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.

Sometimes people don't have time to paint them.

I've got half painted models and unpainted models, as I've got university to think about.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
[

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.

A few points.

1) I mostly reject the idea that painting and waragming are separate hobbies. One does not need to paint their own figures (painting services, prepaiting, etc are options) but the history of wargaming clearly shows that painted miniatures have been a standard of the hobby since the beginning.

2) GW gaming is a sub-catagory, but it still falls under the wider hobby of Miniature Tabletop Wargaming.

3) A "Standard" does not imply complete (exclusive) compliance. Some GW gamers not painting does not change the essential yardstick/ideal/metric for the hobby as including painted models. Even the company itself promotes this. How many unpainted armies were ever featured in White Dwarf?

The metric and standards of the hobby have always included painting as an important ideal. Reject them if you will, but that doesn't mean they don't exist.

 Eilif wrote:
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.

Again, Squad Leader wasn't wargaming?
Is X-Wing not wargaming?

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.

No, it doesn't. It's the most popularized because - shock and awe - painted models look better than unpainted. So guess which ones are used for display images, etc?

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.

See, the purpose of literally all of the hobbies you mentioned is to replicate something that does exist/used to exist. That means that you'd have to paint it or it's not really a replica.
The purpose of GW minis isn't to replicate anything, it's to play a game. Perhaps you've heard of it?

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

You brought up the following:

In sports, it's the better players who make the varsity team.
In music, it's the better musicians (or better promoted musicians) who get the gig.
In business, it's those who get results and profits who become executives.

Please, elaborate on how painting makes you better at "the hobby" than me. It only does if you define "the hobby" as including painting. I'm saying that there is no "the hobby". You have your hobby and I have mine.
It's possible - nay, likely - that they're different.

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

Because it's full of "I paint and therefore I'm better than you." It's literally what you said.

Still, I'm not so relativistic as to be willing to give some sort of tacit approval to those who don't paint and say that they're involvement in the hobby is just as good as mine. It's not, nor should we delude ourselves to think that it is so, simply for the sake of good feelings and avoiding offense.

It's not about "good feelings" or "avoiding offense". It's about understanding that different people are different and that there's no "the hobby". There's your hobby and mine. They're different. That's fine.
I work with computers for a living, and in my free time. That doesn't mean that someone who uses computers to only check email is a lesser person - it just means that they're different.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Eilif wrote:
1) I mostly reject the idea that painting and waragming are separate hobbies. One does not need to paint their own figures (painting services, prepaiting, etc are options) but the history of wargaming clearly shows that painted miniatures have been a standard of the hobby since the beginning.

This has been repeated over and over. Prove it.
There are countless counter-based wargames that you're literally throwing in the garbage with this statement.

VanHallan wrote:
Sheer laziness to not paint your models, but all in all I guess I would say keep not painting so when you quit the hobby I can pick up your stuff on the cheap and not have to deal with stripping a jawbreaker of spray paint models that I've come across before.

Hey, at least they tried, right?

rigeld2 wrote:

Again, Squad Leader wasn't wargaming?
Is X-Wing not wargaming?

See, the purpose of literally all of the hobbies you mentioned is to replicate something that does exist/used to exist. That means that you'd have to paint it or it's not really a replica.
The purpose of GW minis isn't to replicate anything, it's to play a game. Perhaps you've heard of it?

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

You brought up the following:

In sports, it's the better players who make the varsity team.
In music, it's the better musicians (or better promoted musicians) who get the gig.
In business, it's those who get results and profits who become executives.

Please, elaborate on how painting makes you better at "the hobby" than me. It only does if you define "the hobby" as including painting. I'm saying that there is no "the hobby". You have your hobby and I have mine. It's possible - nay, likely - that they're different.

Because it's full of "I paint and therefore I'm better than you." It's literally what you said.

A few points.

-X wing is tabletop wargaming and it even uses painted miniatures. ASqL is a board wargame. Board/Chit Wargames are perfectly fine in theior own right and not what I am talking about. See my earlier post regarding terms.

-GW is not the first tabletop wargame game to replicate -perhaps "create" is a better term- something that does not exist. That is is based in fantasy has no bearing on painting-or-not.

-I reject the idea that painted figures are less or more important to tabletop wargaming than "playing the game" They're both parts of the same hobby.

