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.

 Mmmpi wrote:

Wait...Me telling you that you your pushing your standards onto other people is me gatekeeping, despite me saying that I have no issues with what standards you hold yourself to?

No, that's not what I meant. I meant why you think demanding some basic asethetic standards in LARPs or reenactments is fine but doing the same in wargames is not?

You think it looks like gak. Maybe the person you're playing with agrees with you. Maybe they don't care. It's none of your business. You don't have to play them, but if you do, you have to live with it.
40K rules break immersion much more than a lack of paint does. You expect 'extra' effort. Other people might not. Again, that's you pushing your values onto them as some arbetrary limiter on 'what's acceptable'. It has as much berring on the game as if I refused to play you because you drove a Honda to the game.

GW shows painted armies because they want to sell miniatures. Cool pictures sell well. Historical wargaming isn't 40K. Lets compare apples to apples, not apples to dachshunds.

The reason you don't understand is that you're trying your hardest not to understand. You've decided that your way is the best, and that anyone who thinks otherwise is lazy.

The reason that you don't understand that in miniature wargaming painting the bloody models is a normal and expected part of the process just like dressing up for LARPS and wearing trousers at work is that you're trying your hardest not to understand.

 JNAProductions wrote:
None of us have said "You HAVE to play against unpainted minis".

In fact, I directly said "If you don't want to play with unpainted minis, also totally fine."

But to say that EVERYONE has to enjoy the hobby in the same way seems... At a minimum, foolish, and at it's most extreme, really flipping rude.

I agree with Freeflow44 here. I've gotten hate for this before on Dakka - but I don't play against players with unpainted minis. We would never play a pick up game if you frequented my local store / you wouldnt be able to enter any tournaments or events.

As Freeflow44 stated - you can have your own rules to enjoy the hobby.

 ValentineGames wrote:

Let's be honest.
It'd be like using an American as an average standard of human.

Speaking as an American, that's never a good idea. Psychologically Americans hit way too many statistical outliers.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Crimson wrote:

 Mmmpi wrote:

Wait...Me telling you that you your pushing your standards onto other people is me gatekeeping, despite me saying that I have no issues with what standards you hold yourself to?

No, that's not what I meant. I meant why you think demanding some basic asethetic standards in LARPs or reenactments is fine but doing the same in wargames is not?

Because for Larping the costumes are the point. For historical reenactment it's the historical accuracy (don't show up with the wrong uniform, even if it's period appropriate). For 40K, the point is the game. I'm pretty sure I've already said that about 40K.

You think it looks like gak. Maybe the person you're playing with agrees with you. Maybe they don't care. It's none of your business. You don't have to play them, but if you do, you have to live with it.
40K rules break immersion much more than a lack of paint does. You expect 'extra' effort. Other people might not. Again, that's you pushing your values onto them as some arbetrary limiter on 'what's acceptable'. It has as much berring on the game as if I refused to play you because you drove a Honda to the game.

GW shows painted armies because they want to sell miniatures. Cool pictures sell well. Historical wargaming isn't 40K. Lets compare apples to apples, not apples to dachshunds.

The reason you don't understand is that you're trying your hardest not to understand. You've decided that your way is the best, and that anyone who thinks otherwise is lazy.

The reason that you don't understand that in miniature wargaming painting the bloody models is a normal and expected part of the process just like dressing up for LARPS and wearing trousers at work is that you're trying your hardest not to understand.

Nope. You're trying to force your personal views on other people, and now can't understand the fact that you're getting push back.

 Mmmpi wrote:

Because for Larping the costumes are the point.

Most certainly not. It is a form of roleplaying game, the game and narrative are the point. The costumes are just and extra layer of visuality which makes the experience more enjoyable and immersive. Exactly like the painted models in a wargame.

Nope. You're trying to force your personal views on other people, and now can't understand the fact that you're getting push back.

I understand perfectly well why. There is always the sort of people who get angry if someone tells them what to do (a very American trait BTW,) even if that thing was most basic and normal part of whatever social interaction they're participating in.

 Stevefamine wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
None of us have said "You HAVE to play against unpainted minis".

In fact, I directly said "If you don't want to play with unpainted minis, also totally fine."

