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:

 JNAProductions wrote:
Why is painting a main requirement for a wargame?

It isn't required for a wargame. It's required for a miniatures game. The aesthetic value of the models is the whole reason we're playing a game with miniatures instead of cardboard tokens like many other wargames use, and miniatures are not finished until they are painted. It's like asking why you should have to put models on the table at all and insisting that you're entitled to use empty bases instead.

Well that's easy. If I used empty bases, my store manager would get mad at me since I'm not buying anything from him, or at least only buying bases, which are 50 times cheaper than models.

But honestly, if someone wanted to play me with empty bases, so long as I know they're not gonna be a jerk on LoS... Sure, why not?

DeathKorp_Rider wrote:

 Stormatious wrote:

DeathKorp_Rider wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

DeathKorp_Rider wrote:
It's a game, you're supposed to have fun with people. That's the only tradition there is.

And seeing unpainted models on the table is not fun.

Having fun is in the game, or modeling, or painting. Whatever you enjoy, you should do. But when you try imposing your standard on others, it stops being fun for them.

What about some thing else like i don't know, any thing.... If you don't have the main requirements usually people wont allow you to participate in alot of "insert what ever hobby"

Hobby being any thing - Cars / engines /sports / what ever.

But you don't need paint to play the game.

Well in my opinion you actually do. While i see this is a controversial opinion obviously... that's a shame.

 Peregrine wrote:

I am not terribly concerned with this given the fact that I don't want those people around. If they don't like the expectation of painted models and choose to remove themselves from my presence, well, I'm considering that a win.

No problems. So, since you've stated your opinion and don't care about anyone else's, your participation in this discussion would seem to have run its course.

Kindly move on and allow the thread to return to its stated purpose of asking others for their thoughts.

 Stormatious wrote:

DeathKorp_Rider wrote:

 Stormatious wrote:

DeathKorp_Rider wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

DeathKorp_Rider wrote:
It's a game, you're supposed to have fun with people. That's the only tradition there is.

And seeing unpainted models on the table is not fun.

Having fun is in the game, or modeling, or painting. Whatever you enjoy, you should do. But when you try imposing your standard on others, it stops being fun for them.

What about some thing else like i don't know, any thing.... If you don't have the main requirements usually people wont allow you to participate in alot of "insert what ever hobby"

Hobby being any thing - Cars / engines /sports / what ever.

But you don't need paint to play the game.

Well in my opinion you actually do. While i see this is a controversial opinion obviously... that's a shame.

I understand that you prefer to play people to have painted models, but it your opinion and not a rule.

DeathKorp_Rider wrote:
I'm sorry, I don't remember anything in the 40K rulebook, or any rulebook saying painting is required.

It's basic common sense. GW doesn't think that their customers are so clueless that they need to be explicitly told that painting is a thing. You will, however, note that in GW's event rules they state that painted (and WYSIWYG) models are required to participate.

DeathKorp_Rider wrote:

 Stormatious wrote:

DeathKorp_Rider wrote:

 Stormatious wrote:

DeathKorp_Rider wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

DeathKorp_Rider wrote:
It's a game, you're supposed to have fun with people. That's the only tradition there is.

And seeing unpainted models on the table is not fun.

Having fun is in the game, or modeling, or painting. Whatever you enjoy, you should do. But when you try imposing your standard on others, it stops being fun for them.

What about some thing else like i don't know, any thing.... If you don't have the main requirements usually people wont allow you to participate in alot of "insert what ever hobby"

Hobby being any thing - Cars / engines /sports / what ever.

But you don't need paint to play the game.

Well in my opinion you actually do. While i see this is a controversial opinion obviously... that's a shame.

I understand that you prefer to play people to have painted models, but it your opinion and not a rule.

Yeah, but it is tradition. Weather that's important or not is up to each individual i guess.

 Peregrine wrote:

DeathKorp_Rider wrote:
I'm sorry, I don't remember anything in the 40K rulebook, or any rulebook saying painting is required.

