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.

1) Painting is part of the hobby. Disagree as hard as you can, but it just is. It always was and hopefully always be.

"it is so because it was always that way" is a bad argument.

2) Is debatable and if you have and or are collecting a OOP army then you would automatically be more vary then others. However i tend to agree from there on out.

The value of painting for unit identification is questionable. I mean, yes, in an ideal world that would be the case (although writing a squad number on the base with a whiteout pen is arguably more effective than 2mm tall numbers on shoulder pads, regardless of whether or not the rest of the model is painted...) - but from my experience, the vast majority of people don't put unit markings on their models.

I can't remember who said or even if it was said in this thread or not but it was such an apt term, it immediately rang a chord with me. I describe myself as an 'unskilled perfectionist'

What do I mean by that, well, in aspirational terms, I would love to have fully painted armies. In reality, what with job, family and other interests, the time I have to devote to painting is minimal and all that for an aspect of the hobby I tolerate at best. It means I might get a spurt of creativity and attempt to paint an army that quickly falls by the wayside as my actual skill does not meet my vision - I end up getting quickly discouraged. I expect one day, far in the future when I ma retired most likely and have sufficient time to devote to it, I might actually end up with everything painted but until then, it's an aspiration not a reality.

I appreciate that, for some, playing fully painted armies is a glorious thing to behold but you need to be aware that it simply is not the reality for others. Talking in absolutes about how people 'must' do this or that, does none of us any favours. Some people in this thread really need to dial back the judgment and appreciate that in a varied hobby, not everyone's goals align perfectly.

 Lance845 wrote:
Why not enforce a black tie dress code?

If I had the money to fund my own games club, I'd do that. Like the Groucho, but with minis games. I'd say like the Diogenes Club, but it's hard to play wargames without speaking to one another.

I don't like using unpainted miniatures. At a stretch, I'll used unfinished minis as long as they're at "tabletop standard" (i.e. every part is covered in paint and it's reasonably neat). I'm also strictly WYSIWYG. I've had the same Imperial Guard/Astra Militarum Cadian platoon since they came out in the mid 1990s, and I've always fielded the 1st squad with a flamer and heavy bolter all that time - even when that was a completely pointless combination of weapons. Likewise with Necromunda, Kill Team or Mordheim - I equip fighters to match the miniatures I have; if I want something else I get a new miniature or convert one.

I don't hold my opponents to the same standards - although all else being equal, I'd avoid the person with the grey horde. For me, the look of the game is important. I didn't get in to wargaming looking at pictures of unpainted miniatures with no arms plonked onto a board covered in lumps of polystyrene, and it's simply not a fun experience. It's not the whole of the experience, of course; my fellow player is the main thing, but it's definitely the second thing I consider.

I don't go to tournaments; the thought of facing off against four unpainted armies in a weekend isn't the sole reason for that, but it's a factor, yes. If I were to run an event, painted armies would be a requirement, because that's an element of the hobby I'd want to promote. If someone doesn't agree, then I'm not forcing them to attend, so it's OK.

If you like playing 40k, but don't want painted miniatures, then that's fine. Just accept we're in it for different reasons, and if our paths ever cross and I turn you down for a game it's not because I think you're inferior, it's just because we like different things.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 insaniak wrote:
The value of painting for unit identification is questionable. I mean, yes, in an ideal world that would be the case (although writing a squad number on the base with a whiteout pen is arguably more effective than 2mm tall numbers on shoulder pads, regardless of whether or not the rest of the model is painted...) - but from my experience, the vast majority of people don't put unit markings on their models.

It's not even that - I find that with painted models, the various bits are more distinguishable. Even if you paint all your models so that the armour is blue, all the weapons (be they bolters, flamers, lascannons, whatever) are blak and the skin is pink, then it's more visible to me that that guy is a sergeant, that one has a flamer, the one next to him has a plasma gun, etc. It affects me more in Infinity than in 40k, because Infinity has more units with similar silhouettes, and the smaller weapons means they can get "lost" against the model's body more easily. I played one game (where my fellow player was using the faction I use most often, so I was reasonably familiar with the models) where because his models were primed black, and because the lighting in our club venue is poor, I spent the whole game asking "who is that guy again? Is that a multi-rifle or a shotgun?"