But to say that EVERYONE has to enjoy the hobby in the same way seems... At a minimum, foolish, and at it's most extreme, really flipping rude.

I agree with Freeflow44 here. I've gotten hate for this before on Dakka - but I don't play against players with unpainted minis. We would never play a pick up game if you frequented my local store / you wouldnt be able to enter any tournaments or events.

As Freeflow44 stated - you can have your own rules to enjoy the hobby.

As I already said ITT- IME the Venn diagram of unpainted models and unbearable meta chasing bellend is an almost perfect circle.

With the exception close friends I simply won’t play opponents with unpainted stuff until they have proven to me they are not a chore to play. Too many bad experiences from WMH with the above.

 Crimson wrote:

 Mmmpi wrote:

Because for Larping the costumes are the point.

Most certainly not. It is a form of roleplaying game, the game and narrative are the point. The costumes are just and extra layer of visuality which makes the experience more enjoyable and immersive. Exactly like the painted models in a wargame.

Completely different. If it were what you say, they'd just play D&D*.

*or some other TT game.

 Mmmpi wrote:

 Crimson wrote:

 Mmmpi wrote:

Because for Larping the costumes are the point.

Most certainly not. It is a form of roleplaying game, the game and narrative are the point. The costumes are just and extra layer of visuality which makes the experience more enjoyable and immersive. Exactly like the painted models in a wargame.

Completely different. If it were what you say, they'd just play D&D*.

*or some other TT game.

Depends on the LARP, there are Syfy nerf versions that are LOADS of fun for non-LARP people, we run these and no one dresses up, b.c its the fun of getting friends together and playing 4-5 games, leveling up guns, getting new guns, etc.. but i also have another 2 group of friends that the entire point is weapons and army, so you need to dress up, now one is no dress code b.c its all tournament style combat and the weapons are bright reds/yellows/greens, etc.. so the judges can see, but it is still LARP as its 30 vs 30 in woods, etc., the other is full gear b.c its more about the looks.

So it really depends what group you are in.

I love to play fully painted,
At home with friends we have sometimes unpainted things for try or still not rdy but everyone try to paint as much as he can.
It's just a totaly other play feeling for me with painted Modells and nice terrain.

I have no problem to play vs unpainted but I don't like it

 Crimson wrote:

 Mmmpi wrote:

The minimum group standard for Larping and reenactments involves the pagentry.

And why you find this acceptable and not elitist gatekeeping? It is the fething same thing. Sure, you could do a fantasy LARP in your jeans, it still works, just like you can play with unpainted 40K models. It just looks like gak and the breaks immersion. And in both of these putting some effort into the visuals is what is expected. GW always shows painted armies and in historical wargaming people wouldn't dream of playing with unpainted models. I really don't understand why this phenomenon even exists, seem to be mostly just a Warhammer and fantasy wargaming problem.

And it is totally acceptable to exclude the dude in jeans from playing in your LARP campaign.

What I have a problem with is you going over to another group of LARPers who aren't dressed up and insulting how they are playing their game. Calling them lazy or WAAC or whatever other insults you want to throw their way because they don't fit into the box that you have drawn around how you think the hobby should be played.

It also seems weird to call someone lazy because they don't want to spend more time on their hobbies. Calling the guy who hasn't finished painting his army lazy while giving a pass to the guy who gets it commissioned shows just how flawed and biased this reasoning is.

If you can't see this difference it's because (like others have said) you intentionally don't. No one in this thread is saying you shouldn't play the game the way you want to other than the side that insists that not painting your models is a sin against GW and if you are not doing it their way then you are attacking the institution of 40k and should be banned from all play until you get your gak together.

The same way a beautiful table with two golden demon award winning armies will encourage people to pick-up the game, seeing games at less than studio quality will also encourage people to pick-up the game as the barrier to entry doesn't seem as high. I want to encourage non-traditional nerds to pick up 40k and give it a try. People that are into sci-fi or are coming by the shop to pick-up a board game and happen to see a diverse playing group with varying levels of competitive to beer and pretzels games going on, IMHO, is the best way to encourage more people to play the game.

Guys, if we could kindly tone things down a bit and stay on target, that would be great.

