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.

 Crablezworth wrote:




I'm constantly made to feel like some elitist donkey-cave for the social equivalent of asking someone else to also wear pants. That doesn't mean I'll never ever tolerate unpainted or unfinished models, but when a friend doesn't have time to finish a model and the game can't be put off till it's done because its a practice game for a tournament, I basically just put the camera down and play. But the biggest problem is the second my buddy tells me he couldn't get x model or models done, it kills my incentive to finish what I'm working on. It also means I might not have a game this week to upload pics of.

I can understand why someone might see my preference to only play with painted models as elitism. But feth those people, I put a lot of effort into my armies and setting up boards with painted terrain and documenting it all and it's a better set of images for it. You wanna play me? Paint your gak.

Drops the mic.

Can we stop with the false equivalence? We now have both a compression between both never bathing and rocking out with your cock out with not painting models. Come on.

Not wanting to play with or against unpainted models is fine. Expecting everyone to conform to that is the problem.

You are not an elitist if you decide your time is better spent playing with painted models and prefer to not play with them. You are an elitist if you start claiming that anyone who wants to play with unpainted models should be a social pariah who should be banned from gaming until they paint a full army and having the audacity to try to game with like minded players who also dont care about the models being painted is the equivalent of them walking into the store with their moldy armpits and their schlong out.

Don't play with or against unpainted models that's fine I entirely understand that desire. Don't try to claim like Peregrine does that people who are ok with playing with unpainted or semi painted models should be prevented from gaming. As I said elsewhere in this thead there i a huge difference between the two replys to someone asking to play against you with an army that is unpainted or part painted.

"Sorry I don't like to play against unpainted models, maybe you can find another opponent who doesn't mind"

That's a perfectly reasonable response.

"You shouldn't be allowed to play wargames until you have painted everything. Leave the store and come don't come back until all your models are painted. Also take with you anyone else who wants to play with unpainted models, they shouldn't be allowed in the store"

I hope you can apprecaite the difference. If you fit into the first response I don't think your elitist if you fit the second I do.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Redcruisair wrote:

 carlos13th wrote:
Still failed to establish it as bad behavior just repeating your own personal peeves. Not everyone thinks unpainted models look like gak and not all opponents significantly have their enjoyment reduced by a lack of painted models.

Yes, I agree with you that It wouldn't be fair claiming a lack of will to paint ones models is a sign of bad behaviour. One should be able to bring unpainted models to a store with a reasonale expection of a chance to play against like-minded folks. But on the same note, if Peregrine or I were ever to play a game with you and we decided that playing against you wouldn't be worth our time becuase your models were unpainted, then it would be perfectly reasonable for us to decline playing a game with you. For people like Peregrine and me, unpainted armies are an eyesore and completely immersion breaking. You and I just wouldn't be compatible in a game of 40K.

I am going to assume you have missed some of my other posts as I have repeatedly said what you have here. I take no issue with a single thing you have said here.

I even said that I personally prefer to play with painted models and don't tend field anything before I have painted it. I just don't think my preference should be applied to everyone is all and while unpainted models wouldn't make me say no to a game with someone I certainly understand why it might be a bigger factor to others. I don't think anyone has the right to say because I don't like to play games with unpainted models everyone should have to paint their models before playing the game and it should be a hobby wide requirement.

You have the right to refuse someone a game because you don't like playing with unpainted models, because you hate Tau or because they are the type of player you don't like to play against maybe you like hard core toruniment lists and they just wanna play fluffy lists with no challenge. No one should be forced to play against an unpainted army they don't want to play against anymore than someone else should be forced to paint their army in order to play the game. They just have to find like minded opponents is all.

 Crablezworth wrote:

 Aszubaruzah Surn wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:
explain why unpainted armies should be considered acceptable behavior instead of just saying "that's judging and it's not allowed".

Vast majority of posters here either plays with unpainted models or has no problems with playing with unpainted models.

