorly painted models as aesthetically jarring as unpainted ones (the only reason it's higher on the list is because I'm willing to give people an A for effort Otherwise they'd probably be on the same level).

Frankly, the only reason it would slightly grate me playing against #4 is admittedly I would find it annoying that someone spent almost no money to play the game when most people are suckered in to it by GW Realistically I'd be fine with it, I think aesthetically it would look fine and I know there's groups who play like that.

It must be written somewhere that units should have at least some coloration prior to fielding.

Dont most tournaments enforce this now? Anyones I've been too/seen certainly have.

If painting has no effect on the game mechanics/results why bother? (thats not a loaded question by the way - its a genuine query). Is it for purely visual gratification?

 Eilif wrote:
As anyone reading my posts on the subject will know, I come down on the side of painted. I'm part of a club for which our standard is to never put an unpainted model on the table. It's worked well for 4 years now. Lest you think us "elitist", know that we always keep painted models on hand for newbies and visitors. This allows us to always be open and welcoming while making sure that everyone knows that when they come to our bi-weekly game night, they are guaranteed to see nothing but the spectacle of painted models clashing on beautiful terrain.

 insaniak wrote:

 tyrannosaurus wrote:
Painting is a huge part of the hobby, suggesting it isn't is silly. Surely all of the painting competitions, books dedicated to painting, whole areas of forums dedicated to painting prove that?

They prove that painting is a part of some people's hobby. There is no such thing as 'THE hobby'.

This is the essential point of contention.
We can all agree that people approach "the hobby" of tabletop wargaming differently.
However, where I draw a line is holding to the fact that "the wargaming hobby" does have standards and certain things have always been part of wargaming. That people choosing to practice "their hobby" differently doesn't change the essential nature of the tabletop wargaming hobby itself.

From Kriegspiel and Little Wars (though this was fought on the floor) through the present day, wargaming has a long history of painted miniatures. There have always been folks who choose not to use painted models -though it's far more common in popular sci-fi and fantasy games than in historical- but that does not change the fact that the essential definition of the wargaming hobby includes the painted miniatures.

If you choose not to use painted miniatures, that's your business, but to pretend that paint is not part of "the hobby" is ridiculous. Consider the response one would get if they were to say that paint was not part of hobbies such as finescale modeling, classic car clubs, model railroading, etc. Every hobby has standards and ideals as dictated by tradition and history and wargaming is no different. They may be ignored on a personal level, but that does not negate them.

I wrote an expanded version of my thoughts called "Painting Matters: InDefense of Hobby Standards" on our club blog a bit over a month ago. You may find it interesting reading.
http://chicagoskirmish.blogspot.com/2014/08/painting-matters-in-defense-of-hobby.html
It was the most commented-on post we've ever had and even caused a rather lengthly discussion (not started or participated-in by me) on the WSS facebook page
https://www.facebook.com/WSSMagazine/posts/689490177767008

Please stop using the term wargaming in such a narrow manner, wargaming extends to anything that is a simulation of war, even video games. Tabletop wargaming would also include games such as Axis and Allies. I think the term you and people like Las are looking for is Miniatures Wargaming.

 Ratius wrote:

It must be written somewhere that units should have at least some coloration prior to fielding.

Dont most tournaments enforce this now? Anyones I've been too/seen certainly have.

If painting has no effect on the game mechanics/results why bother? (thats not a loaded question by the way - its a genuine query). Is it for purely visual gratification?

I've seen a lot of that. It's really harsh on me too, because when you have 5000 points and have to get them all to three colors even though you like to take things slow and do your best... it gets tricky.

 Ratius wrote:

It must be written somewhere that units should have at least some coloration prior to fielding.

Dont most tournaments enforce this now? Anyones I've been too/seen certainly have.

If painting has no effect on the game mechanics/results why bother? (thats not a loaded question by the way - its a genuine query). Is it for purely visual gratification?

Because visual gratification is important too. It's just not important enough to get your panties in a twist over people who want to play like that by insulting them by calling them lazy or not living up to certain standards or being elitist d-bags telling them they should admit they aren't true wargamers/hobbyists/whatevers.

Given the choice, I will play against a painted army rather than an unpainted army. But I won't try and attack someone's decision not to paint their models before playing with them.

I also prefer to play against WELL painted models rather than crappily painted models. This is why tournaments also frequently judge the visual quality of an army in addition to on-table performance.

 SilverDevilfish wrote:
[
Please stop using the term wargaming in such a narrow manner, wargaming extends to anything that is a simulation of war, even video games. Tabletop wargaming would also include games such as Axis and Allies. I think the term you and people like Las are looking for is Miniatures Wargaming.

Axis and Allies is a "board game" a term separate from Tabletop wargaming which widely synonymous with Miniature Wargaming. Though I do take your point that terms can be confused.