Modeling is first, painting is second. I do not play.

If I had it my way, I would never play a single miniature wargame with unpainted miniatures.

I like playing Warhammer and the likes, but not so much that I can't just wait until I finish painting my army before I use it. If I can't have the complete experience - with fully painted miniatures and terrain - then I'll just go play something else instead, like a video game or a board game. I'm more interested in the immersive interactive diorama side of things than the 'game' itself, personally.

Some of this is coloured by the fact that, as a kid, I used to play Warhammer and very often I'd get an army, work on it and slowly paint it while playing with it unpainted - then by the time I actually finished painting it, I'd get bored of it and move onto the next thing. As a result, all I'd ever do is play with half painted armies. Had I just waited a month or two in the first instance, or focussed on smaller point games for a while, I could have held off until the army was painted - then by the time I get bored of it, my next project would be finished and ready for the table top.

This is not to say that I'm not going to have patience with someone new to the hobby who wants to play the game while they get their models finished, but given the choice to stay at home and play a video game or play a game of Warhammer with an adult who has been playing miniature wargaming for 3-4 years and wants to field an unpainted army? I'll take staying at home. We're probably not going to be compatible in what we're getting from the game anyway.

Also, I have absolutely no problem with people who want to play with unpainted miniatures playing against each other. You do you. The hobby is for everyone, and everyone gets different things out of it - if you're super into just the gaming portion, then that's great and more power to you - as long as I don't get socially pressured myself into playing you, as I don't find playing unpainted wargames appealing or exciting at all.

Painting is fairly important to me. The whole hobby side of the game is what motivates me to buy more models and start new armies. I won't be winning any painting competitions soon, but I still take pride in my work, especially when I deploy my army in front of a first-time opponent. To me, painting your models is about taking ownership of them and making them uniquely yours. Once an army is painted, there is no other like it.

I almost never use unpainted models. If I really must, I make sure to at least prime the model.

I'm fairly tolerant of players who bring unpainted models, but if they seem to be making no progress over time, I will grow quietly annoyed, I must admit. "Do you even like your army?"

To me? Very important.

To others? Don't care one bit.

I enjoy the painting aspect (pretty much all I enjoy these days), but I wouldn't dream of projecting my priorities unto others.

Might as well complain about the opponents army not having a fully fleshed back story and named characters.....or their army composition being sub-optimal.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Three things will happen in this thread;

1. People who doesn't enjoy painting will be categorised as lazy TFGs and meta-chasing power games ruining the fun for others.

2. People who do enjoy painting will have a hard time understanding how other people don't.

3. Some people will try to argue, that what THEY find enjoyable, is objectively the most important aspect of the game.

Steelmage99 wrote:



Automatically Appended Next Post:
Three things will happen in this thread;

1. People who doesn't enjoy painting will be categorised as lazy TFGs and meta-chasing power games ruining the fun for others.

2. People who do enjoy painting will have a hard time understanding how other people don't.

3. Some people will try to argue, that what THEY find enjoyable, is objectively the most important aspect of the game.

All of this has already happened, so you would be correct!

You don't have to paint, but nobody has to play you. I wouldn't want to take photos with bare or poorly done models on the table. You should also be kept out of tournaments by the painting requirement. See wm events, a nightmare of tokens, cards, and bare metal. No matter how you spin the "I don't have time or interest" excuse you're stuff still looks horrible. It's fine to prioritize rules but I don't know why you play 40k then, play other games like wm, mtg, star wars prepaints, etc.

I can't afford to paint all my models again, and some of my models look like they were straight up dipped in paint. Because I was once slightly worse than I am now. I choose to at least basecoat my models before I play with them, maybe a few offset layers like red hair on custodes, or black/silver on guns.

But it helps me know what is what on the board without having to waste time, and I expect the same basic courtesy from an opponent. I will still play and Adepticus Plasticus force, but it takes longer because I have to constantly ask "What is that" and "what's it's loadout/chapter/etc" because it doesn't have a convienent sign (paint scheme) for me to quickly and accurately ID.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 BrookM wrote:
Guys, if we could kindly tone things down a bit and stay on target, that would be great.

Can you tell me where this gif came from? It looks like some form of weird WW2 anime. I want to watch it!

 FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:


Can you tell me where this gif came from? It looks like some form of weird WW2 anime. I want to watch it!

Pretty sure it is from the Pearl Jam music video Do the Evolution. She is death/war.

0/5 for me. I don't like painting...I have painted a couple of models and it was miserable. I got into Warhammer (AoS and 40K) for the warGAME aspect of it. Luckily the most of the people in my group have two brain cells to rub together and believe in to each their own. Some of them have great paint schemes while I have my box grey army and we have had some amazing games that we still talk about. There is a guy in our group who will play with anyone, but has made it very clear that thinks everyone should be forced to paint and be WYSIWYG so I don't play that guy and we get along great otherwise.

Anyone saying that unpainted armies break the immersion for them is full of crap, do the giant cubes falling from the sky on your soldiers not break Immersion? What about the massive tape measure hovering in the sky or the grass growing were ever your space marine's boot steps?

4/5 for me, though arguably I could have put 3/5. I like bringing something nice to the table and I'll always take painting as a chance to improve on my skills, but truth be told I will always prefer the building part of the hobby, and I happen to find that part infinitely less frustrating when the going is tough than when I'm having a bad time with a paintbrush.

I do like it more when other people bring a painted army than now, even if it's basic, but it's not a deal/immersion breaker for me.

I hate painting. I love playing 40k, my primary interest in 40k used to be playing a game like Warcraft, C&C or StarCraft as a collectible board game (boy, was I wrong ).
I also love playing with painted models, so recently my models have been picking up paint jobs, and I've gotten faster and better, too.
Still over a hundred unpainted orks left, but less than a dozen Death Guard. If you face my orks, there will be unpainted models among them.

Obviously, I won't judge anyone for not painting - but please do bring proper models.

Also gotta love all the logical fallacies in this thread.
"Anyone who is ok with not painting, thinks pop cans are fine for terrain" - no, I don't think so. Immersion doesn't go from 100% to 0% because there are two thin layers of paint missing.
"Anyone who doesn't paint is just chasing the meta" - most of my unpainted models have been in my possession for almost a decade, and my competitive models are more likely to be painted than bad ones, as I'm more motivated to paint models which actually see play a lot/did well in a game.
"If you aren't painting, you should not be playing 40k" - Except, I'm in the hobby to play, not to paint. It is possible to play the game without painting, so why shouldn't I? Might as well say that anyone who doesn't play the game should stop painting and building models

 UncleJetMints wrote:


Anyone saying that unpainted armies break the immersion for them is full of crap, do the giant cubes falling from the sky on your soldiers not break Immersion? What about the massive tape measure hovering in the sky or the grass growing were ever your space marine's boot steps?

You do realise that immersion is not an all-or-nothing thing? There's a whole spectrum from unpainted, unassembled models playing on the living room floor over a battlefield of books and soda cans through to fully painted models and beautifully modelled terrain boards. You're also claiming that you know people's own opinions better than they do, which is a pretty weird position. I find it equally weird that people are incapable of understanding this distinction.

For me, painting improves the game aesthetically and practically. Painted armies look better than unpainted, and nicely painted and themed terrain looks better than random objects stuck on the board. From a practical perspective it's easier to distinguish between equipment and different units when models are painted, which improves the gaming experience too. I don't expect my opponent to paint their models and won't refuse games against people who don't, though I di at least expect models to be assembled.

 Crimson wrote:

 Mmmpi wrote:

The minimum group standard for Larping and reenactments involves the pagentry.

And why you find this acceptable and not elitist gatekeeping? It is the fething same thing. Sure, you could do a fantasy LARP in your jeans, it still works, just like you can play with unpainted 40K models. It just looks like gak and the breaks immersion. And in both of these putting some effort into the visuals is what is expected. GW always shows painted armies and in historical wargaming people wouldn't dream of playing with unpainted models. I really don't understand why this phenomenon even exists, seem to be mostly just a Warhammer and fantasy wargaming problem.

No it's not.

40k is a boardgame. Playing a game of 40k is no different then playing a game of risk. It's baseline standards is following the rules.

There are other aspects of the hobby that people CAN participate in but are not required to.


