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.

 Talys wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

 FenixPhox wrote:
I'm not good at painting

This can be fixed. Simple tabletop-standard painting (base + wash + highlight) is something that virtually everyone is capable of doing, if they put in the effort to learn how. And nobody can reasonably judge you for painting at a well-executed tabletop level. If people are really complaining that you aren't matching the best commission work and painting contest winners then the problem is with the TFGs in your group, not your painting.

I echo that. Any sort of reasonable effort indicating that you actually care about your minis as more than just monopoly markers makes it a lot more enjoyable, in my opinion. I really can't remember the last time I saw someone make fun of a player's painting -- it really wouldn't be tolerated around here. That's just bullying.

Actually, badly painted armies are much worse than unpainted armies due to the additional cringe factor of seeing expensive models ruined by bad painting.
An acceptable army starts somewhere around Forge World studio armies level.

Anything beneath that level is unacceptable and is an eyesore and brings shame to the hobby. People should seriously start practising on toys and cheap plastic historical miniatures/kits before putting their hands on Wh40k miniatures and models. They can start bringing their miniatures to the gaming table after a few years of practise.

People who can't paint well shouldn't even be allowed to buy Citadel and Forge World miniatures. They should be allowed to buy only painting supplies and be allowed to buy the miniatures only after showing a sample of historical models painted to the Forge World studio standards. Preferably with conversions.

 Aszubaruzah Surn wrote:
Actually, badly painted armies are much worse than unpainted armies due to the additional cringe factor of seeing expensive models ruined by bad painting.
An acceptable army starts somewhere around Forge World studio armies level.

Anything beneath that level is unacceptable and is an eyesore and brings shame to the hobby. People should seriously start practising on toys and cheap plastic historical miniatures/kits before putting their hands on Wh40k miniatures and models. They can start bringing their miniatures to the gaming table after a few years of practise.

People who can't paint well shouldn't even be allowed to buy Citadel and Forge World miniatures. They should be allowed to buy only painting supplies and be allowed to buy the miniatures only after showing a sample of historical models painted to the Forge World studio standards. Preferably with conversions.

I really hope this is a (bad) attempt at a parody and not a serious argument.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Aszubaruzah Surn wrote:
Actually, badly painted armies are much worse than unpainted armies due to the additional cringe factor of seeing expensive models ruined by bad painting.
An acceptable army starts somewhere around Forge World studio armies level.

Anything beneath that level is unacceptable and is an eyesore and brings shame to the hobby. People should seriously start practising on toys and cheap plastic historical miniatures/kits before putting their hands on Wh40k miniatures and models. They can start bringing their miniatures to the gaming table after a few years of practise.

People who can't paint well shouldn't even be allowed to buy Citadel and Forge World miniatures. They should be allowed to buy only painting supplies and be allowed to buy the miniatures only after showing a sample of historical models painted to the Forge World studio standards. Preferably with conversions.

I really hope this is a (bad) attempt at a parody and not a serious argument.

Why? Would you disrespect your opponents and ruin the game atmosphere by fielding a poorly painted army?

 Aszubaruzah Surn wrote:
Why? Would you disrespect your opponents and ruin the game atmosphere by fielding a poorly painted army?

Because there's a huge difference between painting to a decent tabletop standard and matching the level of FW's work. Virtually anyone can easily paint to a decent tabletop standard if they're willing to invest the time and effort, so the only reason (outside of a very small number of exceptional cases like physical disabilities) would have an unpainted army is if they just don't care enough to do it. But not everyone can match the much higher level of quality that FW produces, especially without dedicating huge amounts of time and effort to learning. It's the difference between "stop being lazy" and "you suck for not being born with natural artistic talent".

 Peregrine wrote:

 DoomShakaLaka wrote:
In MY opinion the game is fun to play

How many other wargames have you played?

You don't have a right to tell people that they are wrong/ lazy/ 'not a real 40k player' for playing with unpainted models.

Of course I do, and I will.

You seem to imply that 40K is absolutely awful and should never be played by any sane individual. I simply cannot see why. Yes, the rules are a bit threadbare, but I often go games without breaking the system, and when I do find a paradox, I compromise, because I'm not playing against total donkey-caves. I like 40k because it's a large game, and nothing beats the sight of a table full of unique-looking miniatures. Not the 6-model-per-team fest of Infinity, or the low-quality-model-skirmish fights of Warmahordes. Those game's rules may be more sane, they may not break all the time, but I simply do not consider skirmish games a viable alternative to a mass battle game like 40k.