-Regarding "better.. than me" note that in the same essay I rejected the idea that painting or choosing not to paint is a "moral" issue, it's simply a matter of those who bring painted models literally bringing "more" to the table. All other things being equal, if one player brings painted army and one brings unpainted, there's a clear hierarchy of who is "briniging more". Put even simpler, all other things being equal painted is better than unpainted.

-If you require a lesson in the history of wargaming and it's relation ship to painting, go to your library and check out (or interlibrary loan) every book you can about wargaming. From the HG wells playing with toy soldiers (which were all painted back then) to Featherstone/s books on wargaming in the era of wargaming-specific figures , every era of wargaming through the present has been painted. I'm surprised you even bothered to question the history of painting in wargaming.

Of course we're going to go round and round since you reject the idea that a hobby has objective standards of any sort, where as I believe that the hobby does have standards rooted in history and that those exist whether or not some folks choose to practice them all.

 Eilif wrote:

 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.

Then maybe you should use the the terms Tabletop wargaming and Miniature wargaming exclusively since they seem to be what you're talking about instead of the more broad term wargaming. As someone that likes playing games such as Axis and Allies and even RTS games I get rather irked when it's implied I have to paint the pieces or... I dunno paint my computer?

I haven't read the rest of this thread is it seems the question has gone slightly off the point .... but simply all Models SHOULD be painted. It's sort of what they were designed for

I hate playing people who claim their black blob on the other side of the table is in fact a specialist assassin with sniper rifle (or a Hassassin lasiq with Viral sniper rifle to be exact) even when it clearly isn't when seen close up. Unpainted models don't help in the game, they are difficult to distinguish and don't add any character to games...... it's like playing on crappy felt tables with a book underneath and saying it's a hill !!!!

I have no problem playing unpainted models as long as people are actually clear about what they are and I can see them easily enough, however I'd never put a unpainted model on a table because I like to paint AND play. I however prefer games with decent scenery and panted models that make the game look good...... that way when I lose and the dice all turn against me I can still say it looked like a good game

 Eilif wrote:
-I reject the idea that painted figures are less or more important to tabletop wargaming than "playing the game" They're both parts of the same hobby.

No, they're not. They're multiple hobbies that some people conflate.

-Regarding "better.. than me" note that in the same essay I rejected the idea that painting or choosing not to paint is a "moral" issue, it's simply a matter of those who bring painted models literally bringing "more" to the table. All other things being equal, if one player brings painted army and one brings unpainted, there's a clear hierarchy of who is "briniging more". Put even simpler, all other things being equal painted is better than unpainted.

No, there's no "clear hierarchy". Neither one is bringing more, unless your opinion is that painted minis is what matters. Your "put even simpler..." moves the point from the person to the minis. Yes, painted minis look better than unpainted minis. That has nothing to do with the person bringing either one of them.

Of course we're going to go round and round since you reject the idea that a hobby has objective standards of any sort, where as I believe that the hobby does have standards rooted in history and that those exist whether or not some folks choose to practice them all.

Again no evidence to prove that there's been a decline in painting throughout the years - just an assurance that it's true.
And no - "a" hobby can have objective standards. Note that you then switched to "the hobby" with the assumption that it's a single thing incorporating everything you think is correct.

Start from scratch - your base point is that "It's always been this way so paint your stuff." Prove that point - that it's always been this way. Yes - it looks better. Yes - it draws people in. I don't believe that there's been any kind of serious decline in painting standards that would have to happen for your assumption to be true.

 SilverDevilfish wrote:


Then maybe you should use the the terms Tabletop wargaming and Miniature wargaming exclusively since they seem to be what you're talking about instead of the more broad term wargaming. As someone that likes playing games such as Axis and Allies and even RTS games I get rather irked when it's implied I have to paint the pieces or... I dunno paint my computer?

You are absolutely correct. Sorry about that. I in no way meant to demean board wargaming which itself has a long and storied history of it's own that goes back much further than miniature wargaming. Same to computer wargaming, which has it's own -if somewhat shorter- history.

I try to use specific terms, but sometimes begin abbreviating as I go along. I will endeavor to do better in the future. For anyone reading my previous posts, if you see "wargaming" by itself, (especially in regards to painting) it's probably a reference to "Tabletop Wargaming" and "Miniature Margaming".