It's basic common sense. GW doesn't think that their customers are so clueless that they need to be explicitly told that painting is a thing. You will, however, note that in GW's event rules they state that painted (and WYSIWYG) models are required to participate.

Events are fine, I am talking casual play where nothing has to be perfect.

 insaniak wrote:
So, since you've stated your opinion and don't care about anyone else's, your participation in this discussion would seem to have run its course.

I absolutely care about other opinions, just not those of people who decide that because I have a strong opinion they're going to avoid me. People who want to have a conversation about those opinions are welcome to talk to me.

 Peregrine wrote:

 insaniak wrote:
So, since you've stated your opinion and don't care about anyone else's, your participation in this discussion would seem to have run its course.

I absolutely care about other opinions, just not those of people who decide that because I have a strong opinion they're going to avoid me. People who want to have a conversation about those opinions are welcome to talk to me.

You don't seem to be accepting of any other opinions though.

It sounds like the conversation you want is "You're totally right and I agree with you."

DeathKorp_Rider wrote:
Events are fine, I am talking casual play where nothing has to be perfect.

But why should "casual" play be any different? In fact, shouldn't a "casual" game have higher standards for painting, since there's no longer the "I must buy this new army to keep up with the metagame and don't have time to paint it before the next tournament" pressure of competitive play? A "casual" player should be 100% fine with using only painted models even if it means they can't build a perfectly optimized list. Or they can play a 500 point game instead of the 2000 point tournament standard, etc. So why, when fielding a fully painted army is easier, do the expectations for doing so go down?

 JNAProductions wrote:

Well that's easy. If I used empty bases, my store manager would get mad at me since I'm not buying anything from him, or at least only buying bases, which are 50 times cheaper than models.

But honestly, if someone wanted to play me with empty bases, so long as I know they're not gonna be a jerk on LoS... Sure, why not?

I've played against armies that included blank bases. I've faced units of Kroot legs. Armless marines. And in one tournament game, a Land Raider Crusader with no weapons and a hull held together with rubber bands. (although that latter model was at least sprayed black!)

I've played against Golden Demon level armies. I've faced Inkwashed Hordes. Three color standard armies. And one marine army that had literally been dipped in a tin of house paint.

In all of those cases, the attitude of my opponent counted far more towards whether or not the game was enjoyable than the amount of paint on the models did.

 Peregrine wrote:

DeathKorp_Rider wrote:
Events are fine, I am talking casual play where nothing has to be perfect.

But why should "casual" play be any different? In fact, shouldn't a "casual" game have higher standards for painting, since there's no longer the "I must buy this new army to keep up with the metagame and don't have time to paint it before the next tournament" pressure of competitive play? A "casual" player should be 100% fine with using only painted models even if it means they can't build a perfectly optimized list. Or they can play a 500 point game instead of the 2000 point tournament standard, etc. So why, when fielding a fully painted army is easier, do the expectations for doing so go down?

Because not everyone is that concerned with painting.

 insaniak wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:

Well that's easy. If I used empty bases, my store manager would get mad at me since I'm not buying anything from him, or at least only buying bases, which are 50 times cheaper than models.

But honestly, if someone wanted to play me with empty bases, so long as I know they're not gonna be a jerk on LoS... Sure, why not?

I've played against armies that included blank bases. I've faced units of Kroot legs. Armless marines. And in one tournament game, a Land Raider Crusader with no weapons and a hull held together with rubber bands. (although that latter model was at least sprayed black!)

I've played against Golden Demon level armies. I've faced Inkwashed Hordes. Three color standard armies. And one marine army that had literally been dipped in a tin of house paint.

In all of those cases, the attitude of my opponent counted far more towards whether or not the game was enjoyable than the amount of paint of the models did.

Well said.

I'm not saying that painting isn't important, but it isn't a necessity. 40k (or any game for that matter) is about having fun with other people. If you become hung up on paint, you miss the entire point of the game.

 JNAProductions wrote:
Because not everyone is that concerned with painting.