I love the setting of 40k, from the somewhat tongue in cheek humor of Toaster God, to the Serious Business of Gaunt's Ghosts. I love the faction design, and even the art in the rulebooks and codexes. I like the models and the process of turning them from featureless grey blobs into nice-looking soldiers of the Machine God, or the swarms of the Hive Mind. I like the way the game plays (if your group isn't full of TFGs and tournament-practicing rules lawyers), but above all I love the sight of a hundred or more miniatures on the board.

I see absolutely no reason for the rampant, pathological, foaming-at-the-mouth, irrational hatred you have for the entire fanbase of 40k and the game itself. Show me on the doll where GW touched you, if you please.

 Verviedi wrote:
Yes, the rules are a bit threadbare, but I often go games without breaking the system, and when I do find a paradox, I compromise, because I'm not playing against total donkey-caves.

Good games don't require compromising on how to interpret the rules, the rules just work correctly "out of the box". And even when 40k's rules function they're still a bloated and poorly-designed mess.

I like 40k because it's a large game, and nothing beats the sight of a table full of unique-looking miniatures. Not the 6-model-per-team fest of Infinity, or the low-quality-model-skirmish fights of Warmahordes. Those game's rules may be more sane, they may not break all the time, but I simply do not consider skirmish games a viable alternative to a mass battle game like 40k.

Sure, and that's a valid point, but it's one that doesn't exist if the models aren't painted. The sight of a table full of painted models is awesome. The sight of a table full of half-assembled gray plastic is not. So if that's something you value then you should agree with me that painted models are mandatory.

I see absolutely no reason for the rampant, pathological, foaming-at-the-mouth, irrational hatred you have for the entire fanbase of 40k and the game itself.

I don't hate the fanbase of 40k, which would be absurd considering that I'm a member of that group. I hate GW and the incompetent morons they put in charge of writing the rules, and I hate them because I love the setting and want it to be better.

 Aszubaruzah Surn wrote:


Actually, badly painted armies are much worse than unpainted armies due to the additional cringe factor of seeing expensive models ruined by bad painting.
An acceptable army starts somewhere around Forge World studio armies level.

Anything beneath that level is unacceptable and is an eyesore and brings shame to the hobby. People should seriously start practising on toys and cheap plastic historical miniatures/kits before putting their hands on Wh40k miniatures and models. They can start bringing their miniatures to the gaming table after a few years of practise.

People who can't paint well shouldn't even be allowed to buy Citadel and Forge World miniatures. They should be allowed to buy only painting supplies and be allowed to buy the miniatures only after showing a sample of historical models painted to the Forge World studio standards. Preferably with conversions.

U wot m8?

I accept my bane with open arms.

Out of curiousity, Peregrine and Aszubaruzah Surn, where do you draw the lines for what is acceptable or not?

Would this one live up to your standards?



It's not my newest model and I have gotten a little better (I also fixed the scratched-off paint on the lower right helmet horn), but I am certainly not anywhere near Forge World painter level. I am curious as to how my skill level is regarded by those outside my immediate gaming circle, and as to what exactly constitutes an 'acceptable' standard.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Verviedi wrote:
Yes, the rules are a bit threadbare, but I often go games without breaking the system, and when I do find a paradox, I compromise, because I'm not playing against total donkey-caves.

Good games don't require compromising on how to interpret the rules, the rules just work correctly "out of the box". And even when 40k's rules function they're still a bloated and poorly-designed mess.

I like 40k because it's a large game, and nothing beats the sight of a table full of unique-looking miniatures. Not the 6-model-per-team fest of Infinity, or the low-quality-model-skirmish fights of Warmahordes. Those game's rules may be more sane, they may not break all the time, but I simply do not consider skirmish games a viable alternative to a mass battle game like 40k.

Sure, and that's a valid point, but it's one that doesn't exist if the models aren't painted. The sight of a table full of painted models is awesome. The sight of a table full of half-assembled gray plastic is not. So if that's something you value then you should agree with me that painted models are mandatory.

I see absolutely no reason for the rampant, pathological, foaming-at-the-mouth, irrational hatred you have for the entire fanbase of 40k and the game itself.

I don't hate the fanbase of 40k, which would be absurd considering that I'm a member of that group. I hate GW and the incompetent morons they put in charge of writing the rules, and I hate them because I love the setting and want it to be better.

