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.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Aszubaruzah Surn wrote:
Historical gaming has a wide range of them and they not only allow playing without painting miniatures but also allow playing with large armies without buying miniatures.

So does 40k. If you don't value the miniatures just play 40k with cardboard counters. Or, more accurately, play a different scifi game with cardboard counters, because once you take away the aesthetic value of the miniatures you realize that 40k is an exercise in masochism.

Well, that's one reason that I don't play miniature wargames at all. GW killed specialist games and all the miniature wargaming stores in my city allow playing only Wh40k. There used to be a store that had Infinity, Warmachine, Hordes and Flames of War but they stopped selling/providing gamespace for anything that isn't Magic the Gathering.

Personally, I don't like GW miniatures enough to buy them because I dislike the whole caricature proportions thing.

When it comes to non-GW games, there's always a problem of finding other players and space to play because everyone else plays Wh40k and they love it so much that they'll play it with unpainted miniatures.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Peregrine wrote:
The best way to solve this problem is to restore the obligation to paint your armies.

And restore Specialist Games for people who don't want to paint tens of 28mm miniatures.

 Eilif wrote:
The railway example is a very good one. Nearly every aspect of model railroading has a tabletop wargaming equivalent. Both hobbies involve
-Research: whether in the form of historical background research, listbuilding, fluff, etc
-Building and assembly
-Customization/kitbashing/scratchbuilding
-A public presentation: playing the game or "running" the trains.

Both activities can be done with unpainted models, but whereas many gamers have let the idea of painting slide, you're not going to find many folks publicly running unpainted trains.

 ImAGeek wrote:

 Eilif wrote:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

 Crablezworth wrote:
I should look to better myself and lower my standards. Or something.

You say that as if your standards are something of which to be exceedingly proud... lets keep things in context here, we're discussing the serious business of applying paint to little plastic man dollies that we push around a table going "pew pew pew" at each other.

Spoiler:

Not going to address the rest of the exchange, but I think it is insensible to dismiss standards just because we're talking about miniatures and not more serious matters.

-If in a classic car club would you not paint your vehicle?
-If in a a finescale model club would one say "I just like to built and convert, I don't paint?

Of course not, in both cases. And yet in miniature wargaming, folks feel perfectly fine in tossing what has long been one of the standards of the hobby because they "don't feel like it" or "don't have time" or want to "hobby their way". Painted minaitures have been part of the wargaming hobby for over 100 years!. http://www-personal.umich.edu/~beattie/timeline2.html
One can of course hobby "their way", but tossing out painting standards simply because they are standards or suggesting that painted miniatures aren't a core part of the hobby is silly and reflects an ignorance of history.

Because we're talking about specifically the gaming part of 'Wargaming'. Classic car club and fine scale model clubs are non equivalents, the whole point of them is to model something or have a car that looks nice. Paint doesn't have any effect on the actual gaming part of Wargaming at all. It's not like people are saying 'I want to enter a painting contest with my unpainted models', it's 'I don't enjoy painting but love playing' or 'I don't have much time and would rather be playing in that time than painting'. Yes painted miniatures are part of the hobby, but that's what they are. A part of it. And a smaller part to some people than others. It's nothing to do with 'ignorance of history'.

Wrong. No one is limiting the discussion to just the "gaming" aspects. We're talking about the entire hobby of Wargaming.

The point is not that cars rust without paint the point is that if you're going to display your classic car, the classic car community will expect to see paint. The point is not a functional equivalence of painting a mini and a car, but rather the validity of community standards for the visual aspect of any hobby.

When people are saying that they wouldn't play against unpainted armies or people shouldn't be allowed to play til they paint their armies, yes they are talking about the gaming aspects. And the discussion is limited to that by context anyway. It's about unpainted armies so we aren't going to be talking about painting competitions or anything are we.

I don't find it so much of an 'issue'. People wanna play the game. Some people don't have time to paint vast amounts of models. Or, some start very slowly when it comes to the intimidating task of painting an army.