TL;DR - it's not about distinguising units, it's about distinguishing models, for me at least. (although I do have platoon and squad markings on my Guard infantry )

In these kind of debates i just usualy say, do you paint your Risk gaming pieces?

There is no difference between a tabletop game and a board game. If board games are and can be unpainted in order to play the game, then the same goes for tabletop games.
If a 30-40 y/o person do not WANT to paint, who am i to argue against that?

 FrozenDwarf wrote:
In these kind of debates i just usualy say, do you paint your Risk gaming pieces?

There is no difference between a tabletop game and a board game. If board games are and can be unpainted in order to play the game, then the same goes for tabletop games.
If a 30-40 y/o person do not WANT to paint, who am i to argue against that?

Red Herring is my favourite food too...

 Lance845 wrote:
Playing a game of 40k is just that. A game. The hobby that surrounds it in the form of lore, painting and modeling is all well and good but the one does not set policy for the other. The only thing that matters for the game is the rules of the game. There is no rule requiring paint.

No, there's no rule. However, just because you can enjoy a game of 40k as some abstract thing doesn't mean I can or should. For me (and Peregrine, and plenty of others), having painted models on a painted battlefield is what the game is all about. For the the rules are secondary (of course they are, IMO, since there's been 8 official versions, not including Kill Team or using any other set of rules); it's the narrative and the experience.

Where I'll choose to differe from Peregrine is that I don't care what you do with other like-minded individuals. however, don't dare to call me "elitist" if i refuse a game against you because you've not painted your army. Just as I'm letting you do your thing, you don't get to say my thing is wrong.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 FrozenDwarf wrote:
In these kind of debates i just usualy say, do you paint your Risk gaming pieces?

There is no difference between a tabletop game and a board game. If board games are and can be unpainted in order to play the game, then the same goes for tabletop games.
If a 30-40 y/o person do not WANT to paint, who am i to argue against that?

I painted my Monopoly pieces.

 AndrewGPaul wrote:


Where I'll choose to differe from Peregrine is that I don't care what you do with other like-minded individuals. however, don't dare to call me "elitist" if i refuse a game against you because you've not painted your army. Just as I'm letting you do your thing, you don't get to say my thing is wrong.

I'll play against unpainted armies, but it is certainly one of my requirements when vetting potential opponents. I don't get a lot of opportunities to play 40k right now (through no fault of my own...) so if you have an unpainted horde then that is a black mark against you and I will prioritise an opponent with a painted army over an unpainted one, mainly due to the other factor that IME overlaps neatly in the Venn diagram of "people with constantly unpainted armies". The meta chasing powergamer.

This is not to say this is always the case, but personal experience has taught me if you see a guy with a big army that has not a lick of paint on it then avoid at all costs. Grey is like the black and yellow of the wargaming world. Our FLGS experienced this in the store's first WMH tournament. He didn't specify a painting requirement and the winner was a local TFG turned up with his unpainted Cryx army (despite every other player having fully painted armies, including several new players) and romped to victory. Had he specified a painting requirement then he may have had to have been more discerning with his army selection and could have swung the tournament in another direction. It was jut disheartening after we finally get an FLGS (which, as you probably know are not that common in the UK) and as a form of promotion for the store to see the guy with the unpainted masses as the advert for the pinnacle of your game locally.

From my limited experience of 1st edition Warmachine tournaments, getting the models assembled was a step too far for some people. At that point, I'd just give up on miniatures altogether - get some wooden dowel cut to the right lengths and clue a picture of the mini to the front.

As it happens, in the Necromunda campaign I'm running, I've not made painted models mandatory. I've not had any bad games, but I'd have enjoyed them more if the minis had been painted.