I agree that the rules are bloated and poorly designed. However, they are nowhere near as broken as what you describe. You refer to them as if they break every turn, when in my experience the only game-breaking paradoxes I have encountered are Kharn Against Invisibility and Sun Shark. No, I don't play that often, and there are probably more, but those are the ones I have encountered.

I wish, I truly wish painted models were mandatory. However, at my FLGS alone, we have a person who believes paint just covers detail and all models should be unpainted, many people who focus on the game and painting to a high standard, so they have some extremely well painted models and the rest grey or primed, and people who simply don't like painting. I respect that. I personally don't like painting and I cannot justify why I don't like painting, but I paint everything to the best of my ability because looking at my finished models makes me proud.

I must say that 90% of my games have been played against a completely grey or primed or partially painted armies. If models were required to be painted, sadly, instead of painting, the people who don't like painting would simply quit, and the 10% of games I have played would become the 100%. I would rather get a chance to play the game and use my painted army, to give my opponent a show, than wait a month in a ghost town shop for a game.

 Verviedi wrote:

You seem to imply that 40K is absolutely awful and should never be played by any sane individual. I simply cannot see why. Yes, the rules are a bit threadbare, but I often go games without breaking the system, and when I do find a paradox, I compromise, because I'm not playing against total donkey-caves. I like 40k because it's a large game, and nothing beats the sight of a table full of unique-looking miniatures. Not the 6-model-per-team fest of Infinity, or the low-quality-model-skirmish fights of Warmahordes. Those game's rules may be more sane, they may not break all the time, but I simply do not consider skirmish games a viable alternative to a mass battle game like 40k.

I love the setting of 40k, from the somewhat tongue in cheek humor of Toaster God, to the Serious Business of Gaunt's Ghosts. I love the faction design, and even the art in the rulebooks and codexes. I like the models and the process of turning them from featureless grey blobs into nice-looking soldiers of the Machine God, or the swarms of the Hive Mind. I like the way the game plays (if your group isn't full of TFGs and tournament-practicing rules lawyers), but above all I love the sight of a hundred or more miniatures on the board.

I see absolutely no reason for the rampant, pathological, foaming-at-the-mouth, irrational hatred you have for the entire fanbase of 40k and the game itself. Show me on the doll where GW touched you, if you please.

Honestly, just put him on ignore. I did, and it's been nice.

I don't believe in censoring people.

 Ashiraya wrote:
Would this one live up to your standards?

Yes. Everything is painted an appropriate color, including smaller details, and there seems to be at least some level of shading. "Tabletop standard" IMO is a fairly low standard, and just means that the model can legitimately be considered "completely painted". In general I give the benefit of the doubt to any model that looks like it was the result of a sincere attempt to paint it, not just three dots of color on one shoulder pad to meet the letter of the law at a tournament.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Verviedi wrote:
I agree that the rules are bloated and poorly designed. However, they are nowhere near as broken as what you describe. You refer to them as if they break every turn, when in my experience the only game-breaking paradoxes I have encountered are Kharn Against Invisibility and Sun Shark. No, I don't play that often, and there are probably more, but those are the ones I have encountered.

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/forums/show/15.page

If you aren't having trouble with broken rules it's because you've managed to fix all of the problems with house rules. But that doesn't mean that the rules as-written weren't broken.

we have a person who believes paint just covers detail and all models should be unpainted

...

That person is just hopelessly ignorant, if they sincerely believe that. I suspect the reality is they just don't enjoy painting and are using it as an excuse for why their laziness is actually some kind of aesthetic choice that shouldn't be criticized.

I would rather get a chance to play the game and use my painted army, to give my opponent a show, than wait a month in a ghost town shop for a game.

*shrugs*

I guess that's your choice to lower your standards to play more frequently. I'd rather play once a month against a fully-painted army and play some other game the rest of the time.

Talizvar wrote:It
- And Grey Knights could take Shuriken Catapults.

Gotta love the RT wierdness. Squats could take Shuriken Catapaults too. I have to assume that folks took them too as I've got a squat figure with one. Of course I've also got a squat with an AK47, so things were all over the place.

 Talizvar wrote:

I would say BECAUSE of 40k those standards have slipped.
Tabletop war gaming started out with cardboard counters and little icon like pieces that obviously did not look like it needed painting.
.