In the end, THEY payed for the models. They can do with them as they see fit. I'd prefer their army be painted to make the table LOOK a lot better, but having unpainted models isn't going to affect the way the game plays. So, no, no 'issue'.

I'll ask this thread a question, would my gaming pics be improved if I was more tolerant of playing people with unpainted or partially painted armies?

No, but on the other hand is taking pictures of the battle something you absolutely need to do for enjoyment of the game?

 VictorVonTzeentch wrote:
No, but on the other hand is taking pictures of the battle something you absolutely need to do for enjoyment of the game?

Yes.

Then in your house it is your right to require painted, at a game shop it is also your right to politely refuse an offer of a game with an unpainted army. If you felt generous you could direct them to someone who wouldn't mind.

 VictorVonTzeentch wrote:
No, but on the other hand is taking pictures of the battle something you absolutely need to do for enjoyment of the game?

Let's rephrase that question, and ignore the minor detail of pressing a button or not:

No, but on the other hand is having photo-worthy moments in the battle something you absolutely need to do for enjoyment of the game?

And the answer here is a pretty clear "yes". 40k is not a game of complex strategy and move vs. counter-move, it's a bloated mess of half-functioning rules with all the depth of those games you get on the back of a cereal box. But why do we play it? Because of the story behind it. Because of moments like a heroic tactical squad sergeant holding his ground and decapitating a charging warboss with one swing of his power fist, or a giant Tyranid monster rampaging through hordes of guardsmen. And do those moments live up to their full potential when all of the models are bare plastic, the tactical squad sergeant is missing his arms because conversion parts are expensive, and the Tyranid monster has half of its spikes broken off from being carelessly thrown into a shoebox between games? Of course not. Paint your models.

 VictorVonTzeentch wrote:
Then in your house it is your right to require painted, at a game shop it is also your right to politely refuse an offer of a game with an unpainted army. If you felt generous you could direct them to someone who wouldn't mind.

I don't go to the game shop for pickup games, the viability of attempting that died with 5th

Peregrine wrote:

 VictorVonTzeentch wrote:
No, but on the other hand is taking pictures of the battle something you absolutely need to do for enjoyment of the game?

Let's rephrase that question, and ignore the minor detail of pressing a button or not:

No, but on the other hand is having photo-worthy moments in the battle something you absolutely need to do for enjoyment of the game?

And the answer here is a pretty clear "yes". 40k is not a game of complex strategy and move vs. counter-move, it's a bloated mess of half-functioning rules with all the depth of those games you get on the back of a cereal box. But why do we play it? Because of the story behind it. Because of moments like a heroic tactical squad sergeant holding his ground and decapitating a charging warboss with one swing of his power fist, or a giant Tyranid monster rampaging through hordes of guardsmen. And do those moments live up to their full potential when all of the models are bare plastic, the tactical squad sergeant is missing his arms because conversion parts are expensive, and the Tyranid monster has half of its spikes broken off from being carelessly thrown into a shoebox between games? Of course not. Paint your models.

I do paint my models, and while it does make it better to play against painted, I'm fine playing against unpainted its still enjoyable to see those things happen. In fact I had a cinematic moment, back in 4th or 5th before I dropped out of playing, with a unpainted model that spurred me on to paint him and add extra modification.

Crablezworth wrote:

 VictorVonTzeentch wrote:
Then in your house it is your right to require painted, at a game shop it is also your right to politely refuse an offer of a game with an unpainted army. If you felt generous you could direct them to someone who wouldn't mind.

I don't go to the game shop for pickup games, the viability of attempting that died with 5th

Well then, feel free to enforce your rule and offer suggestion to people to finish their armies.

But why do we play it? Because of the story behind it. Because of moments like a heroic tactical squad sergeant holding his ground and decapitating a charging warboss with one swing of his power fist, or a giant Tyranid monster rampaging through hordes of guardsmen. And do those moments live up to their full potential when all of the models are bare plastic, the tactical squad sergeant is missing his arms because conversion parts are expensive, and the Tyranid monster has half of its spikes broken off from being carelessly thrown into a shoebox between games? Of course not. Paint your models.