Historical reenactment isn't about playing a game. It's about historical reenactment.

 Irkjoe wrote:
You don't have to paint, but nobody has to play you.

That goes both ways. No one has to play someone being a jerk over something subjective.

I wouldn't want to take photos with bare or poorly done models on the table.

...no one expects you to. Do you often photograph games without permission?

You should also be kept out of tournaments by the painting requirement.

Considering most 40K tourmaments have painting requirements, I'm not sure what you're getting at.

See wm events, a nightmare of tokens, cards, and bare metal.

Different game *yawn*

No matter how you spin the "I don't have time or interest" excuse you're stuff still looks horrible.

Your opinion. Some people feel otherwise. I know at least two people who don't do anything more than prime/ink because they think their models look worse with their skill of painting.

It's fine to prioritize rules but I don't know why you play 40k then, play other games like wm, mtg, star wars prepaints, etc.

You only don't understand because you choose not to. Several people have said why they don't in this thread. Not that difficult a concept.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Lance845 wrote:

 Crimson wrote:

 Mmmpi wrote:

The minimum group standard for Larping and reenactments involves the pagentry.

And why you find this acceptable and not elitist gatekeeping? It is the fething same thing. Sure, you could do a fantasy LARP in your jeans, it still works, just like you can play with unpainted 40K models. It just looks like gak and the breaks immersion. And in both of these putting some effort into the visuals is what is expected. GW always shows painted armies and in historical wargaming people wouldn't dream of playing with unpainted models. I really don't understand why this phenomenon even exists, seem to be mostly just a Warhammer and fantasy wargaming problem.

No it's not.

40k is a boardgame. Playing a game of 40k is no different then playing a game of risk. It's baseline standards is following the rules.

There are other aspects of the hobby that people CAN participate in but are not required to.


Historical reenactment isn't about playing a game. It's about historical reenactment.

Amen.

 Lance845 wrote:

 Crimson wrote:

 Mmmpi wrote:

The minimum group standard for Larping and reenactments involves the pagentry.

And why you find this acceptable and not elitist gatekeeping? It is the fething same thing. Sure, you could do a fantasy LARP in your jeans, it still works, just like you can play with unpainted 40K models. It just looks like gak and the breaks immersion. And in both of these putting some effort into the visuals is what is expected. GW always shows painted armies and in historical wargaming people wouldn't dream of playing with unpainted models. I really don't understand why this phenomenon even exists, seem to be mostly just a Warhammer and fantasy wargaming problem.

No it's not.

40k is a boardgame. Playing a game of 40k is no different then playing a game of risk. It's baseline standards is following the rules.

There are other aspects of the hobby that people CAN participate in but are not required to.


Historical reenactment isn't about playing a game. It's about historical reenactment.

There is zero images in any GW publications of people playing with unpainted models. Where is the evidence that GW think that playing with unpainted models is the baseline? They would sell painted models if painting wasn't part of 40k, like X Wing.

 small_gods wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:

 Crimson wrote:

 Mmmpi wrote:

The minimum group standard for Larping and reenactments involves the pagentry.

And why you find this acceptable and not elitist gatekeeping? It is the fething same thing. Sure, you could do a fantasy LARP in your jeans, it still works, just like you can play with unpainted 40K models. It just looks like gak and the breaks immersion. And in both of these putting some effort into the visuals is what is expected. GW always shows painted armies and in historical wargaming people wouldn't dream of playing with unpainted models. I really don't understand why this phenomenon even exists, seem to be mostly just a Warhammer and fantasy wargaming problem.

No it's not.

40k is a boardgame. Playing a game of 40k is no different then playing a game of risk. It's baseline standards is following the rules.

There are other aspects of the hobby that people CAN participate in but are not required to.


Historical reenactment isn't about playing a game. It's about historical reenactment.

There is zero images in any GW publications of people playing with unpainted models. Where is the evidence that GW think that playing with unpainted models is the baseline? They would sell painted models if painting wasn't part of 40k, like X Wing.

I imagine the evidence is in the fact that the rulebook doesn't say that you have to paint.

 UncleJetMints wrote:

 small_gods wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:

 Crimson wrote:

 Mmmpi wrote:

The minimum group standard for Larping and reenactments involves the pagentry.