I tend to agree with your pro-painting views, but your history is a bit off. Wargaming with painted miniatures has a long history separate from counter wargames. Going back not only to Featherstone, but back into the late 1800's There's a sparse (in the early years) but interesting timeline of wargaming here:
http://www-personal.umich.edu/~beattie/timeline2.html

 Verviedi wrote:
I don't believe in censoring people.

That's your choice, and I can respect that

 Peregrine wrote:

 Verviedi wrote:
I agree that the rules are bloated and poorly designed. However, they are nowhere near as broken as what you describe. You refer to them as if they break every turn, when in my experience the only game-breaking paradoxes I have encountered are Kharn Against Invisibility and Sun Shark. No, I don't play that often, and there are probably more, but those are the ones I have encountered.

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/forums/show/15.page

If you aren't having trouble with broken rules it's because you've managed to fix all of the problems with house rules. But that doesn't mean that the rules as-written weren't broken.

we have a person who believes paint just covers detail and all models should be unpainted

...

That person is just hopelessly ignorant, if they sincerely believe that. I suspect the reality is they just don't enjoy painting and are using it as an excuse for why their laziness is actually some kind of aesthetic choice that shouldn't be criticized.

Do I like it? No. Have I completely given up? No. His most recent army is primed in 2 colors with shading, so I suppose that's progress. I am trying to tell him methods of painting without losing detail, such as thin primers and thinning paints. I want to believe eventually I'll fight a fully painted army.

I would rather get a chance to play the game and use my painted army, to give my opponent a show, than wait a month in a ghost town shop for a game.

*shrugs*

I guess that's your choice to lower your standards to play more frequently. I'd rather play once a month against a fully-painted army and play some other game the rest of the time.

My standards have been dead and gone since the first game I've ever played.

My experiences can be summed up easily. I play 40k against anyone. I just want to play a game. I want my games to look like the displays at Warhammer World, but ever since the first game I have realised that that will never happen.

Take this image from a game at my store.


I was playing Skitarii. My forces are most likely invisible (Infiltrators were deployed out of LOS and Skitarii are in a building.) Even though I was just a small part of my team, the game was incredibly fun, because I know that I will get to witness that sea of grey take color.

In my case, there are no other games to play. I'm locked into 40k. Even if people wanted to buy everything I had, I would never get my money back, and would have to learn a new ruleset, paint, and build an army for a whole new game. Unfortunate, but I'm stuck with 40k due to a lack of independents near me.

Can't wait until I buy a car.

I dislike the grey, but am not going to be an donkey-cave snob about it. As long as its primed its good enough for me not to care anymore.

I do take a fairly lot of time to paint my own stuff, but other than a basic priming don't have any standards. Even then I'm not going to say anything. Don't really care all that much.

 Aszubaruzah Surn wrote:
People who can't paint well shouldn't even be allowed to buy Citadel and Forge World miniatures. They should be allowed to buy only painting supplies and be allowed to buy the miniatures only after showing a sample of historical models painted to the Forge World studio standards. Preferably with conversions.

Wow, that is a high bar. You know, if they did that, your nifty Imperial Knight would have to be, like, a $1,000 kit because so few people qualified to buy it

And most people would have nobody to play with.

Gotta love the 2 trolls in here.

 Gamgee wrote:
I dislike the grey, but am not going to be an donkey-cave snob about it. As long as its primed its good enough for me not to care anymore.

I do take a fairly lot of time to paint my own stuff, but other than a basic priming don't have any standards. Even then I'm not going to say anything. Don't really care all that much.

Same here. I probably have one of the best ratios of fielding painted armies in my local group, and I like seeing but I don't get my knickers in a twist when someone uses unpainted stuff, or start to make pompous decrees about their personality or if they're a True Gamer. I just assume that maybe that aspect of the hobby isn't quite so fun to them, and that shaming or hectoring them to paint would lessen their fun. And we're here to have fun, right?

But Dakka as a whole (or a few loud members of Dakka who skew perceptions) has this one-true-way attitude when it comes to painting, and it's not really worth getting into an argument with them.

1: I don't like playing against unpainted models.

2: Sorry, but I really like playing the game and I don't have time to paint.

1: Yes you do, for I know all the circumstances of your life better than you do. Dance, peasant!