No one I know plays w40k, because of that. Wargaming. Winning tournaments. Spending time with other people. Playing because they played for so long they don't remember why. Yes because of those things people play w40k.
And no one glues spikes on their dakka tyrants.

 VictorVonTzeentch wrote:
At this point its probably a better choice to just bring up an incredibly fallacious argument just to get the thread locked.

It survived the (apparently serious) assertion that using unpainted minis is just like showing up at the store with your meat and two veg hanging out, so I don't think that's going to work.

Makumba wrote:
No one I know plays w40k, because of that. Wargaming. Winning tournaments.

Then why play 40k, a game with terrible strategic depth and laughable competitive balance? It just doesn't make any sense to say "I care only about the game and competition" and then pick the game with the worst rules.

 infinite_array wrote:
Why does this topic only seem to come up in GW subforums? Is it because the company constantly pushes for larger games, making it more difficult for new players to get their collections painted? And the seemingly daunting task of painting those large collections of minis would make starting all the jarder?

Because back in the day, official GW tournaments always gave a small amount points for painting (there even used to be a quiz for 10 points). Thus, it was more important to have stuff painted and based. Privateer Press has 1 tournament format that can require all painted as well. So it's present in other game systems too.

If someone came into the shop I work at and politely refused to play an unpainted army we would be fine with that. However if the person refusing was being rude because the other army was unpainted or started belittling or trying to force the other player to paint their models we would flat out refuse table space to them and if they kept doing it they would get a swift boot out the door.

This is a hobby and a game, it's supposed to be fun. Different people have fun in different ways with it, don't be an donkey-cave and ruin someone else's fun.

 FenixPhox wrote:
trying to force the other player to paint their models

Can you describe to me in detail what you believe that would look like and what would it entail?

I'm still trying to figure out why this entire thread is so cyclical.

Placing the demand on "pro-painters" that they must accept your unpainted minis or else they are labeled TFG, is just as narcissistic and draconian as those pro-painters demanding that you paint your minis or they won't play you. Except of course that the unpainted guys can just ignore the pro-painters and find other opponents, whereas the unpainted guys are demanding that they are accepted by all.

It all boils down to the statement of, "If you don't believe in and agree with my personal standards, you are a donkey-cave" applying to either side equally, which is hilarious to watch.

I find it hard to argue with the fact that painted armies look cooler. Even people I know that are not into wargaming at all think that.

 ImAGeek wrote:

When people are saying that they wouldn't play against unpainted armies or people shouldn't be allowed to play til they paint their armies, yes they are talking about the gaming aspects. And the discussion is limited to that by context anyway. It's about unpainted armies so we aren't going to be talking about painting competitions or anything are we.

Sorry you're wrong again. This entire conversation has been about how vital (or not) painting is to painting as a part of the entire wargaming hobby and whether or not community standards are warranted. Comparisons to other hobbies are instructive because they demonstrate that other hobbies that have both private and public aspects tend to have community expectations for the visual aspect of their hobbies during the public portion of the hobby.

Likewise, wargaming has a long history of community expectations for the visual aspect of the public portion of the hobby. Whether or not such expectations are good/bad, fair/unfair, beneficial/harmful is the substance of this thread. Attempting to disallow outside examples eliminates a very useful point of perspective.

Yes, in my book it's about whether they put real value on all facets of the hobby.

A guy who can't field a fully painted army for good reasons shows real value on the ones they do manage to paint. That's the guy I don;t have a problem with.

But if you are blandly pushing unpainted models around because you just can't be troubled to paint them even though you could, and once the game is over your time investment in what can be a very awesome hobby is finished... that bums me out.

But then I'm the kind of guy who sets down at 10:00 after the three month old is in bed, and over the course of a day or two repaints a stock X-Wing model because I want it to be unique to "me".