I dont game, but personally if I did I dont think I'd have a problem with people using unpainted.

young kids often cant afford all the materials needed to paint their models, yet still want to be able to play.

As a display painter my mindset is to paint everything as perfectly as I am able, so I can sympathize if people want to put a lot of effort in and not rush models to get them onto the table.

obviously if you have the time and means then you should make best efforts to ensure your dudes are painted, especially if youre playing in a big tournament or something, but for games at the local shop, I dont see an issue.

 AndrewGPaul wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:
Playing a game of 40k is just that. A game. The hobby that surrounds it in the form of lore, painting and modeling is all well and good but the one does not set policy for the other. The only thing that matters for the game is the rules of the game. There is no rule requiring paint.

No, there's no rule. However, just because you can enjoy a game of 40k as some abstract thing doesn't mean I can or should. For me (and Peregrine, and plenty of others), having painted models on a painted battlefield is what the game is all about. For the the rules are secondary (of course they are, IMO, since there's been 8 official versions, not including Kill Team or using any other set of rules); it's the narrative and the experience.

Where I'll choose to differe from Peregrine is that I don't care what you do with other like-minded individuals. however, don't dare to call me "elitist" if i refuse a game against you because you've not painted your army. Just as I'm letting you do your thing, you don't get to say my thing is wrong.

See, I am not talking about you. YO are not trying to create a set a rules that bar others from participation. You don't think that painting a model means you have a bigger say then others in how things should be run. You are not elitist. You are just n the hobby for other reasons. Which is fine.

After thinking this over, I've got a sort of more to add to an opinion.

I know a lot of guys that don't paint their models for a while because they're still deciding on a paint scheme. Others hire a painter for their models, and painters-for-hire in my area stay busy year round- I mean, I just got my Deathwatch back after purchasing them last year and playing with "black primer, one silver arm and shoulder" for like 6 months until my painter could get some free time. I'm doing the same with my Raptors.

Hell, nowadays a lot of guys I know have a primer-painted Army, and a Kill Team painted in full detail to completion because there are a lot more kill-team games happening during weekdays.

There's also a lot of people I know who have 'basic colors' painted on their models- one or two paint colors- and they will keep them that way for years without trying to add more to it than a basic slapjob, and I won't lie- that annoys me.

Making stores 'ban' unpainted models... counterproductive. You want to have people in that store with their models playing on the table to 'advertise' the game quite often, and there are a few models I've seen in their default color that doesn't appeal to me, then I see an unpainted one fully assembled and I'm more interested in them- an example would be the Genestealer Cultists- the standard colors look boring, but then I realized that they would look good orange like some kind of Hazmat Cosmonaut or something.

And like I said, I can understand people holding off on painting. I'm not good at painting (though people tell me otherwise, I may judge myself a bit too harshly). Hell, the Raptors I'm working on now are green with a drybrush and some shade, the rest is a WIP with some friends helping me.

DeathKorp_Rider wrote:
So you are looking to turn people away from the game?

Look at who you're responding to and ask yourself honestly if that person really has to exercise any effort in driving people away from a game with him. His default setting is 'rude' online, man. Best thing you can do is tune that guy out, because you're about as likely to get a civil and reasonable conversation from that guy as you are to get a Honey Bun in an email from me.

Also if you know a way to email Honey Buns that would be awesome information to disclose because of reasons.

If I were of a mindset to run tournaments, I absolutely would bar people from participating with unpainted miniatures. On the other hand, I wouldn't be attending events that do allow unpainted armies and then complain about all the people with unpainted miniatures.

Someone mentioned painting boardgame pieces. Apart from my foray into painting Monopoly pieces 30 years ago, I don't bother. Primarily because all those boardgames with plastic minis tend not to be as good as the ones with counters and wooden blocks or meeples, so I generally don't own them. I did make a start on painting the minis from Doom: The Boardgame, but stopped playing that before I got further than one single marine, so I stripped him down again so he didn't stand out. I played Silver Tower with unpainted minis, and cringed a little, inside, every time I did so. I made sure I had Blackstone Fortress all painted before bringing that to the club.