Automatically Appended Next Post:

rigeld2 wrote:

Start from scratch - your base point is that "It's always been this way so paint your stuff." Prove that point - that it's always been this way. Yes - it looks better. Yes - it draws people in. I don't believe that there's been any kind of serious decline in painting standards that would have to happen for your assumption to be true.

Sorry, I must have been editing my previous post while you were typing this. Here you go:

-If you require a lesson in the history of wargaming and it's relation ship to painting, go to your library and check out (or interlibrary loan) every book you can about wargaming. From the HG wells playing with toy soldiers (which were all painted back then) to Featherstone/s books on wargaming in the era of wargaming-specific figures , every era of wargaming through the present has been painted. I'm surprised you even bothered to question the history of painting in wargaming.

Categorising games is a waste of time. Wargame, boardgame, tabletop game -the lines between these get blurry. Some people consider Heroscape a tabletop battle game, some don't. It's not important -the game is what it is.

 Eilif wrote:

Sorry, I must have been editing my previous post while you were typing this. Here you go:

-If you require a lesson in the history of wargaming and it's relation ship to painting, go to your library and check out (or interlibrary loan) every book you can about wargaming. From the HG wells playing with toy soldiers (which were all painted back then) to Featherstone/s books on wargaming in the era of wargaming-specific figures , every era of wargaming through the present has been painted. I'm surprised you even bothered to question the history of painting in wargaming.

So, like I said - painted models look better. So guess what appears in books that have pictures? Oh right - painted models.
I've never doubted that people used to paint models for miniature wargaming. I have doubted that there's some "rise" in the amount of unpainted armies, which is what would be required for your statement to be true.

rigeld2 wrote:
I've never doubted that people used to paint models for miniature wargaming. I have doubted that there's some "rise" in the amount of unpainted armies, which is what would be required for your statement to be true.

I think i can vouch for the "rise" side. I personally believe it is linked with the decline of attention span in children. But just IMHO, and maybe just something local...

 thegreatchimp wrote:
Categorising games is a waste of time. Wargame, boardgame, tabletop game -the lines between these get blurry. Some people consider Heroscape a tabletop battle game, some don't. It's not important -the game is what it is.

I agree with this. It's a pretty pointless semantic debate trying to define what is a wargame, wargamer, board game, table top game, "the hobby". They're relative terms that you can shoehorn in to whatever definition you want to suit your argument.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 BlackTalos wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
I've never doubted that people used to paint models for miniature wargaming. I have doubted that there's some "rise" in the amount of unpainted armies, which is what would be required for your statement to be true.

I think i can vouch for the "rise" side. I personally believe it is linked with the decline of attention span in children. But just IMHO, and maybe just something local...

It's risen around this area mainly because the GW store was where a lot of games took place, they had a requirement to have 3 colours and based... they no longer have that requirement.

But that said, there were always unpainted armies... those people just didn't play at the local GW or they played with other armies instead of their own armies. I played a lot of games at the local GW, of the ones I didn't play against at the local GW, most all of them people would bring partially painted armies.

 BlackTalos wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
I've never doubted that people used to paint models for miniature wargaming. I have doubted that there's some "rise" in the amount of unpainted armies, which is what would be required for your statement to be true.

I think i can vouch for the "rise" side. I personally believe it is linked with the decline of attention span in children. But just IMHO, and maybe just something local...

Acendotal evidence isn't. :-)

I play historicals as well... and many other styles of miniature wargames. Unpainted minis exist in all of them. If we're having a big event that people want pictures of we don't allow unpainted minis. It's that simple.

 Eilif wrote:

A few points.

1) I mostly reject the idea that painting and waragming are separate hobbies. One does not need to paint their own figures (painting services, prepaiting, etc are options) but the history of wargaming clearly shows that painted miniatures have been a standard of the hobby since the beginning.

2) GW gaming is a sub-catagory, but it still falls under the wider hobby of Miniature Tabletop Wargaming.

3) A "Standard" does not imply complete (exclusive) compliance. Some GW gamers not painting does not change the essential yardstick/ideal/metric for the hobby as including painted models.

You're just shoehorning terminology to fit your view point. I haven't been collecting 40k since the beginning, but I have been around it for about 20 years. In that time, there has ALWAYS been people playing with unpainted armies. So your "tradition and history" is bunk when it comes to 40k.

