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.

 Desubot wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
Because not everyone feels identically?

No one has an issue with painting being central to how you enjoy the hobby, just don’t force your views on others.

This be reasonable and goes both ways.

Dont get mad at people denying you games because you didn't want to paint your army.

that seems to be where most of these threads stem from. someone hypothetically got burned by an store or event because that private entity decided to gate-keep their community with painting restrictions.

Yeah-I've literally had someone say "Oh, I only want to play against a painted army. Sorry," after we were almost about to have a game.

Was a bit annoying to me, but I get it. People have their preferences, and I ain't gonna knock them for that.

 Desubot wrote:

that seems to be where most of these threads stem from. someone hypothetically got burned by an store or event because that private entity decided to gate-keep their community with painting restrictions.

I have the opposite experience.
To me most of these threads seem to come from someone being told, that what THEY find important and "really crucial to the entire gaming experience" is just their opinion.

You know, with as rare as it is for me to squeeze in a game at current, I would hardly turn away a game with someone in the editions I play solely because of painted minis, and I'd assume the player would feel the same.

That being said, ideally I wouldn't drop an army on the table unless it was painted. We used to hold to that ideal solely because of taking pride in our armies. Then as I was building a force, one that I expanded faster than my painiting schedule allowed, people constantly asked me to run them as it was not an army played in the store very often. I capitulated, and I'm pretty sure I NEVER finished painting that army before I traded it off for a different project.

Elbows wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:
If painted models are a requirement for you to play the game, maybe you should switch to playing X-Wing, Star Wars Armada, or AT-43, since you don't have to rely on your opponent's capacity for paining.

Or they can simply play people with painted models? That's far easier.

Which is why I suggested moving to a game where the chances of playing against unpainted models is nill.

Elbows wrote:The X-Wing suggestion is a bit silly, because that implies that the person's only interest is playing "A" game with painted miniatures. You may hate Star Wars. You may dislike X-Wing. You may have a grudge against FFG or some such. If you want to play 40K, suggesting another game makes little sense.

Good thing I mentioned something else, then. But seriously, if painted models are that important to you, your options are to offer to paint the other player's models or move to a system where going against painted models isn't a problem.

I'm pointing out that the painted models is the individual's demand.

Good thing that there are areas in which painted armies is the standard so it doesnt matter if its 40k or X-wing if you want to play against painted models.

Unpainted models and armies are frowned upon around here. Badly painted due to lack of skill or work in progress painted armies on the other hand isnt frowned upon at all. You can have expectations of having painted armies and be welcoming at the same time.

Probably more pure 40k painter and Collectors than there are pure 40k gamers who dislike to paint out there so having the armies be painted makes it easier and more inviting for the painter to try to actually play with their models as well and not just have them sitting on a shelf. Good for the growth of the hobby and game both.

Klickor wrote:
Good thing that there are areas in which painted armies is the standard so it doesnt matter if its 40k or X-wing if you want to play against painted models.

Unpainted models and armies are frowned upon around here. Badly painted due to lack of skill or work in progress painted armies on the other hand isnt frowned upon at all. You can have expectations of having painted armies and be welcoming at the same time.

Probably more pure 40k painter and Collectors than there are pure 40k gamers who dislike to paint out there so having the armies be painted makes it easier and more inviting for the painter to try to actually play with their models as well and not just have them sitting on a shelf. Good for the growth of the hobby and game both.

Around here people are just happy to be able to play games. The state of paint has no impact on our enjoyment.

Charistoph: You didn't really address the points I made? Someone shouldn't go play another game if they like the game they're playing...that makes no sense.

Likewise, your options are not: "offer to paint their army", or "move systems"...you simply...play people who actually paint their armies in the game you enjoy. That's a completely reasonable/common option. I enjoy that you seem to be trying to vilify people who have a different standard than you.

 Just Tony wrote:
You know, with as rare as it is for me to squeeze in a game at current, I would hardly turn away a game with someone in the editions I play solely because of painted minis, and I'd assume the player would feel the same.