Then why play a miniatures game at all, instead of spending a tiny fraction of the money on a wargame with cardboard tokens? And why play 40k of all games, a game with dumpster fire rules where the sole redeeming factor is that the miniatures are amazing? I can understand why someone wouldn't care about the aesthetic value of a miniatures game, but I see those people playing map-and-token games with superior rules and a $50 price tag.

 Stormatious wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
Inspired by this trainwreck, I'm curious as to what the general value people place on having painted models.

Please do NOT repeat the rudeness and rules-breaking of that thread. Keep it civil and tolerant.

Glad i inspired you. I didn't mean to come off as rude, just trying to take a tougher stance to encourage more people to stick to tradition.

Tradition can suck a fat one.

I would like you to take a moment to look back on history and all the atrocious crap that has been done and said in the name of tradition. If the only reason you have for trying to enforce something on someone else is personal preference and "tradition" then you don't have much of a argument at all.


Here is how this works. This is a game. The game has a rule book. If you follow the rules in the rule book when playing the game then you are not breaking any rules and everything should be fine. The moment you can reference a rule in the rule book that requires even a single drop of paint on the model you have an argument. If you can't then you don't. People should be encouraged to have fun in all and any way in which they themselves have fun. That means helping people get into painting if they want. Doing some kit bashes and scratch builds if that is up their ally. At no point should anyone be made to feel less than, segregated, or banned because they don't enjoy the totally, 100% optional, not a rule on any level, aspect of the hobby that is painting a model.

I am open to being proven wrong the moment anyone can find a rule in the rule book that requires otherwise.

 Peregrine wrote:


It's basic common sense. GW doesn't think that their customers are so clueless that they need to be explicitly told that painting is a thing.

I'll just leave this here...

 Peregrine wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
Because not everyone is that concerned with painting.

Then why play a miniatures game at all, instead of spending a tiny fraction of the money on a wargame with cardboard tokens? And why play 40k of all games, a game with dumpster fire rules where the sole redeeming factor is that the miniatures are amazing? I can understand why someone wouldn't care about the aesthetic value of a miniatures game, but I see those people playing map-and-token games with superior rules and a $50 price tag.

Because they want to. People are free to spend however much they want on any dumb thing they want for their own enjoyment.

 insaniak wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:


It's basic common sense. GW doesn't think that their customers are so clueless that they need to be explicitly told that painting is a thing.

I'll just leave this here...

Ah thanks, I wanted to quote that but I didn't remember it exactly and didn't want to flip through the book looking for it.

 insaniak wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:


It's basic common sense. GW doesn't think that their customers are so clueless that they need to be explicitly told that painting is a thing.

I'll just leave this here...

Just because GW says you dont need to paint, does not mean its not tradition, because i can see your sarcasm.

GW doesn't define tradition, they didn't create wargaming.

 Stormatious wrote:

 insaniak wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:


It's basic common sense. GW doesn't think that their customers are so clueless that they need to be explicitly told that painting is a thing.

I'll just leave this here...

Just because GW says you dont need to paint, does not mean its not tradition, because i can see your sarcasm.

GW doesn't define tradition, they didn't create wargaming.

True, but neither did you.

 Lance845 wrote:
Here is how this works. This is a game. The game has a rule book. If you follow the rules in the rule book when playing the game then you are not breaking any rules and everything should be fine. The moment you can reference a rule in the rule book that requires even a single drop of paint on the model you have an argument. If you can't then you don't. People should be encouraged to have fun in all and any way in which they themselves have fun. That means helping people get into painting if they want. Doing some kit bashes and scratch builds if that is up their ally. At no point should anyone be made to feel less than, segregated, or banned because they don't enjoy the totally, 100% optional, not a rule on any level, aspect of the hobby that is painting a model.

I am open to being proven wrong the moment anyone can find a rule in the rule book that requires otherwise.

The rulebook is not a complete listing of everything that is required to have a game. To give an extreme example, nowhere in the rules does it say that bathing is required. But yet I think everyone will agree that if you haven't bathed in a month then you're TFG and nobody is going to have any sympathy when you're removed from the store/club/whatever. So "it isn't explicitly stated in the rules" is not a compelling defense. The social contract of what obligations you have in participating in a gaming community go beyond the written rules of the particular game, and I am 100% in favor of making painting one of those things.