If you want to talk about the wider wargaming hobby... well then you're encompassing a whole heap of games ranging from ones where people typically always paint before playing (historics) games where people typically don't paint before playing at all and games where the models come prepainted (and sometimes people repaint them before playing )

This idea of creating a concept of "the hobby" where people paint then play is entirely your creating. It doesn't exist.

Even the company itself promotes this. How many unpainted armies were ever featured in White Dwarf?

As has been said...

1. Well painted models obviously look better than unpainted or poorly painted armies. Hence you use them in advertising. I've seen armies painted to a very low quality which I've not seen reproduced in White Dwarfs. Does this mean that we all need to be painting to White Dwarf standard to be considered as taking part in the hobby? Hells no.

2. I couldn't care less what GW intends or promotes. They've been so disconnected from the community for so long that what they do these days is largely irrelevant to me beyond the products they produce.

Reject them if you will, but that doesn't mean they don't exist.

They exist because you create them. I think there's a whole heap of "standards" ranging from playing with counters to playing with golden daemon winning armies... however to me there is no "minimum standard". The "minimum standard" exists because you create it. Some people call it 3 colours... personally I've seen so many crappily painted 3 colour armies that I don't think it's much of a standard at all.

 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

This +1

rigeld2 wrote:

So, like I said - painted models look better. So guess what appears in books that have pictures? Oh right - painted models.
I've never doubted that people used to paint models for miniature wargaming. I have doubted that there's some "rise" in the amount of unpainted armies, which is what would be required for your statement to be true.

if you insist on some sort of longitudinal study on painted miniature prevalence you're not going to find it. Demanding such isn't any more supportive of your position than mine and doesn't advance the conversation.

Anecdotal evidence is what we have. I can offer you my personal observations over about 20 years of being in the hobby and if you ask most older wargamers -especially those whose experience predates the popularity of warhammer- they'll tell you the same thing. There have always been some folks who don't paint all their figures, but there has been rise in the number (and acceptance in certain circles) of unpainted armies. Even more recent is the the wide use of completely unpainted armies by folks who seem to have no intention of ever painting them.

My theory is that this rise has been exacerbated by a few things.

1) Larger games with shifting rules: Games like 40k and WHFB require the purchase of HUGE numbers of miniatures to play at the level that most clubs play at, most of whom are just crammed with detail. This is a very large barrier to painting. It's been getting worse as these games grow in the number of figures required. When Rogue Trader required 15-30 figures per side a painted army was easy to field. When 3-7th edition scaled the game up to a 60-100 minis per side it becomes a much bigger hurdle.

2)Combo-driven games like WM use smaller numbers of minis in a given game, but encourage the player to buy nearly every model in a faction as soon as possible so as to have access to all the tools necessary to field a force designed defeat any specific opponent.

3) General laxity and decline in hobbies that require preparation. Hobby stores that sell model kits and the like have shrunk dramatically while video gaming -which requires no preparation- has skewed the expectations for the amount of preparation required to engage in "gaming" activities.

4) Game culture that is not as supportive of sharing. Building a wargaming force and writing a good "list" is such a personal process now, that loaning and borrowing of painted miniatures is not as appealing anymore. Compare this to the wargame environment of old (admittedly historical) where a club member wants to game a certain obscure period, so he paints up both sides and brings them to the club. The next week the same might play out but with different players bringing miniatures and those without sharing.

5) General societal trends toward individualism that place less empahsis on "community values". This is not entirely a bad thing, but it means that folks who would have been more likely to paint their figs to keep up with the club are less likely to do so and those who do paint are less likely to encourage/pressure/cajole their buddies into getting their figures painted.

 Eilif wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

So, like I said - painted models look better. So guess what appears in books that have pictures? Oh right - painted models.
I've never doubted that people used to paint models for miniature wargaming. I have doubted that there's some "rise" in the amount of unpainted armies, which is what would be required for your statement to be true.

I can offer you my personal observations over about 20 years of being in the hobby though if you ask most older wargamers -especially those whose experience predates the popularity of warhammer- they'll all tell you the same thing. There have always been some folks who don't paint all their figures, but there has been rise in the number (and acceptance in certain circles) of unpainted armies.

My theory is that this rise has been exacerbated by a few things.

1) Larger games with shifting rules: Games like 40k and WHFB require the purchase of HUGE numbers of miniatures to play at the level that most clubs play at, most of whom are just crammed with detail. This is a very large barrier to painting. It's been getting worse as these games grow in the number of figures required. When Rogue Trader required 15-30 figures per side a painted army was easy to field. When 3-7th edition scaled the game up to a 60-100 minis per side it becomes a much bigger hurdle.