 Peregrine wrote:

Makumba wrote:
No one I know plays w40k, because of that. Wargaming. Winning tournaments.

Then why play 40k, a game with terrible strategic depth and laughable competitive balance? It just doesn't make any sense to say "I care only about the game and competition" and then pick the game with the worst rules.

Man... you have some serious beef with this game. I get voicing your opinion, but you always come off so toxic and hateful.

Rules are not perfect, granted. But there are loads of people who enjoy it. Plenty of folks who enjoy playing with unpainted armies for the sake of throwing some dice and having a good time. Trying to enforce your opinion on how people play might be why you stopped liking the game... Something for consideration.

 Eilif wrote:

 ImAGeek wrote:

When people are saying that they wouldn't play against unpainted armies or people shouldn't be allowed to play til they paint their armies, yes they are talking about the gaming aspects. And the discussion is limited to that by context anyway. It's about unpainted armies so we aren't going to be talking about painting competitions or anything are we.

Sorry you're wrong again. This entire conversation has been about how vital (or not) painting is to painting as a part of the entire wargaming hobby and whether or not community standards are warranted. Comparisons to other hobbies are instructive because they demonstrate that other hobbies that have both private and public aspects tend to have community expectations for the visual aspect of their hobbies during the public portion of the hobby.

Likewise, wargaming has a long history of community expectations for the visual aspect of the public portion of the hobby. Whether or not such expectations are good/bad, fair/unfair, beneficial/harmful is the substance of this thread. Attempting to disallow outside examples eliminates a very useful point of perspective.

No it hasn't. It's been about playing against unpainted armies. Obviously if we were talking about something like painting competitions, unpainted models would be an issue. If it's not about gaming why is there even a discussion? You wouldn't see unpainted armies unless you were playing them so why would you care? People would just be privately not painting their models which is such a non issue that the discussion can only really be about gaming, because that would have literally no effect on you whatsoever. But people have been saying things like 'people shouldn't be allowed to play if their models aren't painted' and other elitist things, which is what I'm taking issue with. So whether the thread has been about the whole Wargaming hobby doesn't really matter to the point I'm making which is simple, I'll say it again: it's fine to prefer to play painted armies, it's fine to refuse to play unpainted armies. It's not okay to act as though those people with unpainted armies are doing something wrong, or act like they shouldn't be able to play at all, because they don't enjoy one facet of a multifaceted hobby.

Also, I never said outside examples weren't allowed. I said the examples given were false equivalences. Scale modelling isn't really a multifaceted hobby. It's basically making something look good. Model railway is basically the same. Wargaming also has the gaming part, which actually whether models are painted or not doesn't effect past aesthetics, and yes while aesthetics might be important to you, they might not be as important as the actual game to some people. So use outside examples if you want, but the ones you picked weren't equivalent to Wargaming past the fact they use models. There's no gaming side (or an equivalent) to scale modelling that you could enjoy over the actual modelling/painting, ditto for model railway.

 Crablezworth wrote:

 FenixPhox wrote:
trying to force the other player to paint their models

Can you describe to me in detail what you believe that would look like and what would it entail?

I would consider anybody who is shaming someone or telling them they HAVE to have their models painted to be trying to force the person into painting their models.

We strive to maintain a friendly fun environment in the shop, and someone being negative about the way someone else plays a game degrades the atmosphere we are trying to provide and therefore need to fix their habits or find a new place to play. I've had to warn some of our more competitive MTG players for trash talking new and casual player's deck choices before and to us someone going on about an unpainted army is no different than that. Our shop is new to 40k and thankfully the more experienced players that come don't care about playing against unpainted armies, they love the game and are just happy to be playing it with other people who share a passion for it. In our opinion that's the way it should be.

 AegisGrimm wrote:
I'm still trying to figure out why this entire thread is so cyclical.