The vast majority of posters here don't have a vast collection of images of games made better by comprising solely of painted models. http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/439793.page


I'm constantly made to feel like some elitist donkey-cave for the social equivalent of asking someone else to also wear pants. That doesn't mean I'll never ever tolerate unpainted or unfinished models, but when a friend doesn't have time to finish a model and the game can't be put off till it's done because its a practice game for a tournament, I basically just put the camera down and play. But the biggest problem is the second my buddy tells me he couldn't get x model or models done, it kills my incentive to finish what I'm working on. It also means I might not have a game this week to upload pics of.

I can understand why someone might see my preference to only play with painted models as elitism. But feth those people, I put a lot of effort into my armies and setting up boards with painted terrain and documenting it all and it's a better set of images for it. I've never mocked or chastised anyone for the quality of their paintwork, I barely paint tabletop myself. Consistency, not quality, just consistency is all takes to paint an army, that and time. You wanna play me? Paint your gak.

Drops the mic.

Just curious, but why do you feel the need to have the camera and take pictures of everything? Say I had an army and we were to play would you play if I asked you to not take pictures of the army, say because for example I wasn't comfortable with the paint job or scheme? I mean I assume you would because you'd put it down to play with an army where a model or two isnt finished. Only a question though, because I wouldnt care if you did take pictures.

Personally, I don't care if an army is painted or not, because to me 40k isn't just about the game or the models there is a whole lot more to the setting. I also dont mind if every guy is a different color because you cant decide what you want to do with your army. Do painted armies look better? Of course. Do unpainted take things away from the game? Not so much to me. Though I also get frustrated at painting easily so it takes me a while to get something done because it doesnt look just right. Also I used to use a grey legion, but these days, restarting the game Im gonna finish the painting before feilding.

I do find a post of page one insulting because it states if you don't paint you aren't a fan of 40k. What about those that don't play the game or work with the models, but read the fluff and play the computer games?

 Peregrine wrote:

tgjensen wrote:
So, what, is it also bad behavior to be a poor painter?

No, because there's a difference between refusing to try and not having Golden Demon level natural talent..

Sounds hypocritical. I often seen "tabletop-standard" armies in WD when I used to sculpt and paint and they were no good looking at all. Also, seen some in FLGS before it turned to MTG-only and they also weren't a source of aesthetic ecstasies that would justify playing a game with bad rules.

 Crablezworth wrote:

 Aszubaruzah Surn wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:
explain why unpainted armies should be considered acceptable behavior instead of just saying "that's judging and it's not allowed".

That's simple. You're one of the few people in this thread whose enjoyment of the game is affected by unpainted models.

My enjoyment of the game is directly affected by unpainted models.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Aszubaruzah Surn wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:
explain why unpainted armies should be considered acceptable behavior instead of just saying "that's judging and it's not allowed".

Vast majority of posters here either plays with unpainted models or has no problems with playing with unpainted models.

The vast majority of posters here don't have a vast collection of images of games made better by comprising solely of painted models. http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/439793.page


I'm constantly made to feel like some elitist donkey-cave for the social equivalent of asking someone else to also wear pants.

The "constantly" part indicates that you are in position of "you and what army?". Apparently most of people like just playing the game.

As I have mentioned before - GW killed the games that allowed to play with a few quality miniatures or a mass of fast-painted ones. Which is why it's going to be hard if not impossible to implement a "mandatory painting" rule.

You know what the best part of this is? THE PAINT SNOBS CAN'T DO A THING ABOUT IT. The best plan they have is to take their ball and go home. By all means refuse to play people. There are plenty of other people willing to take their place.

 evil_kiwi_60 wrote:
You know what the best part of this is? THE PAINT SNOBS CAN'T DO A THING ABOUT IT. The best plan they have is to take their ball and go home. By all means refuse to play people. There are plenty of other people willing to take their place.

Being a snob about them being a snob is not gonna help at all and just keep this going around in circles. Not that it wasnt the case anyway.

If I ever met peregrine IRL I would have the urge to punch him in the face due to his elitism attitude, with that said, I would still rather play against his fully painted army and attempt to table him than playing against any grey/black/primer legion.

I would play against anyone, even their grey legion at least once, there won't be a second game unless there is some progress. In my opinion, the attempt matters, otherwise you mind as well play video games.

