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.

 amanita wrote:
]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?

The problem is some people are not arguing that they have a right to play against only unpainted models. Some are arguing no one should play with unpainted models. That's the problem.

Kinda tired of repeating this but I will do it once more.

Anyone who is only arguing that they wish to play only against painted models is well within their rights to do so. The only people who are acting like TFG's are the ones who desire to make everyone play with painted models no matter what parts of the hobby those people enjoy. No one should be forced to paint their models to be allowed to play with what they have bought, similarly no one should be forced to play against unpainted models if they do not enjoy playing against them. Sadly some people on both sides of said argument want to have control over how others play the game.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Eilif wrote:

 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 "the game".

The point is its not a fair comparison because the game in the case of a wargame and a display in the case of the modeling is not the same thing. While the hobbies as a whole may have comparisons they are not directly comparable in all aspects and comparing a wargame to displaying a hobby train layout or fine scale model isn't an accurate comparison. While its a far better comparison than some of the many down right ridiculous ones in this thread its still not accurate in the same way you cant compare a 3d animated movie to a computer game and say well they both contain stories and 3d computer generated visuals thus are directly comparable. People don't get the same things out of a movie as they do a computer game and people don't game for the same reasons they might create a beautiful diorama or a model railway, even if some of the reasons cross over they don't fully overlap.

The feature of 40k is that its a game played with expectation of a cinematic battle, which is why they came out with the absurd "forge the narrative" motto. Excuses for poorly written rules aside, a fully painted army delivers that scene of epic battles far better than an unpainted one, which is why the GW playerbase generally have a culture of painting, and which is why GW focuses on the miniatures first and foremost.

The whole debate stems from differences in expectations. Some think of 40k as a game, so are upset when they're denied play. Many think of 40k in the sense I highlighted above, so are upset that they have to play against unpainted models. There is no right or wrong here, just a difference in expectations.

This mirrors the "forge the narrative" players and those players who are upset because of imbalanced rules. People expect GW to focus on rules, and GW expects us to focus on miniatures, leading to the current friction due to differences in expectation.

Honestly, if you play with unpainted models, you really should be playing warmahordes instead, since miniature quality doesn't play a huge part, and it has far tighter rules.

kburn wrote:
Honestly, if you play with unpainted models, you really should be playing warmahordes instead, since miniature quality doesn't play a huge part, and it has far tighter rules.

More importantly it tends to be played on smaller scale which removes the need for playing with unpainted models in first place. Do stores host warmahordes games, though?

 Aszubaruzah Surn wrote:

kburn wrote:
Honestly, if you play with unpainted models, you really should be playing warmahordes instead, since miniature quality doesn't play a huge part, and it has far tighter rules.

More importantly it tends to be played on smaller scale which removes the need for playing with unpainted models in first place. Do stores host warmahordes games, though?

warmahordes is the second most popular mini game out there, so it shouldn't be a huge stretch to actually find a game.

it is, however, rightly or wrongly, infamous for having players with entirely unpainted armies. Many just like the intense Mt:G like rules of the game, who do not really care about the miniatures. While golden demon is GW's highest honour, winning tournaments and getting badges is warmahordes highest honour. The focus is entirely different. Even if you go to their forum, there's a lot of talk about tactics and combos over fluff and painting, especially compared to 40k.

Even if you compare the 2 tactics of the different systems, 40k focuses on listbuilding, ie. what army you want to build, rather than on combos, terrain, flanking, blocking and ranges which warmahordes does. bad rules aside, this is highly indicative of the "collect and paint them" nature of 40k.

I would even argue that a smaller model count is better for players who want unpainted armies, as its cheaper, and larger armies better for painters, as they have more materials.

kburn wrote:

 Aszubaruzah Surn wrote:

kburn wrote:
Honestly, if you play with unpainted models, you really should be playing warmahordes instead, since miniature quality doesn't play a huge part, and it has far tighter rules.

More importantly it tends to be played on smaller scale which removes the need for playing with unpainted models in first place. Do stores host warmahordes games, though?

warmahordes is the second most popular mini game out there, so it shouldn't be a huge stretch to actually find a game.

it is, however, rightly or wrongly, infamous for having players with entirely unpainted armies. Many just like the intense Mt:G like rules of the game, who do not really care about the miniatures. While golden demon is GW's highest honour, winning tournaments and getting badges is warmahordes highest honour. The focus is entirely different. Even if you go to their forum, there's a lot of talk about tactics and combos over fluff and painting, especially compared to 40k.

Even if you compare the 2 tactics of the different systems, 40k focuses on listbuilding, ie. what army you want to build, rather than on combos, terrain, flanking, blocking and ranges which warmahordes does. bad rules aside, this is highly indicative of the "collect and paint them" nature of 40k.

I would even argue that a smaller model count is better for players who want unpainted armies, as its cheaper, and larger armies better for painters, as they have more materials.

The escalation leagues put on by FLGS's (official rules by PP) give points for painting, often people win by painting and not by superior generalship. A smaller army should be less intimidating to paint than a large army.

With the 10,000th revolution of this argument complete, I can safely say we've learned, we've laughed, and we've all lost a lot of our time with this useless thread.