Placing the demand on "pro-painters" that they must accept your unpainted minis or else they are labeled TFG, is just as narcissistic and draconian as those pro-painters demanding that you paint your minis or they won't play you. Except of course that the unpainted guys can just ignore the pro-painters and find other opponents, whereas the unpainted guys are demanding that they are accepted by all.

It all boils down to the statement of, "If you don't believe in and agree with my personal standards, you are a donkey-cave" applying to either side equally, which is hilarious to watch.

I find it hard to argue with the fact that painted armies look cooler. Even people I know that are not into wargaming at all think that.

Not everyone is claiming that. Many are claiming that play and let play is the way forward and while you may not enjoy playing against unpainted armies you shouldn't try to prevent those who do from playing or enjoying the game any more than anyone should force you to play with them.Only playing with and agaisnt painted models is fine, setting up a painted only club is fine, setting a rule that people in your house have to used painted models only is fine, setting up tournaments with a painted requirement is fine. Being horrible and insulting towards those who don't paint and trying to prevent them from playing at all is not fine. Trying to claim that no one should ever play a wargame until they have a fully painted army isn't fine.

Hell I prefer to play with painted miniatures too. That doesn't mean I feel that people who don't care should be forced to play with painted miniatures to satisfy me. You can say anyone who wants to play agaisnt you should play with painted models for sure, but don't go over to people playing on the other side of the store without fully painted models and tell them to get out of the store because they are some how ruining your hobby by playing in a way that you don't like.

 ImAGeek wrote:
[\e. So use outside examples if you want, but the ones you picked weren't equivalent to Wargaming past the fact they use models. There's no gaming side (or an equivalent) to scale modelling that you could enjoy over the actual modelling/painting, ditto for model railway.

We're just going to have to disagree, because it seem patently obvious to me that the running of railroads and displaying of cars and models at a show are comparable to the public playing of games in wargaming.

Of course as I've said (possibly twice now?), my main point isn't even the inclusion of painting in other hobbies. Rather, it's a more base argument about the usefulness of community standards in any multifaceted hobby.

It's not okay to act as though those people with unpainted armies are doing something wrong, or act like they shouldn't be able to play at all, because they don't enjoy one facet of a multifaceted hobby.

I'll agree with the "at all" statement. They can always play against each other.

As for "doing something wrong" , the word "wrong" has implications of moral judgement and I'll generally try to steer clear of that. However, I'm perfectly fine with judging that someones armies "aren't finished yet" (they aren't) or to suggest that someone bringing unpainted armies is -quite literally- "bringing less to the table". It's not a moral issue, it's simply that they are neglecting one important facet of the hobby.

Funny discussions of shaming or rather rude behavior.

I have not read anything in this cyclical argument other than the right of those who prefer to play against painted miniatures to say "No thanks" to the unpainted armies.

Done. No donkey cave or TFG required: right of choice.

 Peregrine wrote:

Makumba wrote:
No one I know plays w40k, because of that. Wargaming. Winning tournaments.

Then why play 40k, a game with terrible strategic depth and laughable competitive balance? It just doesn't make any sense to say "I care only about the game and competition" and then pick the game with the worst rules.

Because in Poland, Wh40k and MtG have monopolized the storespaces. There simply isn't an option of playing anything else.

 Eilif wrote:

 ImAGeek wrote:
[\e. So use outside examples if you want, but the ones you picked weren't equivalent to Wargaming past the fact they use models. There's no gaming side (or an equivalent) to scale modelling that you could enjoy over the actual modelling/painting, ditto for model railway.

We're just going to have to disagree, because it seem patently obvious to me that the running of railroads and displaying of cars and models at a show are comparable to the public playing of games in wargaming.

Of course as I've said (possibly twice now?), my main point isn't even the inclusion of painting in other hobbies. Rather, it's a more base argument about the usefulness of community standards in any multifaceted hobby.

It's not okay to act as though those people with unpainted armies are doing something wrong, or act like they shouldn't be able to play at all, because they don't enjoy one facet of a multifaceted hobby.