This is kind of weird in that some of the non-painters in here are just as guilty of being snobs and demanding "How dare you - you'll see things my way, and you'll like it or go home" as the guys that are pro-painting, but for some reason they aren't being demonized at all.

It's just as drastic.

I'm all for playing against someone who's army is an obvious work in progress, but somebody taking the stance of "Pfft, ain't no reason to paint my minis" is kinda lazy considering the hobby it's taking place in. Used to be miniatures wargaming was all about having cool looking armies to show off. Or at least it's always been in my experience.

That's why the game isn't using cardboard chits with full-color images on them to basically play like flat 6-15mm miniatures, like Heroes of Normandie:



Those games are incredibly fun, but at least to me, there is an obvious reason to turn those counters into miniatures, and that's to see them in color.

But I also see lackluster terrain in a minis game the same way. If the table doesn't look cool (my version of "cool" being pretty easy to attain), why bother?

 VictorVonTzeentch wrote:

 evil_kiwi_60 wrote:
You know what the best part of this is? THE PAINT SNOBS CAN'T DO A THING ABOUT IT. The best plan they have is to take their ball and go home. By all means refuse to play people. There are plenty of other people willing to take their place.

Being a snob about them being a snob is not gonna help at all and just keep this going around in circles. Not that it wasnt the case anyway.

Granted, this argument will go on till the apocalypse. At the end of the day though, there's nothing they can really do about it. I find that amusing.

 AegisGrimm wrote:
I'm all for playing against someone who's army is an obvious work in progress, but somebody taking the stance of "Pfft, ain't no reason to paint my minis" is kinda lazy considering the hobby it's taking place in. Used to be miniatures wargaming was all about having cool looking armies to show off. Or at least it's always been in my experience.

That's why the game isn't using cardboard chits with full-color images on them to basically play like flat 6-15mm miniatures, like Heroes of Normandie:



Those games are incredibly fun, but at least to me, there is an obvious reason to turn those counters into miniatures, and that's to see them in color.

Maybe a gamer's edition that would be in 15mm and would have counters/pre-painted 15mm miniatures would solve the problem of unpainted armies?

This thread in a nutshell. No seriously, I came here to state that while I didn't like playing against unpainted models, I'm not entirely adverse to it if that's all you've got or really want to play with a new model you've bought as soon as you assembled and glued/magnatized it. Flying Spaghetti Monster knows that painting horde armies can be a chore at times. But then I saw that this thread was eleven pages of arguing in circles.

This thread in a nutshell. No seriously, I came here to state that while I didn't like playing against unpainted models, I'm not entirely adverse to it if that's all you've got or really want to play with a new model you've bought as soon as you assembled and glued/magnatized it. Flying Spaghetti Monster knows that painting horde armies can be a chore at times. But then I saw that this thread was eleven pages of arguing in circles.

No level-headed sanity from you. No! You'll re-rail this thread.

You can't refuse to play me! I'll refuse to play you first! < Most of this thread.

Yeah, I'll chime in with the opinion that painted armies are nicer to play and against than unpainted armies, and I'll always encourage people to paint, actively and passively, but I wouldn't turn down a game for painting alone. I feel the experience is better with painted armies and painted terrain, so given the choice between two identical players, but one is painted and the other is not, I'll always pick the painted.

That said, I also try to paint my forces. Most of my spaceships are painted, and when I finally get around to my Guard MkII, I'll be bringing that up to tabletop standard as well.

Apparently some people can't have fun without demanding that random people adhere to their arbitrary and draconian standards regarding aesthetics. I think this is probably the wrong hobby for those kinds of players. 40k is beer and pretzels. (I'm not being sarcastic, I love the 'beer-and-pretzels' feel.)

 RazgrizOne wrote:


That's sad for you but IMO, you're missing the whole point of why playing 40k. And you will never prevent real 40k fans (understand : painters) from judging you for this. Whether you like it or not, there's a hierarchy between painters and non painters.

The only people getting judged are the ones trying to pretend like their toy soldiers means something more about them, and their character then the reality of who they are.

"real" fans huh.

Ya go play toy soldier with your sense of elitism. Somewhere else. I'll be fine.