 AndrewGPaul wrote:
If I were of a mindset to run tournaments, I absolutely would bar people from participating with unpainted miniatures. On the other hand, I wouldn't be attending events that do allow unpainted armies and then complain about all the people with unpainted miniatures.

Someone mentioned painting boardgame pieces. Apart from my foray into painting Monopoly pieces 30 years ago, I don't bother. Primarily because all those boardgames with plastic minis tend not to be as good as the ones with counters and wooden blocks or meeples, so I generally don't own them. I did make a start on painting the minis from Doom: The Boardgame, but stopped playing that before I got further than one single marine, so I stripped him down again so he didn't stand out. I played Silver Tower with unpainted minis, and cringed a little, inside, every time I did so. I made sure I had Blackstone Fortress all painted before bringing that to the club.

I'll play against any grey army and proxies as long as it's somewhat clear what they are and I get a few takebacks if my mistakes are based on the lack of correct model/painted models on my opponent's part.
BUT! Tournaments should always have enforced rules about painted, based and WYSIWYG models. Maybe one or two proxies are okay, but it should be an exception, not a rule.
Unpainted army? No tournament for you!
Small local tournaments can be way more relaxed since it's basically just playing with pals anyway, though such an event with some paint requirements can be good incentive for people to paint.

I'd like to agree with the point several people have made about painted models: Unit identification is FAR easier with painted models. Unit identification is IMO so important that I stopped doing 'realistic' camo over a decade ago, because it made it hard for ME to identify which unit was which, never mind an opponent who was unfamiliar with my models. These days, I'll put my Tau HQ units on slightly larger bases (32mm vs 25mm) to make them easier to pick out, or include areas of strong contrast on my weapons to make them easy to identify. My gun drones are painted differently from my shield drones and you can tell which is which across the table. Squad sergeants get different colored helmets - etcetera.

A big grey horde, however, is a problem. I've seen people pull of casualties of their special weapons or leaders from the grey horde. I've seen them pull off models from different units by accident, or remove HQ units when they should have pulled off a trooper. I've seen them completely confuse one unit for another, similar unit with different equipment. Of course, I've seen this with painted units as well, but not nearly as often.

Painting your models makes it easier for you, and easier for your opponent, to have a fair game that moves smoothly. This is IMO the primary reason tournaments should have a 'painted armies only' rule, along with WYSIWYG.

Like I said earlier, I'll play an unpainted army, but that person is NOT making the experience a smooth and enjoyable one, even if we put aesthetic considerations aside. They are forcing me to constantly guess and double check about their army because from 2-3 feet away a grey blob is a grey blob.

DeathKorp_Rider wrote:

 Stormatious wrote:
Ok now this has become official uncivil. Come on please stop, i dont want another locked grey thread.

Exactly

Notice how one person has vehemently worked to get these threads locked. Don’t lock the thread, just give the bird a suspension. It’s that simple. Everyone is rather civil until she shows up. One toxic user to get rid of, and the thread is fine. I mean, arguing with the mod and telling him why he’s so wrong...after getting two similar threads locked in the past couple weeks...just suspend her and get it over with, so the rest of us can enjoy these sorts of discussions.

 John Prins wrote:

Like I said earlier, I'll play an unpainted army, but that person is NOT making the experience a smooth and enjoyable one, even if we put aesthetic considerations aside. They are forcing me to constantly guess and double check about their army because from 2-3 feet away a grey blob is a grey blob.

Yup, played against a DE player the other week. Now I'll preface this by saying what was painted was painted amazingly (and converted too. The Haemonculus made from the AM HQ guy was spot on. ) and he was a great opponent. However, them Reavers, which had not been painted yet (okay, the unit leader on the grav windsurfing board was fething cool ) were a bit of a shock to me when I discovered they had 3 Blasters in the unit, which I would have seen a lot easier had they been painted.