I'll agree with the "at all" statement. They can always play against each other.

As for "doing something wrong" , the word "wrong" has implications of moral judgement and I'll generally try to steer clear of that. However, I'm perfectly fine with judging that someones armies "aren't finished yet" (they aren't) or to suggest that someone bringing unpainted armies is -quite literally- "bringing less to the table". It's not a moral issue, it's simply that they are neglecting one important facet of the hobby.

It might be important to you, but that doesn't mean it's important to them. Different people will rank the different facets of the hobby with different significances, the way you rank them isn't the correct way, there is no correct way. It's their hobby too. They can enjoy it how they wish.

Also, running railroads/displaying cars/models/whatever isn't equivalent to gaming. With those, the only purpose is to show off whatever it is. With gaming, the main purpose is to play the game, which the aesthetics don't have much bearing on. Aesthetics is the primary purpose of the other hobbies you mentioned. When you play a wargame (actually play it, the gaming part) aesthetics aren't the primary concern to everybody. It is to some, sure, but to others the game is the primary purpose. See the difference?

]It might be important to you, but that doesn't mean it's important to them. Different people will rank the different facets of the hobby with different significances, the way you rank them isn't the correct way, there is no correct way. It's their hobby too. They can enjoy it how they wish.

So why is it required for anyone to accept unpainted miniatures in their game?

Peregrine wrote:

 Aszubaruzah Surn wrote:
Historical gaming has a wide range of them and they not only allow playing without painting miniatures but also allow playing with large armies without buying miniatures.

So does 40k. If you don't value the miniatures just play 40k with cardboard counters. Or, more accurately, play a different scifi game with cardboard counters, because once you take away the aesthetic value of the miniatures you realize that 40k is an exercise in masochism.

Crablezworth wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:
once you take away the aesthetic value of the miniatures you realize that 40k is an exercise in masochism.

Agreed and exalted.

But then why even play the game? I mentioned this earlier in the thread and it largely got ignored. Why not just set your models up on a table and pat yourselves on the back at the wonderful sight you've created.

I find it hard to follow your arguments, Peregrine, when you don't even like playing the game in the first place and it seems the only reason you do play is as an excuse to line up your models and admire them. It somewhat lessens your position.

If the only reason you play 40k is the aesthetics.... you don't actually need to be playing 40k You can spend your time making awesome dioramas like this one:



In fact, the very act of playing a game takes away from the aesthetic value because you have to design your table in a way that is practical for gaming. If you just throw away the idea of gaming you can make some really AWESOME dioramas.

Peregrine wrote:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
But GW obviously caters to a more mainstream audience.

If by "mainstream" you mean "kids who buy a box of space marines and then forget about the hobby", sure. But the fact that GW is obsessively focused on sales at all costs and willing to drop painting requirements if it means selling another box of space marines shouldn't matter to us as a community.

That's a great way to make an argument, baselessly denigrate the people you are arguing against, bravo

Firstly, no, there are people beyond kids who don't paint their armies.

Secondly, yes, it can benefit the community to have a wider audience and wider appeal.

 ImAGeek wrote:


Also, running railroads/displaying cars/models/whatever isn't equivalent to gaming. With those, the only purpose is to show off whatever it is. With gaming, the main purpose is to play the game, which the aesthetics don't have much bearing on. Aesthetics is the primary purpose of the other hobbies you mentioned. When you play a wargame (actually play it, the gaming part) aesthetics aren't the primary concern to everybody. It is to some, sure, but to others the game is the primary purpose. See the difference?

Not true at all. Don't incorrectly downplay the multifaceted aspects of those hobbies to beneift your argument. All of these activities have aspects that are as important to "showing things off" as I listed before. Just to name one, Railroaders and finescale military modelers research their subjects as much as wargamers read their fluff and tweak their lists. Listening to a railroader talk about lines and locos is like listening to 40k players discuss strategy and loadouts.

All the hobbies I listed are about much more than "display" just as wargaming is about much more than "playing the game".