And why you find this acceptable and not elitist gatekeeping? It is the fething same thing. Sure, you could do a fantasy LARP in your jeans, it still works, just like you can play with unpainted 40K models. It just looks like gak and the breaks immersion. And in both of these putting some effort into the visuals is what is expected. GW always shows painted armies and in historical wargaming people wouldn't dream of playing with unpainted models. I really don't understand why this phenomenon even exists, seem to be mostly just a Warhammer and fantasy wargaming problem.

No it's not.

40k is a boardgame. Playing a game of 40k is no different then playing a game of risk. It's baseline standards is following the rules.

There are other aspects of the hobby that people CAN participate in but are not required to.


Historical reenactment isn't about playing a game. It's about historical reenactment.

There is zero images in any GW publications of people playing with unpainted models. Where is the evidence that GW think that playing with unpainted models is the baseline? They would sell painted models if painting wasn't part of 40k, like X Wing.

I imagine the evidence is in the fact that the rulebook doesn't say that you have to paint.

It also doesn't say that midels have to be assembled and stiod on their bases but that's implied by looking at every picture they release being of assembled models, stood up and painted.

 small_gods wrote:

 UncleJetMints wrote:

 small_gods wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:

 Crimson wrote:

 Mmmpi wrote:

The minimum group standard for Larping and reenactments involves the pagentry.

And why you find this acceptable and not elitist gatekeeping? It is the fething same thing. Sure, you could do a fantasy LARP in your jeans, it still works, just like you can play with unpainted 40K models. It just looks like gak and the breaks immersion. And in both of these putting some effort into the visuals is what is expected. GW always shows painted armies and in historical wargaming people wouldn't dream of playing with unpainted models. I really don't understand why this phenomenon even exists, seem to be mostly just a Warhammer and fantasy wargaming problem.

No it's not.

40k is a boardgame. Playing a game of 40k is no different then playing a game of risk. It's baseline standards is following the rules.

There are other aspects of the hobby that people CAN participate in but are not required to.


Historical reenactment isn't about playing a game. It's about historical reenactment.

There is zero images in any GW publications of people playing with unpainted models. Where is the evidence that GW think that playing with unpainted models is the baseline? They would sell painted models if painting wasn't part of 40k, like X Wing.

I imagine the evidence is in the fact that the rulebook doesn't say that you have to paint.

It also doesn't say that midels have to be assembled and stiod on their bases but that's implied by looking at every picture they release being of assembled models, stood up and painted.

Incorrect, the baseline rules of the game require measurements and los drawn to and from models and bases. Therefore the models and bases play a rules role and are required. Paint isn't.
You can enjoy painting. You can enjoy seeing others do the things you enjoy. To look down on others because they don't makes you a problem. Nobody gets to dictate how anyone else spends their time.

UncleJetMints wrote:0/5 for me. I don't like painting...I have painted a couple of models and it was miserable. I got into Warhammer (AoS and 40K) for the warGAME aspect of it. Luckily the most of the people in my group have two brain cells to rub together and believe in to each their own. Some of them have great paint schemes while I have my box grey army and we have had some amazing games that we still talk about. There is a guy in our group who will play with anyone, but has made it very clear that thinks everyone should be forced to paint and be WYSIWYG so I don't play that guy and we get along great otherwise.

Anyone saying that unpainted armies break the immersion for them is full of crap, do the giant cubes falling from the sky on your soldiers not break Immersion? What about the massive tape measure hovering in the sky or the grass growing were ever your space marine's boot steps?

Someone a few posts back mentioned the basic categories most post fall into. You can firmly put me the, 'If you aren't going to have painted models why bother group.' I just don't get it personally. Doubly so playing GW games. You are spending a lot of money to play a very mediocre game. Sure, you can have fun but you probably could have has that same level of fun with a good board game too. Plus, there are both cheaper and better miniatures war games out there. I suppose they aren't as popular, but it still seems like a lot of money for half the experience. And the lesser half at that to me.