2)Combo-driven games like WM use smaller numbers of minis in a given game, but encourage the player to buy nearly every model in a faction as soon as possible so as to have access to all the tools necessary to field a force designed defeat any specific opponent.

3) General laxity and decline in hobbies that require preparation. Hobby stores that sell model kits and the like have shrunk dramatically while video gaming -which requires no preparation- has skewed the expectations for the amount of preparation required to engage in "gaming" activities.

4) Game culture that is not as supportive of sharing. Building a wargaming force and writing a good "list" is such a personal process now, that loaning and borrowing of painted miniatures is not as appealing anymore. Compare this to the wargame environment of old (admittedly historical) where a club member wants to game a certain obscure period, so he paints up both sides and brings them to the club. The next week the same might play out but with different players bringing miniatures and those without sharing.

5) General societal trends toward individualism that place less empahsis on "community values". This is not entirely a bad thing, but it means that folks who would have been more likely to paint their figs to keep up with the club are less likely to do so and those who do paint are less likely to encourage/pressure/cajole their buddies into getting their figures painted.

I think it is worth adding;

6) GW has limited the opportunities for their "3-colour" rule to be applied. Closing Battle Bunkers, opening 1-man stores, not running (a lot of) "sanctioned" tournaments, running the 'Ard Boyz events that specifically didn't require any painting.

This should give pause for thought. The company that birthed this hobby does seem to care less and less about painting.



NB. I should point out that I added 6) because I agree with you - I think that there has been a rise in unpainted armies. My last statement was merely an afterthought.



...

Steelmage99 wrote:

6) GW has limited the opportunities for their "3-colour" rule to be applied. Closing Battle Bunkers, opening 1-man stores, not running (a lot of) "sanctioned" tournaments, running the 'Ard Boyz events that specifically didn't require any painting.

This should give pause for thought. The company that birthed this hobby does seem to care less and less about painting.

And why should they ?

Honestly there are three separate things here:

1. Selling miniatures
2. Playing a strategy game
3. Enjoying painted and painting miniatures.

morgoth wrote:

Steelmage99 wrote:

6) GW has limited the opportunities for their "3-colour" rule to be applied. Closing Battle Bunkers, opening 1-man stores, not running (a lot of) "sanctioned" tournaments, running the 'Ard Boyz events that specifically didn't require any painting.

This should give pause for thought. The company that birthed this hobby does seem to care less and less about painting.

And why should they ?

Honestly there are three separate things here:

1. Selling miniatures
2. Playing a strategy game
3. Enjoying painted and painting miniatures.

Morgoth, I think we are in agreement. Look at my previous statements in this thread.
I just happen to agree with the statement that there seems to have been a rise in unpainted armies.
I do not agree with that statement that people who don't paint their models are doing The Hobby "wrong".

 Eilif wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

So, like I said - painted models look better. So guess what appears in books that have pictures? Oh right - painted models.
I've never doubted that people used to paint models for miniature wargaming. I have doubted that there's some "rise" in the amount of unpainted armies, which is what would be required for your statement to be true.

if you insist on some sort of longitudinal study on painted miniature prevalence you're not going to find it. Demanding such isn't any more supportive of your position than mine and doesn't advance the conversation.

Anecdotal evidence is what we have. I can offer you my personal observations over about 20 years of being in the hobby and if you ask most older wargamers -especially those whose experience predates the popularity of warhammer- they'll tell you the same thing. There have always been some folks who don't paint all their figures, but there has been rise in the number (and acceptance in certain circles) of unpainted armies. Even more recent is the the wide use of completely unpainted armies by folks who seem to have no intention of ever painting them.

My theory is that this rise has been exacerbated by a few things.

1) Larger games with shifting rules: Games like 40k and WHFB require the purchase of HUGE numbers of miniatures to play at the level that most clubs play at, most of whom are just crammed with detail. This is a very large barrier to painting. It's been getting worse as these games grow in the number of figures required. When Rogue Trader required 15-30 figures per side a painted army was easy to field. When 3-7th edition scaled the game up to a 60-100 minis per side it becomes a much bigger hurdle.

2)Combo-driven games like WM use smaller numbers of minis in a given game, but encourage the player to buy nearly every model in a faction as soon as possible so as to have access to all the tools necessary to field a force designed defeat any specific opponent.