DeathKorp_Rider wrote:

 Stormatious wrote:

 insaniak wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:


It's basic common sense. GW doesn't think that their customers are so clueless that they need to be explicitly told that painting is a thing.

I'll just leave this here...

Just because GW says you dont need to paint, does not mean its not tradition, because i can see your sarcasm.

GW doesn't define tradition, they didn't create wargaming.

True, but neither did you.

True, i didn't whats your point?

 insaniak wrote:
I'll just leave this here...

A statement which, I suspect, was written by GW's marketing department and not by actual gamers. I understand why GW would want to sell models to people who hate painting, but that doesn't mean that such behavior should be considered acceptable by the community. And GW seems to understand this on some level, as their event rules require fully painted and WYSIWYG models and the whole "paint, whatever, do what you like" attitude disappears entirely.

Except it's explicitly stated that:

It is not necessary to paint models before you use them,

So... Yeah, rules say you don't need to.

Again, you're free to only play painted armies. My store manager has the same policy. The difference is, he doesn't insist everyone have the exact same preferences.

Well, the appeal for the models, rules and background is still there, even for people who play with unfinished armies. There are lots of reasons why people don't have enough time to paint all their minis (mostly job or family related). And in that case, because I only get to play about once per month it's more important to me to have a game at all than having a game against painted minis only. It also increases the variety of lists. If I made painted only a rule I'd probably face the same armies again and again with only 1 unit difference each time...

 Peregrine wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:
Here is how this works. This is a game. The game has a rule book. If you follow the rules in the rule book when playing the game then you are not breaking any rules and everything should be fine. The moment you can reference a rule in the rule book that requires even a single drop of paint on the model you have an argument. If you can't then you don't. People should be encouraged to have fun in all and any way in which they themselves have fun. That means helping people get into painting if they want. Doing some kit bashes and scratch builds if that is up their ally. At no point should anyone be made to feel less than, segregated, or banned because they don't enjoy the totally, 100% optional, not a rule on any level, aspect of the hobby that is painting a model.

I am open to being proven wrong the moment anyone can find a rule in the rule book that requires otherwise.

The rulebook is not a complete listing of everything that is required to have a game. To give an extreme example, nowhere in the rules does it say that bathing is required. But yet I think everyone will agree that if you haven't bathed in a month then you're TFG and nobody is going to have any sympathy when you're removed from the store/club/whatever. So "it isn't explicitly stated in the rules" is not a compelling defense. The social contract of what obligations you have in participating in a gaming community go beyond the written rules of the particular game, and I am 100% in favor of making painting one of those things.

Well, bathing is a different matter because it can effect the health of you and people around you. Not having paint can't cause disease.

DeathKorp_Rider wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:
Here is how this works. This is a game. The game has a rule book. If you follow the rules in the rule book when playing the game then you are not breaking any rules and everything should be fine. The moment you can reference a rule in the rule book that requires even a single drop of paint on the model you have an argument. If you can't then you don't. People should be encouraged to have fun in all and any way in which they themselves have fun. That means helping people get into painting if they want. Doing some kit bashes and scratch builds if that is up their ally. At no point should anyone be made to feel less than, segregated, or banned because they don't enjoy the totally, 100% optional, not a rule on any level, aspect of the hobby that is painting a model.

I am open to being proven wrong the moment anyone can find a rule in the rule book that requires otherwise.

The rulebook is not a complete listing of everything that is required to have a game. To give an extreme example, nowhere in the rules does it say that bathing is required. But yet I think everyone will agree that if you haven't bathed in a month then you're TFG and nobody is going to have any sympathy when you're removed from the store/club/whatever. So "it isn't explicitly stated in the rules" is not a compelling defense. The social contract of what obligations you have in participating in a gaming community go beyond the written rules of the particular game, and I am 100% in favor of making painting one of those things.

