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.

I really can't force people to paint their models, nor I would if I could, but I still have to say that I find it to be a huge shame that so many people feel that it is OK to put unpainted models on the table. The visuals are like 80% of the fun, and those people are ruining it. This would never fly in historicals.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 VictorVonTzeentch wrote:

Half assembled sure, but unpainted? Most people I have seen in stores are more concerned with getting people to actually play their various games rather than whether or not its painted. Then when it is painted its just better.

Half assembled or unpainted, it is really the same. It is unfinished model, and don't belong on the gaming table.

Its like i say, you may lose alot of people by enforcing this tradition, but you will strengthen the core base which IMO is actually better business model?

 Crimson wrote:
I really can't force people to paint their models, nor I would if I could, but I still have to say that I find it to be a huge shame that so many people feel that it is OK to put unpainted models on the table. The visuals are like 80% of the fun, and those people are ruining it. This would never fly in historicals.

Thats well and nice for historicals, but if they were starved for players they'd relax.

The incentive to get people to paint should be points towards what ever is happening in the Campaign, like GW did with Vigilus.

More carrot, less stick. Particularly when it comes to getting people to buy and play and then retaining them in the hobby.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Stormatious wrote:
Its like i say, you may lose alot of people by enforcing this tradition, but you will strengthen the core base which IMO is actually better business model?

The better business model is the one that makes money.

 Crimson wrote:

 Blndmage wrote:

What about those of us who lack the ability to paint?
I'm blind, I can put a model together by feel, I can't paint it by feel.

Whilst that pretty damn legitimate (and rare) reason not to paint, I have to wonder how you can actually play?

My games take longer, I have a large print tape measure, I use the old laser pointer GW made years back for TLOS, I roll bigger dice.
To be fair, before my vision got worse, I did manage to paint my Necrons, very poorly, but it's simply too much detail, I wind up making it horrible.
I've managed to paint super simple stuff like the TTCombat Cyber Guns, and styrofoam terrain, but that's about it.

Visual impairment is super common, why do think glasses are such a widely accepted prosthetic?
Very very few people are 'black blind' like medial shows us. Many of us have some for of light perception, maybe blurred shapes, but nothing like picking out the details on models.

Like do you think the majority of trading card gamers would accept some one turning up with just plain cardboard? its honestly the same thing when it comes with 40k with regards to having painted models.

 VictorVonTzeentch wrote:

Thats well and nice for historicals, but if they were starved for players they'd relax.

And then half of the old players would quit.

The incentive to get people to paint should be points towards what ever is happening in the Campaign, like GW did with Vigilus.

More carrot, less stick. Particularly when it comes to getting people to buy and play and then retaining them in the hobby.

But this is certainly true. The carrot is better.

 Stormatious wrote:
Like do you think the majority of trading card gamers would accept some one turning up with just plain cardboard? its honestly the same thing when it comes with 40k with regards to having painted models.

Plenty of TCG players allow and use proxy cards.

 Platuan4th wrote:

 Stormatious wrote:
Like do you think the majority of trading card gamers would accept some one turning up with just plain cardboard? its honestly the same thing when it comes with 40k with regards to having painted models.

Plenty of TCG players allow and use proxy cards.

Well id say that's extremely rare and would probably occur in a extremely casual game with some good friends, especially for some thing like Magic The Gathering. But in general this i don't believe is true and there for irrelevant.

 Crimson wrote:

 VictorVonTzeentch wrote:

Thats well and nice for historicals, but if they were starved for players they'd relax.

And then half of the old players would quit.

I'll take your word for it as I really have limited experience with true Historicals. Only things like "Beer and Pretzles" Historicals like BA, where since I am just starting toget everything together more people are encouraging to just get things on the field, the more you use something, the more you want it to be painted like theirs.

The incentive to get people to paint should be points towards what ever is happening in the Campaign, like GW did with Vigilus.

More carrot, less stick. Particularly when it comes to getting people to buy and play and then retaining them in the hobby.

But this is certainly true. The carrot is better.