On a side note as well, unpainted stuff just looks a mess to me. I've just finished making my own converted Lord Discordant on his ol' Murderpede and it's a mishmash of green stuff, metal bits, Reaper bones, bare plastic and other bits and pre undercoat it looks off to anyone not named me as they don't know what bit is what. I do, as I sculpted them. All of these bits will become apparent when I paint it (or at the very least undercoat it), but right now I look at it just to the right of me as I'm typing this and see what a mess it looks right now and wonder how anyone could think that would look good to put on the table.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 timetowaste85 wrote:

DeathKorp_Rider wrote:

 Stormatious wrote:
Ok now this has become official uncivil. Come on please stop, i dont want another locked grey thread.

Exactly

Notice how one person has vehemently worked to get these threads locked. Don’t lock the thread, just give the bird a suspension. It’s that simple. Everyone is rather civil until she shows up. One toxic user to get rid of, and the thread is fine. I mean, arguing with the mod and telling him why he’s so wrong...after getting two similar threads locked in the past couple weeks...just suspend her and get it over with, so the rest of us can enjoy these sorts of discussions.

Wait....

Lil pontificating Perri's a woman?

Oops just seen my earlier post did make it through.

Different strokes for different folks. A private tournament/game runner absolutely has the right to stipulate the rules under which models can enter.

When they start trying to complain that public games should bend to their opinions is when it becomes a problem.

 timetowaste85 wrote:

DeathKorp_Rider wrote:

 Stormatious wrote:
Ok now this has become official uncivil. Come on please stop, i dont want another locked grey thread.

Exactly

Notice how one person has vehemently worked to get these threads locked. Don’t lock the thread, just give the bird a suspension. It’s that simple. Everyone is rather civil until she shows up. One toxic user to get rid of, and the thread is fine. I mean, arguing with the mod and telling him why he’s so wrong...after getting two similar threads locked in the past couple weeks...just suspend her and get it over with, so the rest of us can enjoy these sorts of discussions.

While Peregrine is a consistently negative and toxic influence in this type of thread (and many others), they've hardly been the only poster racing towards the bottom.

"Should people be obliged to paint?" needs to be banned as a topic of discussion, like politics was. This board collectively fails at being capable of civility on the matter, and every thread turns out the same, with zero exceptions.

So I've said it before, but my opinions are pretty simple and bland. I like painting miniatures, and I like playing with and against painted miniatures. I will, however, just as easily play with and against unpainted miniatures (in fact, I just played a game yesterday with unpainted miniatures, though in my defense I spent all my hobby time painting an army for a tournament this past weekend). I also use printed tokens and paper standees for certain projects.

I do consider painting and painted miniatures an intrinsic part of the miniature wargaming as a whole, although I do understand the argument that it may not be a part of an individual's hobby. I think "tradition" is a valid argument. HG Wells painted his miniatures and terrain when he played, and the expectation continues. Most rulebooks talk about the painting of miniatures.

I encourage incremental painting and painted units - paint 15-30 minutes a day, and that time adds up. Finish a unit a month, and you'll eventually have a painted army. I also think people get into a headspace where they want their miniatures to look like what's on the box or in the articles they see online or in magazines. The process becomes too involved and intimidating. If they pulled back and painted with simpler techniques and using the three-foot rule, then I don't think painting would be seen as such a hassle. I also don't have a problem with people sending out their miniatures to be painted by others (entering those miniatures into a painting competition part of a tournament, on the other hand, should always be forbidden).

I do think there are times when painted miniatures should be required - tournaments and shows/conventions. The shows/convention assumption is pretty simple. We're putting on displays of our hobby, so we want it to look as good as possible. I also like it when tournaments have painting requirements.

So yeah. TLDR; I'll play with and against unpainted miniatures, but I prefer painted, and painting is an intrinsic part of the hobby.

 Grimtuff wrote:

 timetowaste85 wrote:

DeathKorp_Rider wrote:

 Stormatious wrote:
Ok now this has become official uncivil. Come on please stop, i dont want another locked grey thread.