On the first page you can see a photo list of a bunch of my more recent games. Almost all of them were against barely painted (like one unit) to barely built opposing armies. I managed to get what fun I could have out of them, but none came anywhere close to as enjoyable as they could have been. As for hating painting, I can kind of get it. I don't particularly like building models. It is just something that has been done (unlike painting). Have you ever considered finding out if someone if the group will do commissions? Chances are you can get someone to do a very basic 3-4 colors blocking job for much less than a dollar a model. Your army would look pretty good at that point and you could always go back and fill in the detail if your attitude toward painting changed.

Like I said, I can't really understand getting to this hobby and only doing about half of it. Especially when that half, in my opinion, isn't all that impressive.

Jidmah wrote:I hate painting. I love playing 40k, my primary interest in 40k used to be playing a game like Warcraft, C&C or StarCraft as a collectible board game (boy, was I wrong ).
I also love playing with painted models, so recently my models have been picking up paint jobs, and I've gotten faster and better, too.
Still over a hundred unpainted orks left, but less than a dozen Death Guard. If you face my orks, there will be unpainted models among them.

Obviously, I won't judge anyone for not painting - but please do bring proper models.

Also gotta love all the logical fallacies in this thread.
"Anyone who is ok with not painting, thinks pop cans are fine for terrain" - no, I don't think so. Immersion doesn't go from 100% to 0% because there are two thin layers of paint missing.
"Anyone who doesn't paint is just chasing the meta" - most of my unpainted models have been in my possession for almost a decade, and my competitive models are more likely to be painted than bad ones, as I'm more motivated to paint models which actually see play a lot/did well in a game.
"If you aren't painting, you should not be playing 40k" - Except, I'm in the hobby to play, not to paint. It is possible to play the game without painting, so why shouldn't I? Might as well say that anyone who doesn't play the game should stop painting and building models

You are completely correct on the immersion element. It is a finer gradient than Dakka Dakka's usually high contrast almost binary way they like to discuss things. Playing a game with two well painted armies and a nice looking table is the gold standard. Playing with any of those things missing is more like silver. And playing game where only your army is painted on a sparse, heavy-drybrushed terrain/bare mdf table versus an opponent with bare or primed models is more like a bronze standard. It works, but it is a pale reflection of what the game can be.

I think the meta chasing element is heading toward the usually high contrast, almost binary way Dakka Dakka like to discuss things. I wouldn't say a bare or only primed army is usually going to be owned by either a new or meta-chasing player. However, it can be a very good clue that they are. Funny enough, this is becoming less the case as many tournaments are bringing back painting requirements. Which I think is good in part as I believe basic modeling/painting standards isn't that high of a bar. I do think it is unfortunate that this aspect hasn't been adopted (at least in my area) by the PUG community or even the tournament players using PUGs as practice.

To be fair, you don't really need to have models on those bases either to play either. Throw a few Warmachine/hordes style 2d 'terrain' and you could easily play 40k that way too. Good luck getting in a game. In my area I have seen more than a couple games with barely built models too. One of them too a full minute of looking at a model from the corner of my eye to identify it as a Helldrake it was so incomplete. I really didn't want to be judgemental, but I could help to think that looked like garbage and I would be super embarrassed being seen in a store playing that way or playing a opponent that did that. New or not, there are people wandering the store that might walk by the table and see that kind of game. And I can't help to think that reflects badly on that store's gaming community making the game look so unattractive (not helped by the price of the models themselves) even if the players themselves are having a lot of fun. I seriously don't want to feel like I condemning it as badwrongfun, but it is nearly as off putting to me as someone that can't be bothered to shower before showing up. It is just basic consideration for all involved. Painting is much less that, but still in the same vein.

I am not going to say anything about my opponent's army. Well, I do draw the line at heavily unbuilt models. At the same time, I have yet to encounter someone that absolutely won't play an opponent for having painted models just because they are painted. I do like this quote though, "Orks are the greenest and the meanest. Bare plastic armies are the grayest and the okayest"

I, likewise, don't understand on any level why the Transformers movies all make a billion dollars in the theaters since they are total garbage but they do.

Not understanding why someone decides to spend their money and time on something you think is bad does not mean they are not welcome to go do that thing.

So the 40k game sucks and you are only in it for the painting. Cool. You don't get why anyone else would enjoy the game without the painting? So what? What relevance does your understanding have to do with anything?