Blacksails wrote:Yeah, I'll chime in with the opinion that painted armies are nicer to play and against than unpainted armies, and I'll always encourage people to paint, actively and passively, but I wouldn't turn down a game for painting alone. I feel the experience is better with painted armies and painted terrain, so given the choice between two identical players, but one is painted and the other is not, I'll always pick the painted.

That said, I also try to paint my forces. Most of my spaceships are painted, and when I finally get around to my Guard MkII, I'll be bringing that up to tabletop standard as well.

Yeah that's about my stance too. I often sit down with friends and help paint up armies. It's a good way to kill a few hours.

AegisGrimm wrote:

This thread in a nutshell. No seriously, I came here to state that while I didn't like playing against unpainted models, I'm not entirely adverse to it if that's all you've got or really want to play with a new model you've bought as soon as you assembled and glued/magnatized it. Flying Spaghetti Monster knows that painting horde armies can be a chore at times. But then I saw that this thread was eleven pages of arguing in circles.

No level-headed sanity from you. No! You'll re-rail this thread.

You can't refuse to play me! I'll refuse to play you first! < Most of this thread.

Does this mean we can get off Mr.Bones' wild ride now?

Zomnivore wrote:
And you will never prevent real 40k fans (understand : painters) from judging you for this. Whether you like it or not, there's a hierarchy between painters and non painters.

This is smearing coloured substances onto little toy men, not fething Game of Thrones.

Apparently some people can't have fun without demanding that random people adhere to their arbitrary and draconian standards regarding aesthetics.

But, which side of the argument are you talking about? In this thread that applies to both at times.

 carlos13th wrote:

Spoiler:

 Eilif wrote:

 carlos13th wrote:
Some of the people in this thread I wouldn't want to play against or spend time with no matter how well painted their armies are.

This is very true. Regardless of their stance on painting, gaming groups and communities should police the kind of behavior they accept. Rudeness and general unpleasantness should be nipped in the bud quickly.

 carlos13th wrote:

If you want to see painted armies being inclusive and help people paint and give them interesting avenues to do so. Don't go being an donkey-cave towards them and exclude them until they have painted their armies.

This is what our club has always done. We always make sure to have figures on hand to lend to anyone who doesn't have figs painted for a given game. This is especially important since the club runs a reasonably wide range of games. We trade painting tips and encourage each other and sometimes we trade units for painting as a way of getting armies done without too much monotony. If a club or community is going to have a paint requirement they should strive to make sure that no one is excluded for not having painted minis. I like to say that "Unpainted minis are not welcome ON the table, but everyone is welcome AT the table."

Life's to short for unpainted minis or unpleasant opponents

.

Eilif am I right in thinking your club also generally has spare painted armies for people to play with until theirs is painted up too? So that people don't feel excluded while painting up their armies?

The problem I have with some people here is that it's not just they want to not play with unpainted minis but they want to make it a worldwide rule that anyone should follow at every store. I take no issue with our club saying only painted miniatures sorry it's how we prefer to game. I would have a problem if you tried to make every other club conform to that.

Yep, when we're setting up a given club night (we meet on alternating thursday evenings) if someone doesn't have the necessary figs, we make sure to have figs for them. To be fair, we do play alot of small skirmish games, but even when we do a BIG game, we can put together extra armies. I don't want anyone to not be able to participate because they either don't have their figs painted yet or arent' interested in buying or painting figs for a particular genre.

I wouldn't want to force everyone to play only with painted minis all the time, but I would like to see painted armies become the norm. I'm not going to "force" anyone, but I think that it would be a very good thing if gamers worldwide had the expectation that when they came to the FLGS most figs would be painted.

Everyone has a line in the sand on preference.
Unless it is in game rules we cannot make anyone do anything they do not want. Even using the rules to force can be ignored.

I had an opponent who printed pictures of models and glued them to hardboard glued to wood bases. He thought he did awesome. Would the unpainted crowd like to play this fellow who spent a total of $10 on his army and 3 hours work?

We all have a right to our preferences.
I am tired of indulging all manor of people only willing to do the minimum to play. I have done my time. They can play someone who cares less than I do = win-win for all.