That being said, ideally I wouldn't drop an army on the table unless it was painted. We used to hold to that ideal solely because of taking pride in our armies.

I used to have the same dilemma, feeling like if I put stuff on the table and it wasn't painted--I was doing it wrong or just trying to throw stuff out there.

But then I started realizing that I wasn't hopping armies as quick as some of the locals were as they focused upon doing quick paints for their armies so they can play before dumping them for the next thing...mine are slowly getting built up, slowly getting painted, and the paintjobs look a bit more realistic compared to the drybrushed, shaded, and color primed ones I would see.


It was a huuuuuuuge gamechanger for me.

I did not paint my armies, because I did not have the time. Worse, I did not enjoy it.

Now that I am older, I enjoy painting more as a separation from my busy life. I still do not enjoy it, but I like the end product and I like decompressing and detaching from the stress of the world. I can focus on painting and the people with me easier.

Another thing that helped my painting is that I stopped trying to do it alone and isolated all the time. Instead, I paint with my family who are doing their own craft stuff. Now it is more of a family time activity, instead of taking time away from them.

 Elbows wrote:
Charistoph: You didn't really address the points I made? Someone shouldn't go play another game if they like the game they're playing...that makes no sense.

Likewise, your options are not: "offer to paint their army", or "move systems"...you simply...play people who actually paint their armies in the game you enjoy. That's a completely reasonable/common option. I enjoy that you seem to be trying to vilify people who have a different standard than you.

Because your points are equally as sensible. Gating your games to being with only painted models would be akin to only playing games against armies you can win against, or only with people who have the same point tally as you, or will only play with the same tournament pack as you.

Mostly, I'm just pointing out that if painted models are so much of an issue, then you need to be equally active in making sure you can do so, removed - Rule #1

 Charistoph wrote:

 Elbows wrote:
Charistoph: You didn't really address the points I made? Someone shouldn't go play another game if they like the game they're playing...that makes no sense.

Likewise, your options are not: "offer to paint their army", or "move systems"...you simply...play people who actually paint their armies in the game you enjoy. That's a completely reasonable/common option. I enjoy that you seem to be trying to vilify people who have a different standard than you.

Because your points are equally as sensible. Gating your games to being with only painted models would be akin to only playing games against armies you can win against, or only with people who have the same point tally as you, or will only play with the same tournament pack as you.

Mostly, I'm just pointing out that if painted models are so much of an issue, then you need to be equally active in making sure you can do so, removed - Rule #1

I'm not going to lie, that was a hard post to read. You need to work on explaining what you're trying to say. Try again?

I don't play in tournaments, or "tournament packs", etc. I don't even play 40K at the moment. I'm genuinely lost in what your last sentence is trying to say. Equally active in what? So if someone doesn't want to play with unpainted figures because they don't enjoy it, they're...whatever it is you tried to say in the second half?

You still haven't explained how playing a different game is a mandatory solution for people who enjoy playing with painted miniatures.

Because I can't prime right now, stupid British winter, you better believe once we hit the good times (all what, 20 good priming days we get a year...) I'll be painting plenty

 Charistoph wrote:
Gating your games to being with only painted models would be akin to only playing games against armies you can win against

How?

Ohh see the thread has finaly started to devolve into this old chestnut..

@ Foenixphate Im pretty sure I wrecked my Extractpr airbrush booth using cans in the house

God I cant wait to have proper dedicated airbrush space..
Stupid Property buying rules* grumble grumble mutter mutter grumble*

 Desubot wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:
Gating your games to being with only painted models would be akin to only playing games against armies you can win against

How?

I already gave my answer, finish reading the whole message.

If the choice is between playing against unpainted or not playing a game for a while, I'll take the latter.

PLAYING the game is only one leg of a tripod, not the only leg of a monopod.

Painting and assembling are the other 2, and I'm quite happy to stick with those 2 while I wait.

 chromedog wrote:
If the choice is between playing against unpainted or not playing a game for a while, I'll take the latter.

PLAYING the game is only one leg of a tripod, not the only leg of a monopod.

Painting and assembling are the other 2, and I'm quite happy to stick with those 2 while I wait.