Exactly

Notice how one person has vehemently worked to get these threads locked. Don’t lock the thread, just give the bird a suspension. It’s that simple. Everyone is rather civil until she shows up. One toxic user to get rid of, and the thread is fine. I mean, arguing with the mod and telling him why he’s so wrong...after getting two similar threads locked in the past couple weeks...just suspend her and get it over with, so the rest of us can enjoy these sorts of discussions.

Wait....

Lil pontificating Perri's a woman?

Not that it actually matters, since a toxic poster is a toxic poster, but yeah, seems that way.


Honestly, on the topic though...I love painting. It's what originally got me into the hobby. But I also love building/converting, and sometimes THAT itch is stronger. So I have a pile of unpainted grey still. But I'm working through it. And I try to field painted models every chance I get, and avoid grey plastic as much as possible. Let's face it...when it's on the table, even a poorly painted army looks better than grey plastic. But it should be enjoyed; not rammed down peoples' throats to play for fun in such a militaristic way that they get told "paint, or GTFO of this hobby". Tournaments with requirements are one thing, since it's written into the rules of the tournament. But a pickup game? Hell no. I like when tournaments give a "reward" to painted armies over unpainted, but if they insist models be painted for a tournament...that's a rule of the tournament.

And yes, any time I've gone to a tournament that required the models be painted, I made sure every last one was painted (even if it wasn't my best work).

I'll never understand where some people get off telling others what they can and cant do. Unfortunately it seems their self-worth is directly tied to their gatekeeping.

You should want to paint your models, but if you dont that's ok too.

I would much rather play against a nice player with all grey than an as shole with a fully painted one.

When I do play against another fully painted army;
1. My immersion level goes up.
2. it looks visually stunning once in combat. (Think about the best batreps on YouTube, I have yet to watch one with all grey)
3. I take pictures

I still have fun playing the game whether or not my opponent is all grey. since starting back up w 8th I have tried to help others @ my flgs with their painting. It is much easier to teach/help someone to paint than to just give them the brush off.

Once again there's a wide range of opinion on the subject covering the whole spectrum. Back in my RT days as a teenager I didn't paint my miniatures and nor did my friends. Now, in 8th edition, I have a fully painted army, and so does everyone at my local gaming group. It's certainly nice to see two fully painted armies on the table, but I'd still be happy to play against an unpainted army.

<----- EDIT: Except this guy. He's my avatar, not part of my army, and is therefore my only unpainted miniature

Racerguy180 wrote:
I'll never understand where some people get off telling others what they can and cant do. Unfortunately it seems their self-worth is directly tied to their gatekeeping.

You should want to paint your models, but if you dont that's ok too.

I would much rather play against a nice player with all grey than an as shole with a fully painted one.

When I do play against another fully painted army;
1. My immersion level goes up.
2. it looks visually stunning once in combat. (Think about the best batreps on YouTube, I have yet to watch one with all grey)
3. I take pictures

I still have fun playing the game whether or not my opponent is all grey. since starting back up w 8th I have tried to help others @ my flgs with their painting. It is much easier to teach/help someone to paint than to just give them the brush off.

I have to say that you have pretty much captured my feelings on the subject!

In my gaming community there is a wide variety of painting on display on any given tabletop. A few players with absolutely stunning forces on the tabletop, a few with a grey tide and the rest of us in between. I can't think of a time when I have put unpainted minis on the table for a game at the FLGS, but I wouldn't even think of refusing a game due to lack of painting by my opponent. Our annual Club Championships require "fully painted" armies and have a strong painting component to the final score, but the other tournaments are more relaxed as far as painting goes. As the Flames of War tournament organizer I have yet to make painting mandatory for tourneys - yes, even "historical wargamers" have been known to play with unpainted miniatures.

I have one opponent who rarely has fully painted models but I really enjoy playing against him. His lists are both varied and good, he is a skilled player and also fun to throw dice with a couple of hours. I can absolutely look past the army of black undercoat to see a great opponent. Refusing a game would diminish my own enjoyment.