Just to tack something on to this thread

If you have grey legions, and wish you didn't - there are people that will paint them for nothing just ITCHING for you to send them over;

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/648746.page

 AegisGrimm wrote:

Apparently some people can't have fun without demanding that random people adhere to their arbitrary and draconian standards regarding aesthetics.

But, which side of the argument are you talking about? In this thread that applies to both at times.

This thread is "I don't mind if your models aren't painted" versus "if your models don't meet my exacting and insanely high standards, you ought to be ejected from the store."

"Ask not what the hobby can do for you but what you can do for the hobby."
Elitists vs the selfish.
Done.
Agree to disagree until we meet on the field of battle.
But I am the "game nazi", "Not painted??!? No game for you!".

 Talizvar wrote:
"Ask not what the hobby can do for you but what you can do for the hobby."
Elitists vs the selfish.
Done.
Agree to disagree until we meet on the field of battle.
But I am the "game nazi", "Not painted??!? No game for you!".

I really dont see how not painting an army makes you selfish. Because they can choose to paint or play in their busy schedule and they choose to play makes them selfish?

It inconveniences the delicate sensibilities of these people to be reduced to playing against a filthy unpainted assortment of tiny plastic men commanded by a peasant.

 j31c3n wrote:
It inconveniences the delicate sensibilities of these people to be reduced to playing against a filthy unpainted assortment of tiny plastic men commanded by a peasant.

I saw someone who exhibited dignity and self respect once, that elitist bastard even told me to put pants on, what a douche.


To me this whole thing is like nudists characterizing anyone who isn't a nudist as puritan elitists.


I will play against an army that isn't fully painted on the rare occasion, but I'm sorry, people can make my preferences out to be bigotry all they want, won't change the fact that I have basic expectations from opponents. Like not having their junk out in my personal space. That and to paint their gak. And for some reason that's made out to be akin to wearing a monocle, eating exclusively caviar not paying attention to the little people. -sips tea and sneers-

 Crablezworth wrote:

 j31c3n wrote:
It inconveniences the delicate sensibilities of these people to be reduced to playing against a filthy unpainted assortment of tiny plastic men commanded by a peasant.

I saw someone who exhibited dignity and self respect once, that elitist bastard even told me to put pants on, what a douche.


To me this whole thing is like nudists characterizing anyone who isn't a nudist as puritan elitists.


I will play against an army that isn't fully painted on the rare occasion, but I'm sorry, people can make my preferences out to be bigotry all they want, won't change the fact that I have basic expectations from opponents. Like not having their junk out in my personal space. That and to paint their gak.

Except that line of thinking, that an army not being painted is the same as going into public with out pants on is marking you as an Elitist. Simply ending your point with, I prefer my opponents to have a painted army. Is all you need to say.

Not going into public with your twig and berries flopping in the wind is law. Having a painted army to field is a recommendation at most places and a courtesy to your opponent.

 VictorVonTzeentch wrote:

 Crablezworth wrote:

 j31c3n wrote:
It inconveniences the delicate sensibilities of these people to be reduced to playing against a filthy unpainted assortment of tiny plastic men commanded by a peasant.

I saw someone who exhibited dignity and self respect once, that elitist bastard even told me to put pants on, what a douche.


To me this whole thing is like nudists characterizing anyone who isn't a nudist as puritan elitists.


I will play against an army that isn't fully painted on the rare occasion, but I'm sorry, people can make my preferences out to be bigotry all they want, won't change the fact that I have basic expectations from opponents. Like not having their junk out in my personal space. That and to paint their gak.

Except that line of thinking, that an army not being painted is the same as going into public with out pants on is marking you as an Elitist. Simply ending your point with, I prefer my opponents to have a painted army. Is all you need to say.

Not going into public with your twig and berries flopping in the wind is law. Having a painted army to field is a recommendation at most places and a courtesy to your opponent.

That's where I'm going to dissagree with you, having your gak painted is one of the laws of my basement. And the batreps are better for it.

 evil_kiwi_60 wrote:


Granted, this argument will go on till the apocalypse. At the end of the day though, there's nothing they can really do about it. I find that amusing.