3) General laxity and decline in hobbies that require preparation. Hobby stores that sell model kits and the like have shrunk dramatically while video gaming -which requires no preparation- has skewed the expectations for the amount of preparation required to engage in "gaming" activities.

4) Game culture that is not as supportive of sharing. Building a wargaming force and writing a good "list" is such a personal process now, that loaning and borrowing of painted miniatures is not as appealing anymore. Compare this to the wargame environment of old (admittedly historical) where a club member wants to game a certain obscure period, so he paints up both sides and brings them to the club. The next week the same might play out but with different players bringing miniatures and those without sharing.

5) General societal trends toward individualism that place less empahsis on "community values". This is not entirely a bad thing, but it means that folks who would have been more likely to paint their figs to keep up with the club are less likely to do so and those who do paint are less likely to encourage/pressure/cajole their buddies into getting their figures painted.

That's a nice argument on why numbers of unpainted armies might be on the rise... but in the end mostly irrelevant.

The fact is unpainted armies have always existed and that undermines the argument that we need to champion a standard of painted models in games based on historical importance.

Eilif wrote:Still, I'm not so relativistic as to be willing to give some sort of tacit approval to those who don't paint and say that they're involvement in the hobby is just as good as mine. It's not, nor should we delude ourselves to think that it is so, simply for the sake of good feelings and avoiding offense.

Just curious if you think this applies to other aspects of the hobby. For example those who never make conversions is they're involvement in the hobby less? What about those who never take the time to study competitive builds and play styles?

Drager wrote:

Eilif wrote:Still, I'm not so relativistic as to be willing to give some sort of tacit approval to those who don't paint and say that they're involvement in the hobby is just as good as mine. It's not, nor should we delude ourselves to think that it is so, simply for the sake of good feelings and avoiding offense.

Just curious if you think this applies to other aspects of the hobby. For example those who never make conversions is they're involvement in the hobby less? What about those who never take the time to study competitive builds and play styles?

I keep asking this very question every time this subject comes up.......I don't seem to get any answers.
Perhaps painting elitists have a blind spot when it comes to the shape of this particular combination of letters.

 Eilif wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

So, like I said - painted models look better. So guess what appears in books that have pictures? Oh right - painted models.
I've never doubted that people used to paint models for miniature wargaming. I have doubted that there's some "rise" in the amount of unpainted armies, which is what would be required for your statement to be true.

if you insist on some sort of longitudinal study on painted miniature prevalence you're not going to find it. Demanding such isn't any more supportive of your position than mine and doesn't advance the conversation.

Except you are basing everything you say on "It's always been this way."

Anecdotal evidence is what we have. I can offer you my personal observations over about 20 years of being in the hobby and if you ask most older wargamers -especially those whose experience predates the popularity of warhammer- they'll tell you the same thing. There have always been some folks who don't paint all their figures, but there has been rise in the number (and acceptance in certain circles) of unpainted armies. Even more recent is the the wide use of completely unpainted armies by folks who seem to have no intention of ever painting them.

As I said, I also play historical games with many different people. I've seen and played against unpainted armies in pretty much every game system I've played in. And these are guys who have literally never cracked a GW rule book. Most of the models eventually end up painted because, as I said, they like to do pictures and painted minis look good in pictures, but there have been unpainted armies many times.

Well you know that is because painting is art and art automaticly makes you elite and better then others.

/thread

 Ratius wrote:
/thread

FINALLY.

 Eilif wrote:

 SilverDevilfish wrote:


Then maybe you should use the the terms Tabletop wargaming and Miniature wargaming exclusively since they seem to be what you're talking about instead of the more broad term wargaming. As someone that likes playing games such as Axis and Allies and even RTS games I get rather irked when it's implied I have to paint the pieces or... I dunno paint my computer?

You are absolutely correct. Sorry about that. I in no way meant to demean board wargaming which itself has a long and storied history of it's own that goes back much further than miniature wargaming. Same to computer wargaming, which has it's own -if somewhat shorter- history.

I try to use specific terms, but sometimes begin abbreviating as I go along. I will endeavor to do better in the future. For anyone reading my previous posts, if you see "wargaming" by itself, (especially in regards to painting) it's probably a reference to "Tabletop Wargaming" and "Miniature Margaming".