If you're worried about a bad paint job, most paint jobs can be improved by thinning them some more. THIN YOUR PAINTS! is a meme yes, but it's born out of sensible advice because generally most paint jobs can stand to be a little thinner. And remember, it could always be worse.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Aszubaruzah Surn wrote:
Actually, badly painted armies are much worse than unpainted armies due to the additional cringe factor of seeing expensive models ruined by bad painting.
An acceptable army starts somewhere around Forge World studio armies level.

Anything beneath that level is unacceptable and is an eyesore and brings shame to the hobby. People should seriously start practising on toys and cheap plastic historical miniatures/kits before putting their hands on Wh40k miniatures and models. They can start bringing their miniatures to the gaming table after a few years of practise.

People who can't paint well shouldn't even be allowed to buy Citadel and Forge World miniatures. They should be allowed to buy only painting supplies and be allowed to buy the miniatures only after showing a sample of historical models painted to the Forge World studio standards. Preferably with conversions.

I really hope this is a (bad) attempt at a parody and not a serious argument.

I actually completely agree with his first two sentences lol. unless you have time, skill and an airbrush, just don't bother or get it commissioned. No one wants to see it.

If someone realy does decide to pain his army then FW level is more or less the lowest one shoudl do. Otherwise army worth drops too much. Plus FW painting level is not that high to begin with, that is assuming someone does want his models painted and not paint splatered

 Peregrine wrote:

 Aszubaruzah Surn wrote:
Why? Would you disrespect your opponents and ruin the game atmosphere by fielding a poorly painted army?

Because there's a huge difference between painting to a decent tabletop standard and matching the level of FW's work. Virtually anyone can easily paint to a decent tabletop standard if they're willing to invest the time and effort, so the only reason (outside of a very small number of exceptional cases like physical disabilities) would have an unpainted army is if they just don't care enough to do it. But not everyone can match the much higher level of quality that FW produces, especially without dedicating huge amounts of time and effort to learning. It's the difference between "stop being lazy" and "you suck for not being born with natural artistic talent".

"Tabletop standard" is cringeworthy.

 Aszubaruzah Surn wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

 Aszubaruzah Surn wrote:
Why? Would you disrespect your opponents and ruin the game atmosphere by fielding a poorly painted army?

Because there's a huge difference between painting to a decent tabletop standard and matching the level of FW's work. Virtually anyone can easily paint to a decent tabletop standard if they're willing to invest the time and effort, so the only reason (outside of a very small number of exceptional cases like physical disabilities) would have an unpainted army is if they just don't care enough to do it. But not everyone can match the much higher level of quality that FW produces, especially without dedicating huge amounts of time and effort to learning. It's the difference between "stop being lazy" and "you suck for not being born with natural artistic talent".

"Tabletop standard" is cringeworthy.

Be right back.

...I do not think you know what that word means.

This is the absolute best I can do, in general terms. It is tabletop standard. I have been painting for 3 years now.
[img=http://s28.postimg.org/txv67bu09/image.jpg]

[img=http://s28.postimg.org/65luvsrzd/image.jpg]

Lol at the Peregrine hate, very nice poster especialy for an internet AI logic construct heh. He/ she/ it discusses your points with counterarguments most of the time which is actualy one of the higher forms of respect.

 Iron_Captain wrote:
Painting is an important part of the hobby next to the modelling, collecting and playing parts.
To me, unpainted miniatures have no place in 40k. The only acceptable reason for there being unpainted miniatures on the table is that you were planning to paint it, but did not get it ready in time for the game.
If you do not plan on painting your miniatures, why use them at all? The whole raison d'être for 40k is nice looking miniatures. If you ignore this point you might just as well be using bottle caps or cheap toy soldiers and save yourself a lot of money.

Because unpainted 40k models are still incredible models and look million times better than your average boardgame? There was unpainted toxicrene posted I think, if you cant see the difference between that bottle caps or cheap toy soldiers then idk tbh. Too much hyperbole imo.

I have a minimum of primer applied for fielding minis but the HAAC crowd here should loosen up, some people are in this for a game. You know, that thing that makes buying 60 of the same collectors item seem making sense. Even if you think rules are crap there are other appeals like scale, WW II ish interactions, variety of unit types etc.

Just paint your models.

 Eilif wrote:

Talizvar wrote:Tabletop war gaming started out with cardboard counters and little icon like pieces that obviously did not look like it needed painting.
.