Actually there's plenty he can do about it: he can refuse to play you.

That leads to fewer potential opponents for you... -AND- for him. You'd play with others that are ok with unpainted stuff, and he'd find folks with painted armies to play with. But apparently, you'd both be ok with that, and in the end, that's all that matters.

I myself much prefer to play against painted armies. Would I kick someone out of the store for not having their army painted? No. Would I play them a second time? Let's say I would be less -likely- to play them a second time, if it's evident that they are making no effort whatosever to get some color on their figs. If anything, I'd try to be supporting and ask if they needed help, or if there was some other impediment from them painting their figs. Maybe they just don't know what to do, or need advice? Sure they could google until their fingers fell off, but lots of people just do better with a live person willing to show them the way, you know, in person. Like what we all used to do before the internet. Heck, on a few occasions I've let someone use one of my painted armies... and that can also get them pretty motivated. Not because my figs are awesome (they aren't, I promise), but because they're simply not gray plastic or silver metal.

But I don't demand Golden Demon quality. I don't even demand 'three color' quality. Just show me some effort beyond zapping them with black spray paint, and you'd never hear a peep from me.

I think there's a reasonable approach in this topic for everyone... and in some places, those approaches simply don't align. Peregrine wouldn't play with some super-stinky douchebag, nor would he play with some guy with a dusty grey-legion platter of figs. Meanwhile, folks like you likely wouldn't play with some super-stinky douchebag either, and you might not be interested in playing with someone who insists on your figs being painted.

It really does boil down to personal preference. Personally, I don't think either side is 'wrong'. I think both sides just have different preferences.

I do wish there was more incentive to paint beyond the aesthetic. I wish there was some sort of 'bonus' for having a painted army on the field - a once-a-game re-roll, or something limited like that. I love when tournaments give scores for painting. etc. But again, those who hate to/won't paint would hate those sorts of requirements. They just want to play.

Anyway - just my 2 coppers. I'm willing to bet most of you folks are good peeps, and seeing you got at it like this is a bummer.

Can we please stop.making ridiculous comparisons? Running around with your knob out is not the same as having unpainted.armies. the comparison is idiotic.

 Crablezworth wrote:

 VictorVonTzeentch wrote:

 Crablezworth wrote:

 j31c3n wrote:
It inconveniences the delicate sensibilities of these people to be reduced to playing against a filthy unpainted assortment of tiny plastic men commanded by a peasant.

I saw someone who exhibited dignity and self respect once, that elitist bastard even told me to put pants on, what a douche.


To me this whole thing is like nudists characterizing anyone who isn't a nudist as puritan elitists.


I will play against an army that isn't fully painted on the rare occasion, but I'm sorry, people can make my preferences out to be bigotry all they want, won't change the fact that I have basic expectations from opponents. Like not having their junk out in my personal space. That and to paint their gak.

Except that line of thinking, that an army not being painted is the same as going into public with out pants on is marking you as an Elitist. Simply ending your point with, I prefer my opponents to have a painted army. Is all you need to say.

Not going into public with your twig and berries flopping in the wind is law. Having a painted army to field is a recommendation at most places and a courtesy to your opponent.

That's where I'm going to dissagree with you, having your gak painted is one of the laws of my basement.

Even as someone that plays painted if you offered for me to play in your basement I would refuse, on the point that you are claiming your 'house law' is the same as a Federal Law and how you are presenting it. Sure you can have your rule, it needs to be painted, like everything it doesn't need to be presented in a manner that makes you look like a complete fethhead.

"Hey, I only really enjoy playing against painted armies. So if you want to play bring painted things. If you aren't painted that's cool you can come over and I'll help you get the basics on."

"Oh, hey that's cool I think I'll take you up on that, your stuff looks nice and I'd be happy to have you help.

vs

"Don't bring your unpainted gak, its insulting. Paint then we can play. Its like if you walked into my house naked when you don't have your stuff painted."

"Uh.. ok.. on second thought, you can go to hell, I'm gonna go chill with these other people."

Also what if someone would rather you not post pictures of their army because they aren't comfortable with the paint job? You gonna tell them to feth off too?