 Stormatious wrote:

 Platuan4th wrote:

 Stormatious wrote:
Like do you think the majority of trading card gamers would accept some one turning up with just plain cardboard? its honestly the same thing when it comes with 40k with regards to having painted models.

Plenty of TCG players allow and use proxy cards.

Well id say that's extremely rare and would probably occur in a extremely casual game with some good friends, especially for some thing like Magic The Gathering. But in general this i don't believe is true and there for irrelevant.

It's very common at Friday Night Magic, especially right after releases while people test new cards for various deck builds.

Sorry, but every statement you make in this thread seems poorly informed.

 Stormatious wrote:
But in general this i don't believe is true and there for irrelevant.

So, time to not bother discussing things with you? After all, I don't think you're correct and therefor your opinion is irrelevant.

there already has been pushback on grey minis. Most large events now have a minimum basic standard that you must reach to play and even GWs new North American flagship store the citadel has a painting requirement to play

 Blndmage wrote:

My games take longer, I have a large print tape measure, I use the old laser pointer GW made years back for TLOS, I roll bigger dice.
To be fair, before my vision got worse, I did manage to paint my Necrons, very poorly, but it's simply too much detail, I wind up making it horrible.
I've managed to paint super simple stuff like the TTCombat Cyber Guns, and styrofoam terrain, but that's about it.

Visual impairment is super common, why do think glasses are such a widely accepted prosthetic?
Very very few people are 'black blind' like medial shows us. Many of us have some for of light perception, maybe blurred shapes, but nothing like picking out the details on models.

Right, I understand. I meant that such visual impairmen that cannot be corrected with classes to functional level is pretty rare. But obviously your situation is a perfectly good reason for not painting. Granted, with Necrons you're basically done at acceptable levels with a coat of spray silver and a wash...

Asmodios wrote:
there already has been pushback on grey minis. Most large events now have a minimum basic standard that you must reach to play and even GWs new north American flagstone the citadel has a painting requirement to play

The same requirement that WHW has had for ages.

 Stormatious wrote:
Its like i say, you may lose alot of people by enforcing this tradition, but you will strengthen the core base which IMO is actually better business model?

What it comes down to is weighing up encouraging all-comer friendly play vs consistently high level visuals. Both would be great, but in reality you have to pick a balance point between the two extremes that favors one or the other.

I don't think the value of the latter outweighs the former, at least not at casual store sparring level, and gatekeeping is a demon to be slain in any boutique hobby. Probably the main one in fact, I think it's the precipice the entire thing will always wobble on.

Further - again from a store and store-surrounding community POV - somebody showing up with grey models to play against somebody with models painted by Michelangelo himself is an opportunity to discuss techniques, color schemes etc, both for that player's benefit and anybody in earshot.

Tournaments etc are a different matter.

 VictorVonTzeentch wrote:

 Stormatious wrote:
But in general this i don't believe is true and there for irrelevant.

So, time to not bother discussing things with you? After all, I don't think you're correct and therefor your opinion is irrelevant.

No i mean i don't believe that's common enough in general for it to really be some thing you can say is a "thing" and that's why i say its irrelevant, im not saying i'm definitely correct or any thing dude.

 VictorVonTzeentch wrote:
That and positive reinforcement for people starting out with painting. I've seen some people scoff (im guilty of it once or twice certainly when I was younger) at new people's painting, but thats more like to discourage. Constructive criticism, with some positive reinforcement is best in those situations.

Yes, absolutely!

 Stormatious wrote:

 VictorVonTzeentch wrote:

 Stormatious wrote:
But in general this i don't believe is true and there for irrelevant.

So, time to not bother discussing things with you? After all, I don't think you're correct and therefor your opinion is irrelevant.

No i mean i don't believe that's common enough in general for it to really be some thing you can say is a "thing" and that's why i say its irrelevant, im not saying i'm definitely correct or any thing dude.

It happens though, so it is a thing. It doesnt need to be as common a thing as Grey minis to be recognized as a thing. It would be much more proper form to simply state

"Well id think that's extremely rare and would probably occur in a extremely casual game with some good friends, especially for some thing like Magic The Gathering. But I'm not certain enough to make a definitive statement."