So you’d rather do nothing then play against the only other guy in a store who has an army, but is unpainted? Seems kind of criminal to me.

 chromedog wrote:
If the choice is between playing against unpainted or not playing a game for a while, I'll take the latter.

PLAYING the game is only one leg of a tripod, not the only leg of a monopod.

Painting and assembling are the other 2, and I'm quite happy to stick with those 2 while I wait.

That seems like an odd choice for a number of reasons. I'm not sure too many would agree the 3 legs of the hobby are assembling, painting and playing for a start. Assembling and painting are pretty much always seen as the same thing by everyone I've ever met. Refusing to do one of the 3 legs as you call them also seems counterproductive. I get the need to have standards but refusing to play at all (i.e. take part in one of the supposedly 3 parts to the hobby) seems very much like cutting off your nose to spite your face.

I do paint my models. Just slowly and very sporadically because I'm lazy. I have the bonus of owning a lot that is painted though, and playing with a group of people who all have tons of painted stuff so we can all have multiple options in any game we play unless it's brand new to us all

 chromedog wrote:
If the choice is between playing against unpainted or not playing a game for a while, I'll take the latter.

PLAYING the game is only one leg of a tripod, not the only leg of a monopod.

Painting and assembling are the other 2, and I'm quite happy to stick with those 2 while I wait.

Really?

You don't think; Models, Setting and Gameplay is a much more reasonable tripod?

 Charistoph wrote:

 Elbows wrote:
Charistoph: You didn't really address the points I made? Someone shouldn't go play another game if they like the game they're playing...that makes no sense.

Likewise, your options are not: "offer to paint their army", or "move systems"...you simply...play people who actually paint their armies in the game you enjoy. That's a completely reasonable/common option. I enjoy that you seem to be trying to vilify people who have a different standard than you.

Because your points are equally as sensible. Gating your games to being with only painted models would be akin to only playing games against armies you can win against, or only with people who have the same point tally as you, or will only play with the same tournament pack as you.

Mostly, I'm just pointing out that if painted models are so much of an issue, then you need to be equally active in making sure you can do so, removed - Rule #1

You are 100% entitled to choose whom you play with you know? Nobody is forced to play game if they don't want to. So if somebody doesn't want to play against unpainted stuff a) he has every right to deny b) opponent sounds just entitled kid if he starts to complain opponent doesn't play vs him. Nobody is required to play vs anybody. Period.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Slipspace wrote:

 chromedog wrote:
If the choice is between playing against unpainted or not playing a game for a while, I'll take the latter.

PLAYING the game is only one leg of a tripod, not the only leg of a monopod.

Painting and assembling are the other 2, and I'm quite happy to stick with those 2 while I wait.

That seems like an odd choice for a number of reasons. I'm not sure too many would agree the 3 legs of the hobby are assembling, painting and playing for a start. Assembling and painting are pretty much always seen as the same thing by everyone I've ever met. Refusing to do one of the 3 legs as you call them also seems counterproductive. I get the need to have standards but refusing to play at all (i.e. take part in one of the supposedly 3 parts to the hobby) seems very much like cutting off your nose to spite your face.

So you should do something unfun rather than save your time and not do the unfun thing?

Weird. There's this saying "don't throw good money after bad". You aren't supposed to play if you don't find it fun just because there's game available that you don't enjoy.

tneva82 wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:

 Elbows wrote:
Charistoph: You didn't really address the points I made? Someone shouldn't go play another game if they like the game they're playing...that makes no sense.

Likewise, your options are not: "offer to paint their army", or "move systems"...you simply...play people who actually paint their armies in the game you enjoy. That's a completely reasonable/common option. I enjoy that you seem to be trying to vilify people who have a different standard than you.

Because your points are equally as sensible. Gating your games to being with only painted models would be akin to only playing games against armies you can win against, or only with people who have the same point tally as you, or will only play with the same tournament pack as you.