 Yodhrin wrote:

 insaniak wrote:

 Snake Tortoise wrote:

 Excommunicatus wrote:
I really, really, really, really, don't care what other people do with their time, money and possessions.

Fair enough, but it affects the opponent's experience too. I also don't care what other people do with their time, but I do when my time is affected

It doesn't affect your experience unless you choose to allow it to do so. If you don't want to paint against unpainted minis, don't.

All that's being said is that if you choose that path, acknowledge that you're doing it due to your own preferences, rather than because the other guy is somehow in the wrong.

Again - is it wrong to expect people to properly assemble their models? Is it wrong to expect people to have a reasonable grasp of the rules?

If it is, then why are those things extremely widely accepted, to the point where I've rarely ever encountered anyone who didn't meet that expectation? And if it isn't, then why is it wrong to also expect the same level of effort when it comes to painting?

Because some people, no matter how hard they try, just cannot paint to the standard THEY want for their minis? Maybe they have more important things to do with their time than paint hundreds of minis trying to learn how to paint them well? And maybe they have more important things to do with their money than pay someone else to do it? And all in all they think bare grey plastic looks better on THEIR minis - not your minis, THEIR minis - than a crummy paint job?

In the end it's your - YOUR - choice to play them or not. If they didn't want to play, they wouldn't have bought the minis and shown up at the game store with them, right? But don't pretend that YOUR not the one making that choice.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Elbows wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:

 Elbows wrote:
That would, arguably, very much depend on your definition of 'elitism' wouldn't it?

How about this one.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elitism
Elitism is the belief or attitude that individuals who form an elite—a select group of people with a certain ancestry, intrinsic quality, high intellect, wealth, special skills, or experience—are more likely to be constructive to society as a whole, and therefore deserve influence or authority greater than that of others.

The attitude of the individuals that believe that painted models have an intrisic quality that makes them more constructive to the hobby as a whole and therefore they deserve influence or authority to set policies of exclusion against those that dont have painted models.

Like how as of now 20 people voted that plastic bare models should not "be allowed".

For the sake of this discusion if i say elitist or elitism thats the definition im going with. Got one thats better?

I'm actually concerned that you believe painting miniatures is some kind of societal blight, and that hobbyists are setting policies....(unless you mean owners of businesses, because they absolutely have the authority to determine what goes on in their events/property).

I'm actually concerned that you misconstrued his post that badly.

Now that you've had some time, re-read his post and see if you think your response is still appropriate. Because from here it looks an awful lot like a straw-man.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Stormatious wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:

 Stormatious wrote:

Spoiler:

 Lance845 wrote:

 Elbows wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:

 Elbows wrote:
That would, arguably, very much depend on your definition of 'elitism' wouldn't it?

How about this one.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elitism
Elitism is the belief or attitude that individuals who form an elite—a select group of people with a certain ancestry, intrinsic quality, high intellect, wealth, special skills, or experience—are more likely to be constructive to society as a whole, and therefore deserve influence or authority greater than that of others.

The attitude of the individuals that believe that painted models have an intrisic quality that makes them more constructive to the hobby as a whole and therefore they deserve influence or authority to set policies of exclusion against those that dont have painted models.

Like how as of now 20 people voted that plastic bare models should not "be allowed".

For the sake of this discusion if i say elitist or elitism thats the definition im going with. Got one thats better?

I'm actually concerned that you believe painting miniatures is some kind of societal blight, and that hobbyists are setting policies....(unless you mean owners of businesses, because they absolutely have the authority to determine what goes on in their events/property).

No, I am saying that Peregrine, Stormacious, and others like them push an elitist ideology over a petty game. A game in a niche genre of games that could be really enjoyable for a lot more people except that their attitude IS toxic and has pushed people out from ever starting (I have mentioned in the past that I have seen this happen first hand). Peregrine and Stormacious are not quiet about WANTING to set policies. And in rebuttal, they should more or less be shunned.