Well, bathing is a different matter because it can effect the health of you and people around you. Not having paint can't cause disease.

Well you could call greys a disease lol ( joking )

DeathKorp_Rider wrote:
Well, bathing is a different matter because it can effect the health of you and people around you. Not having paint can't cause disease.

No, and that's not the point. The two are not equivalent, the point is that there are expectations that go beyond the written text of the rulebook. Nothing in the 40k rulebook says that you have an obligation to mitigate the spread of disease, that's a rule that we as a community have decided on and enforce. All of us understand entirely how to have community rules that aren't included in the rulebook and consider it the universal standard. The only debate is whether or not painting should be one of those obligations that exists on top of the written rules, and "but it isn't in the rulebook" is a meaningless statement in that debate.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:
Here is how this works. This is a game. The game has a rule book. If you follow the rules in the rule book when playing the game then you are not breaking any rules and everything should be fine. The moment you can reference a rule in the rule book that requires even a single drop of paint on the model you have an argument. If you can't then you don't. People should be encouraged to have fun in all and any way in which they themselves have fun. That means helping people get into painting if they want. Doing some kit bashes and scratch builds if that is up their ally. At no point should anyone be made to feel less than, segregated, or banned because they don't enjoy the totally, 100% optional, not a rule on any level, aspect of the hobby that is painting a model.

I am open to being proven wrong the moment anyone can find a rule in the rule book that requires otherwise.

The rulebook is not a complete listing of everything that is required to have a game. To give an extreme example, nowhere in the rules does it say that bathing is required. But yet I think everyone will agree that if you haven't bathed in a month then you're TFG and nobody is going to have any sympathy when you're removed from the store/club/whatever. So "it isn't explicitly stated in the rules" is not a compelling defense. The social contract of what obligations you have in participating in a gaming community go beyond the written rules of the particular game, and I am 100% in favor of making painting one of those things.

This is a dumb straw man argument.

The "social contract" of people meeting in public is non existent. Shocking maybe? But people can go out into public unwashed. They are free to. They will suffer the consequences of their lack of cleanliness when people tell them they smell bad. But regardless of all that, a game is not the same as being clean. Not being clean has societal repercussions like diseases. I don't think your going to catch anything from some grey plastic. Your argument does not compute. What is needed to play the game is 100% in the rule book. And if people decided it would be cool to get together a do nude 40k (Like skinny dipping but games!) they are free to get together and do some nude 40k and they would still be playing the exact same game that you do.

The state of their cleanliness is not a factor. And the state of their models paintedness isn't either.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Peregrine wrote:

DeathKorp_Rider wrote:
Well, bathing is a different matter because it can effect the health of you and people around you. Not having paint can't cause disease.

No, and that's not the point. The two are not equivalent, the point is that there are expectations that go beyond the written text of the rulebook. Nothing in the 40k rulebook says that you have an obligation to mitigate the spread of disease, that's a rule that we as a community have decided on and enforce. All of us understand entirely how to have community rules that aren't included in the rulebook and consider it the universal standard. The only debate is whether or not painting should be one of those obligations that exists on top of the written rules, and "but it isn't in the rulebook" is a meaningless statement in that debate.

No, it's not. "It's not in the rulebook" is the only statement of ANY value when playing a game. We are not talking about a painting competition.

 Peregrine wrote:


A statement which, I suspect, was written by GW's marketing department and not by actual gamers.

Sgt. Cortez wrote:
Well, the appeal for the models, rules and background is still there, even for people who play with unfinished armies. There are lots of reasons why people don't have enough time to paint all their minis (mostly job or family related). And in that case, because I only get to play about once per month it's more important to me to have a game at all than having a game against painted minis only. It also increases the variety of lists. If I made painted only a rule I'd probably face the same armies again and again with only 1 unit difference each time...

I remember speaking to one player years ago who loved the models, but was a rubbish painter and preferred the way they looked in grey plastic to the way they looked once he had splashed paint on them.

For many others, they're just tokens, and whether or not they are painted is no more relevant in 40k than it would be in Monopoly.