Mostly, I'm just pointing out that if painted models are so much of an issue, then you need to be equally active in making sure you can do so, removed - Rule #1

You are 100% entitled to choose whom you play with you know? Nobody is forced to play game if they don't want to. So if somebody doesn't want to play against unpainted stuff a) he has every right to deny b) opponent sounds just entitled kid if he starts to complain opponent doesn't play vs him. Nobody is required to play vs anybody. Period.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Slipspace wrote:

 chromedog wrote:
If the choice is between playing against unpainted or not playing a game for a while, I'll take the latter.

PLAYING the game is only one leg of a tripod, not the only leg of a monopod.

Painting and assembling are the other 2, and I'm quite happy to stick with those 2 while I wait.

That seems like an odd choice for a number of reasons. I'm not sure too many would agree the 3 legs of the hobby are assembling, painting and playing for a start. Assembling and painting are pretty much always seen as the same thing by everyone I've ever met. Refusing to do one of the 3 legs as you call them also seems counterproductive. I get the need to have standards but refusing to play at all (i.e. take part in one of the supposedly 3 parts to the hobby) seems very much like cutting off your nose to spite your face.

So you should do something unfun rather than save your time and not do the unfun thing?

Weird. There's this saying "don't throw good money after bad". You aren't supposed to play if you don't find it fun just because there's game available that you don't enjoy.

But... how does a few colors change the "fun" of the game? Does it somehow affect dice rolls or tactics?

This is so baffling to me...

tneva82 wrote:

Slipspace wrote:

 chromedog wrote:
If the choice is between playing against unpainted or not playing a game for a while, I'll take the latter.

PLAYING the game is only one leg of a tripod, not the only leg of a monopod.

Painting and assembling are the other 2, and I'm quite happy to stick with those 2 while I wait.

That seems like an odd choice for a number of reasons. I'm not sure too many would agree the 3 legs of the hobby are assembling, painting and playing for a start. Assembling and painting are pretty much always seen as the same thing by everyone I've ever met. Refusing to do one of the 3 legs as you call them also seems counterproductive. I get the need to have standards but refusing to play at all (i.e. take part in one of the supposedly 3 parts to the hobby) seems very much like cutting off your nose to spite your face.

So you should do something unfun rather than save your time and not do the unfun thing?

Weird. There's this saying "don't throw good money after bad". You aren't supposed to play if you don't find it fun just because there's game available that you don't enjoy.

I'm genuinely confused how people can find playing against unpainted armies unfun to the point they will refuse a game against them. Doubly so when the poster I replied to specifically said gaming was one part of the hobby as a whole and then said they wouldn't take part in that side of the hobby with someone who hadn't taken part in one of the other (rather arbitrarily designated) parts of the hobby. Like, I understand you'd prefer to play on a brilliantly modelled board with fantastic terrain against a well-painted army, and I think all gamers would probably prefer that as the pinnacle of the hobby, but I just can't understand a situation where someone says no to a game because the opponent hasn't painted their army, especially because the poster in question specifically said they'd wait and not play at all until such an opponent materialises. So if no such opponent exists in their area they just wouldn't play? Yeah, not too logical to me.

Depends on if you come to wargaming as a spectacle or as a game.

Many old school gamers got into wargaming for the "look" and "spectacle" of it all. That trumps gameplay even, since a game you play that does not have the right look and spectacle is not worth playing.

Many gamers got into it for the game and competition of it all. Therefore, it makes no sense to not play a game when one is on offer.

The two mindsets will never understand each other, because on the internet no one WANTS to understand each other. You score points by being willfully obtuse. I have seen the rules of the internet, so it is objective fact.*



* Warning: Post may or may not have objective facts in it.

40k for me is mostly about the spectacle. I can play to teach or help a friend try new models but I prefer painted and thats why Im in it. Games like Warmachine or Blood Bowl is more for the gameplay but since its so few models I expect painted even more since it makes it look better and not having painted models a while in to the game just looks lazy. So even the games I play for the actual gameplay I want painted. Its just better that way and also usually makes it easier to see what is what and speeds up the game a bit as well.

Its not that unpainted makes the game actually worse but unless you play it soley for the rules and not at all for the background and good looking models it removes a large part of what makes the game fun for many.