It's the logical conclusion to the stance they take.

No ones shunning any one or telling them to go away, its just re in forcing what supposedly goes hand in hand with the "hobby" not "petty game", its like i said, go to sports match without the correct gear and you will probably be ok to still play, but that doesn't mean vigorious reminders and strong encouragment to do it the way its supposed to be done properly should't happen, because if it doesn't happen, what is the result?, it is watering down and disassembling the core structure of what makes the hobby what it is.

"Correct gear" for a sport is to save peoples lives and or ensure fairness and a even playing field across different venues. Paint does none of those things. You have a false equivalency there. Get a better argument. Playing a game of 40k is just that. A game. Te hobby that surrounds it in the form of lore, painting and modeling is all well and good but the one does not set policy for the other. The only thing that matters for the game is the rules of the game. There is no rule requiring paint.

If it disassembles your elitism, good. Disassemble away.

Actually paint helps your opponent easily identify troop types/weapons ...

Ah... not really. How does painting your whole army blue with black weapons and white trim help me identify all-black weapon A from all-black weapons B, C, and D? How does painting the overall mini blue help me distinguish blue squad A from blue squads B, C, and D?

I've played against 'grey legion' and I've played against painted armies. I still have to squint and look closely to see whether that's an assault squad or a tactical squad; a melta from a plasma from a bolter.

Ironically, one of the easiest 'weapon ID' armies I've played against was primed white and washed in black; a 'high contrast' grey legion, if you will. Made identifying the weapons dead easy from across the table. Looked... well, I've seen better, but it certainly busts your argument that painting minis to your standard helps make them easy to identify.

EDIT: I was going to read the rest of this thread, but it's clear it's run it's usual course. It's already failed to remain civil, and I expect it will only become even more uncivil as time passes.

So.... yeah. I'm done. Go ahead and throw poo at each other until the thread inevitably gets locked. I've got painting to do.

I dont like this threads polls at all, the question is merkey and unclear. Should unpainted minis be allowed? but no specifics at all, people might think unpainted minis should be allowed between a extremely causal game between some good friends, or mabye they think they should be allowed as long as its not the whole army. So this thread should have been shut down ages ago before every one had seen the poll that is vague and spreads a mis conception.

Edit - Other threads asking this question in a specific manner have had the majority voting for Painted minis are preferred over greys and would rather have them painted but dont mind. ( so GW LOVES THIS THREAD )

It's not unclear at all, it's a simple yes or no question on whether someone will allow unpainted minis or not. You just don't like it because the results don't agree with your assertions.

 Platuan4th wrote:
It's not unclear at all, it's a simple yes or no question on whether someone will allow unpainted minis or not. You just don't like it because the results don't agree with your assertions.

"should painted minis be allowed", how is that clear, what situation are they referring to, how often is it ok etc etc etc. Its very unclear.

 Stormatious wrote:

 Platuan4th wrote:
It's not unclear at all, it's a simple yes or no question on whether someone will allow unpainted minis or not. You just don't like it because the results don't agree with your assertions.

"should painted minis be allowed", how is that clear, what situation are they referring to, how often is it ok etc etc etc. Its very unclear.

No, it's not, you're just trying to add conditions because you want different results. It's a very simple question: Should unpainted models be allowed in 40K, yes or no?

 Platuan4th wrote:

 Stormatious wrote:

 Platuan4th wrote:
It's not unclear at all, it's a simple yes or no question on whether someone will allow unpainted minis or not. You just don't like it because the results don't agree with your assertions.

"should painted minis be allowed", how is that clear, what situation are they referring to, how often is it ok etc etc etc. Its very unclear.

No, it's not, you're just trying to add conditions because you want different results. It's a very simple question: Should painted models be allow in 40K, yes or no?

No you're wrong, its not clear, explain to me how the poll question is telling us what kind of situation or how often greys should be allowed. If you don't understand the question posed if incredibly vague i cant help you sorry.