 Blndmage wrote:

 Crimson wrote:

 Blndmage wrote:

What about those of us who lack the ability to paint?
I'm blind, I can put a model together by feel, I can't paint it by feel.

Whilst that pretty damn legitimate (and rare) reason not to paint, I have to wonder how you can actually play?

My games take longer, I have a large print tape measure, I use the old laser pointer GW made years back for TLOS, I roll bigger dice.
To be fair, before my vision got worse, I did manage to paint my Necrons, very poorly, but it's simply too much detail, I wind up making it horrible.
I've managed to paint super simple stuff like the TTCombat Cyber Guns, and styrofoam terrain, but that's about it.

Visual impairment is super common, why do think glasses are such a widely accepted prosthetic?
Very very few people are 'black blind' like medial shows us. Many of us have some for of light perception, maybe blurred shapes, but nothing like picking out the details on models.

Makes sense. Excuse my ignorance, it honestly never occurred to me before that this style of tabletop gaming potentially suits folks with visual impairment a lot due to differing models and textures.

Something I'll think about in future, thank you for the elaboration.

 VictorVonTzeentch wrote:

Asmodios wrote:
there already has been pushback on grey minis. Most large events now have a minimum basic standard that you must reach to play and even GWs new north American flagstone the citadel has a painting requirement to play

The same requirement that WHW has had for ages.

Yup and I think its a good policy. I also think its good to allow casual gaming with grey models and such as well. I know as a kid the first think I wanted to do was make my new toys battle and it would have probably turned me away forever had some 40-year-old man kicked me out of a store for having unpainted minis. I think where the hobby is right now is a very good spot.

 VictorVonTzeentch wrote:

 Stormatious wrote:

 VictorVonTzeentch wrote:

 Stormatious wrote:
But in general this i don't believe is true and there for irrelevant.

So, time to not bother discussing things with you? After all, I don't think you're correct and therefor your opinion is irrelevant.

No i mean i don't believe that's common enough in general for it to really be some thing you can say is a "thing" and that's why i say its irrelevant, im not saying i'm definitely correct or any thing dude.

It happens though, so it is a thing. It doesnt need to be as common a thing as Grey minis to be recognized as a thing. It would be much more proper form to simply state

"Well id think that's extremely rare and would probably occur in a extremely casual game with some good friends, especially for some thing like Magic The Gathering. But I'm not certain enough to make a definitive statement."

Dude any thing like that can happen between a group of close friends, that doesn't mean in general its a thing.

 Stormatious wrote:

 VictorVonTzeentch wrote:

 Stormatious wrote:

 VictorVonTzeentch wrote:

 Stormatious wrote:
But in general this i don't believe is true and there for irrelevant.

So, time to not bother discussing things with you? After all, I don't think you're correct and therefor your opinion is irrelevant.

No i mean i don't believe that's common enough in general for it to really be some thing you can say is a "thing" and that's why i say its irrelevant, im not saying i'm definitely correct or any thing dude.

It happens though, so it is a thing. It doesnt need to be as common a thing as Grey minis to be recognized as a thing. It would be much more proper form to simply state

"Well id think that's extremely rare and would probably occur in a extremely casual game with some good friends, especially for some thing like Magic The Gathering. But I'm not certain enough to make a definitive statement."

Dude any thing like that can happen between a group of close friends, that doesn't mean in general its a thing.

Yes, but YOU specifically do not have enough information on the subject in order to make a definitive statement such as and I'm paraphrasing "I've not experienced what you have and therefore what you are saying is irrelevant."

Because thats what your post comes across as saying.

 Stormatious wrote:

 VictorVonTzeentch wrote:

 Stormatious wrote:

 VictorVonTzeentch wrote:

 Stormatious wrote:
But in general this i don't believe is true and there for irrelevant.

So, time to not bother discussing things with you? After all, I don't think you're correct and therefor your opinion is irrelevant.

No i mean i don't believe that's common enough in general for it to really be some thing you can say is a "thing" and that's why i say its irrelevant, im not saying i'm definitely correct or any thing dude.