Its like film. Black and white doesnt make the story worse or make the performance of the actors worse but I prefer it with beautiful colors in crisp definition with modern special effect thank you. You are welcome to have a retro film club and watch it in black and white but dont force me to join you. I rather go IMax with others than enjoy that even though its more effort/expensive. If you want to see a movie with me Im sorry but thats only gonna happen in color.

Like Klickor and Easy E said - the game is quite the visual.

I previously played quite a bit of 6-10mm Scale. My War of the Roses army isn't going to be unpainted. Imagine seas of metal minis in close rank and file engaging with other historical armies of white metal.


I do however agree with the post here that there is a time you shouldn't paint your minis. When a player is tournament playtesting a new list. I know a ton of local players who have hired services to paint untils that were terrible in events becuase they wrote the list before trying it out. This is extremely popular in Warmachine.

Slipspace wrote:
I'm genuinely confused how people can find playing against unpainted armies unfun to the point they will refuse a game against them. Doubly so when the poster I replied to specifically said gaming was one part of the hobby as a whole and then said they wouldn't take part in that side of the hobby with someone who hadn't taken part in one of the other (rather arbitrarily designated) parts of the hobby. Like, I understand you'd prefer to play on a brilliantly modelled board with fantastic terrain against a well-painted army, and I think all gamers would probably prefer that as the pinnacle of the hobby, but I just can't understand a situation where someone says no to a game because the opponent hasn't painted their army, especially because the poster in question specifically said they'd wait and not play at all until such an opponent materialises. So if no such opponent exists in their area they just wouldn't play? Yeah, not too logical to me.

From what I understand, the difference is whether you are playing WH40k as a wargame or if you are playing it as a tabletop board game.

Wargaming is closer to having a model railway - it's more about having epic or historic scenes unfold while moving about models and less about either side actually winning the game. Just like you wouldn't run an unpainted train through your beautifully crafted landscape, those people wouldn't want an unpainted tank lumbering over their battlefield.

All assuming rational people, of course. There are also people who throw a fit because a vibrating mobile phone ruins their immersion or because you painted your apothecary in a non-canon color. Feth them.

In any case, neither the wargamers nor the tabletop players are wrong. However, anyone claiming either is not properly participating in the hobby most definitely is wrong.

 Jidmah wrote:

Slipspace wrote:
I'm genuinely confused how people can find playing against unpainted armies unfun to the point they will refuse a game against them. Doubly so when the poster I replied to specifically said gaming was one part of the hobby as a whole and then said they wouldn't take part in that side of the hobby with someone who hadn't taken part in one of the other (rather arbitrarily designated) parts of the hobby. Like, I understand you'd prefer to play on a brilliantly modelled board with fantastic terrain against a well-painted army, and I think all gamers would probably prefer that as the pinnacle of the hobby, but I just can't understand a situation where someone says no to a game because the opponent hasn't painted their army, especially because the poster in question specifically said they'd wait and not play at all until such an opponent materialises. So if no such opponent exists in their area they just wouldn't play? Yeah, not too logical to me.

From what I understand, the difference is whether you are playing WH40k as a wargame or if you are playing it as a tabletop board game.

Wargaming is closer to having a model railway - it's more about having epic or historic scenes unfold while moving about models and less about either side actually winning the game. Just like you wouldn't run an unpainted train through your beautifully crafted landscape, those people wouldn't want an unpainted tank lumbering over their battlefield.

All assuming rational people, of course. There are also people who throw a fit because a vibrating mobile phone ruins their immersion or because you painted your apothecary in a non-canon color. Feth them.

In any case, neither the wargamers nor the tabletop players are wrong. However, anyone claiming either is not properly participating in the hobby most definitely is wrong.

I object to your exact wording-to me, a wargame is a simulation of war in game format. Armies fighting other armies, attempting to achieve objectives. It has nothing to do with spectacle.

Your general point, though, is a good one-I merely think you chose the wrong term.

Good enough for a tabletop gamer I guess

 Jidmah wrote:
Good enough for a tabletop gamer I guess

Harsh.