I tend to agree with your pro-painting views, but your history is a bit off. Wargaming with painted miniatures has a long history separate from counter wargames. Going back not only to Featherstone, but back into the late 1800's There's a sparse (in the early years) but interesting timeline of wargaming here:
http://www-personal.umich.edu/~beattie/timeline2.html

Thanks for that timeline link.
Ha, people could get into all kinds of talks on this matter and argue back and forth, I see enough information that the Pharaohs of Egypt were using figures so there is enough doubt (wonder if they painted theirs?)
I was thinking of Kriegsspiel around 1812... but I also found this timeline (thanks for making me look it up...): http://faculty.virginia.edu/setear/students/wargames/page1a.htm.

In the end, I was getting at that a "cerebral" game originally intended for the serious business of war needed identification and placement to visualize the situation, getting into prettying them up is a recreational esthetic.

I just recently got into Star Wars Armada (I jump around a fair bit I know)... thanks guys, now I am painting those tiny fighters: I blame you!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Verviedi wrote:
This is the absolute best I can do, in general terms. It is tabletop standard. I have been painting for 3 years now.
[img=http://s28.postimg.org/txv67bu09/image.jpg]
[img=http://s28.postimg.org/65luvsrzd/image.jpg]

This is awesome.
Probably 5X better than what I would "settle" being happy to see fielded.
My opinion in a sea of many differing ones I know.
I really should get my army together and take a picture but my BT is this:
Excuse the picture, I was showing script on model techniques.

 Verviedi wrote:

 Aszubaruzah Surn wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

 Aszubaruzah Surn wrote:
Why? Would you disrespect your opponents and ruin the game atmosphere by fielding a poorly painted army?

Because there's a huge difference between painting to a decent tabletop standard and matching the level of FW's work. Virtually anyone can easily paint to a decent tabletop standard if they're willing to invest the time and effort, so the only reason (outside of a very small number of exceptional cases like physical disabilities) would have an unpainted army is if they just don't care enough to do it. But not everyone can match the much higher level of quality that FW produces, especially without dedicating huge amounts of time and effort to learning. It's the difference between "stop being lazy" and "you suck for not being born with natural artistic talent".

"Tabletop standard" is cringeworthy.

Be right back.

...I do not think you know what that word means.

This is the absolute best I can do, in general terms. It is tabletop standard. I have been painting for 3 years now.
[img=http://s28.postimg.org/txv67bu09/image.jpg]

[img=http://s28.postimg.org/65luvsrzd/image.jpg]

Few years of practise more and you could be allowed to play in a FLGS.

 Talizvar wrote:
Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Verviedi wrote:
This is the absolute best I can do, in general terms. It is tabletop standard. I have been painting for 3 years now.
[img=http://s28.postimg.org/txv67bu09/image.jpg]
[img=http://s28.postimg.org/65luvsrzd/image.jpg]

This is awesome.
Probably 5X better than what I would "settle" being happy to see fielded.
My opinion in a sea of many differing ones I know.
I really should get my army together and take a picture but my BT is this:
Excuse the picture, I was showing script on model techniques.

Time to buy a few buckets of toy soldiers.

I understand if the look of the game is important enough to you that you dont want to play with or against unpainted models but dont enforce that upon other people you are not playing with. Especially if they are working towards painting their army but haven't got it done yet.

Personally I much prefer playing with and against painted models and don't play games with unpainted models (At least on my side) but I would much rather play with a decent guy who hasn't got around to painting his models yet than an donkey-cave with beautifully painted models.

Also in regards to saying people must be of x quality paitner to play. forgeworld quality for example. Hopefully you are being sarcastic otherwise that's elitist nonsense. What you are saying there is that someone should have to work for years to get their painting level up to a certain standard in order to play a game and that it is embarrassing that they dare show their models before they get to that standard. Come off it I am willing to be you have fielded models that are lower than forge world quality at some point.

I like painted models. I enjoy this hobby for painting before gaming. Not everyone else has the same view. You don;t want to play with or against unpainted models that's fine and your right in the same way its your right to play 40k but not infinity or Kings of war but not WHFB. You want to claim that anyone who hasn't painted an army up to your personal standard is an embarrassment and shouldn't be allowed to play? That's extremely sad to me and is just a way of reducing the number of people already in a niche hobby.

You want more painted models at your local club? Try organisation painting nights where you all get together and bring along a few models. Try to help each other out and encourage painting and maybe see if you can help others see it as a fun activity not a barrier to entry. Don't beat down other gamers in your community so you can get a smug sense of superiority that your models are better painted than others.

To sum up my post in short. Play how you want with who you want and allow others to do the same.