Automatically Appended Next Post:

rigeld2 wrote:

Start from scratch - your base point is that "It's always been this way so paint your stuff." Prove that point - that it's always been this way. Yes - it looks better. Yes - it draws people in. I don't believe that there's been any kind of serious decline in painting standards that would have to happen for your assumption to be true.

Sorry, I must have been editing my previous post while you were typing this. Here you go:

-If you require a lesson in the history of wargaming and it's relation ship to painting, go to your library and check out (or interlibrary loan) every book you can about wargaming. From the HG wells playing with toy soldiers (which were all painted back then) to Featherstone/s books on wargaming in the era of wargaming-specific figures , every era of wargaming through the present has been painted. I'm surprised you even bothered to question the history of painting in wargaming.

No problem at all. Now don't do what I did to someone that doesn't enjoy painting.

Verviedi wrote:

 Ratius wrote:
/thread

FINALLY.

You didn't imagine this subject would foster such reactions?

A quick use of the Search function would have told you that. It is an oldie, but a goodie.
Almost on par with Female Space Marines and Competitive vs Causal Gaming.

Drager wrote:

Eilif wrote:Still, I'm not so relativistic as to be willing to give some sort of tacit approval to those who don't paint and say that they're involvement in the hobby is just as good as mine. It's not, nor should we delude ourselves to think that it is so, simply for the sake of good feelings and avoiding offense.

Just curious if you think this applies to other aspects of the hobby. For example those who never make conversions is they're involvement in the hobby less? What about those who never take the time to study competitive builds and play styles?

It's a very good question. conversions have never been an essential-and-required part of the hobby. They have existed for a long time, but in wargaming circles they really became more prevalent with the advent of GW's multipart kits, (plastic and metal). It's not something that gauges whether someone is fully participating. That said, if you have two similarly painted models and one has a particularly well executed conversion, I have not problem saying that the conversion is the better model. All things being equal I have no problem acknowledging that someone with mad green stuff skills who paints better models than me is a better hobbyist.

They've taken the time to refine skills that I haven't deserve to be commended for doing so. As with the comparison between unpainted and painted, the player with extensive conversions (assuming they're done well) just brings "more" to the table.

"Builds and Playstyles" on the other hand are a phenomenon unique to GW, PP and similar types of games. They only matter within the context of competitive gaming. Of course those players are going to be "better competitive players" but it's not a concern that can be extended to all wargames.

rigeld2 wrote:

 Eilif wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

So, like I said - painted models look better. So guess what appears in books that have pictures? Oh right - painted models.
I've never doubted that people used to paint models for miniature wargaming. I have doubted that there's some "rise" in the amount of unpainted armies, which is what would be required for your statement to be true.

if you insist on some sort of longitudinal study on painted miniature prevalence you're not going to find it. Demanding such isn't any more supportive of your position than mine and doesn't advance the conversation.

Except you are basing everything you say on "It's always been this way."

Anecdotal evidence is what we have. I can offer you my personal observations over about 20 years of being in the hobby and if you ask most older wargamers -especially those whose experience predates the popularity of warhammer- they'll tell you the same thing. There have always been some folks who don't paint all their figures, but there has been rise in the number (and acceptance in certain circles) of unpainted armies. Even more recent is the the wide use of completely unpainted armies by folks who seem to have no intention of ever painting them.

As I said, I also play historical games with many different people. I've seen and played against unpainted armies in pretty much every game system I've played in. And these are guys who have literally never cracked a GW rule book. Most of the models eventually end up painted because, as I said, they like to do pictures and painted minis look good in pictures, but there have been unpainted armies many times.

Note that I did not deny the presence of unpainted models in the past, rather I pointed out two things that indicate a long-standing acceptance of painting as a vital part of the hobby and a trend away from that.

1- Fewer painted models in the past.
2- More acceptance now of completely unpainted miniatures by people who have no intention of painting them.

Your observation supports this, especially when you say that most of these historical players' "models eventually end up painted…". That reflects a strong adherence to the tradition (supported by shiny books) of painting at least as an ideal to aspire too. This is in stark contrast to the trends today (especially among some GW and PP gamers) where you have lots of people openly stating that they don't paint their miniatures. It's the difference of before when the expectation that folks were working toward a painted army as compared to now, where more and more (though probably not anywhere near a majority) folks acquire miniatures without the expectation of them ever being painted.