It happens though, so it is a thing. It doesnt need to be as common a thing as Grey minis to be recognized as a thing. It would be much more proper form to simply state

"Well id think that's extremely rare and would probably occur in a extremely casual game with some good friends, especially for some thing like Magic The Gathering. But I'm not certain enough to make a definitive statement."

Dude any thing like that can happen between a group of close friends, that doesn't mean in general its a thing.

And like I told you, it's a common thing at Friday Night Magic, the largest organized weekly gaming store initiative in the world.

 VictorVonTzeentch wrote:

 Stormatious wrote:

 VictorVonTzeentch wrote:

 Stormatious wrote:

 VictorVonTzeentch wrote:

 Stormatious wrote:
But in general this i don't believe is true and there for irrelevant.

So, time to not bother discussing things with you? After all, I don't think you're correct and therefor your opinion is irrelevant.

No i mean i don't believe that's common enough in general for it to really be some thing you can say is a "thing" and that's why i say its irrelevant, im not saying i'm definitely correct or any thing dude.

It happens though, so it is a thing. It doesnt need to be as common a thing as Grey minis to be recognized as a thing. It would be much more proper form to simply state

"Well id think that's extremely rare and would probably occur in a extremely casual game with some good friends, especially for some thing like Magic The Gathering. But I'm not certain enough to make a definitive statement."

Dude any thing like that can happen between a group of close friends, that doesn't mean in general its a thing.

Yes, but YOU specifically do not have enough information on the subject in order to make a definitive statement such as and I'm paraphrasing "I've not experienced what you have and therefore what you are saying is irrelevant."

Because thats what your post comes across as saying.

No im not 100% confident i am correct, and that makes me wrong i guess. Any way im pretty damn confident i am correct that a close group of friends can spit on there cards and play with them but that doesn't make it a general thing.

You're very adroit at picking stupid hills and then dying on them, eh?

 Stormatious wrote:


No im not 100% confident i am correct, and that makes me wrong i guess. Any way im pretty damn confident i am correct that a close group of friends can spit on there cards and play with them but that doesn't make it a general thing.

Im not saying you aren't right about it being with friends, only that you shouldn't casually dismiss it as a general thing, particularly if @Platuan4th is calling attention to it being a thing at Friday Night Magic.

 VictorVonTzeentch wrote:

 Stormatious wrote:


No im not 100% confident i am correct, and that makes me wrong i guess. Any way im pretty damn confident i am correct that a close group of friends can spit on there cards and play with them but that doesn't make it a general thing.

Im not saying you aren't right about it being with friends, only that you shouldn't casually dismiss it as a general thing, particularly if @Platuan4th is calling attention to it being a thing at Friday Night Magic.

I'm not but im not a complete stranger to TCG so yeah but not trying to offend you or any thing man. But i think every thing i have said regarding to greys is correct and i havn't really been told how im wrong yet.

Have a good day.

I have NEVER seen anyone encourage other people NOT to paint. Quite the contrary. Our shop owner is a very proficient painter and even sculptor, and he regularly makes painting clases, free for children, and at a neligible cost (Mostly for material) for more older people, and even greenstuning clases.

THATS how you make more people paint their armies, become better painters AND play more in your shop and buy more stuff.

This GTFO attitude and elitism isn't gonna work. If you don't want to play with unpainted armies thats 100% and absolutely fine. And I have 0 problems with more serious and bigger tournaments having standards for painted armies (And I say this as someone that doesn't paint with the exception of one tournament a year, the biggest in my region, and for that one I'll paint a full army a year, normally in 1 month, just because I'm obligated to do it, because I hate it with a burning passion)
But telling people to just don't play until they have a full army painted is like in old fantasy when grognards told new players that they didn't wanted to play anything less than 3.000 points tournament legal games.

That kills communities.

I'm not offended, if anything I am trying to help your arguing skills.

If you dont see the value in any of the numerous points that have been raised regarding grey minis, I don't think I can help you.

 Excommunicatus wrote:
You're very adroit at picking stupid hills and then dying on them, eh?

Maybe you would like to elaborate on what exactly you are saying, might be helpful so you can get a response that helps resolve what ever you are talking about.