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.

Aash wrote:
Out of curiosity how would the player base react to this thought experiment:

Any code of conduct makes no mention of painted miniatures, and the 10 VPs for battle forged are removed and replaced with:

Stat boosts/special rules for units that are painted to battle ready, maybe a +1 toughness here, or a +3” range there and so on. Or strategems like “veteran Intercessors“ cost 0 CPs of the unit is painted to battle ready. This could be presented as representing the equipment is well maintained and in good working order, or a leadership boost representing a sense of martial pride for the unit in full battle colours. Conversely, stat reductions for unpainted miniatures.

After all there are already in game bonuses for painting, if your army is red marines, they get one bonus, if they are blue marines they get a different bonus. Maybe just remove the faction bonuses for unpainted minis?

Instead of an all or nothing 10 bonus VPs, it would reward players who are making progress with their painting, unit by unit.

It amounts to the same thing, an advantage to a player in the game for painting up their army, but on a sliding scale. At the end of the day, both this hypothetical and and the current 10 VPs rule make the player with a painted army more likely to win

For half the factions most players probably wouldn’t even know the colours for the different types, so I don’t think anyone even cares that much about what they are painted as to the rules themselves when even for space marines you could paint the shoulders different and it’s not ether got no rules or can be a successor and pick from what you want.

But honestly I don’t think anyone would think this is a good idea. It’s like the worst parts of a grow campaign, which is a way for players to do the hobby and grow a army with everyone’s support.
Instead you would be tipping that upside down and just pushing them into complete disaster of design, and for some factions effectively saying don’t bother turning up to play at all.
And favours space marines with ease of paint again, and GW allready struggles with game design.

Honestly, I think the only change to the 10VP rule is to make it 1VP per full 10% of the army painted to at least the Battle Ready stage, along with a definition of Battle Ready being included within the rulebook.

One newly-assembled model/unit is then only likely to reduce the bonus by 1-2VP if the rest of the army is painted, rather than the full 10.

I'm not necessarily sure why the expectation here is that people need to engage in painting when they aren't necessarily good or interested in it, and then punished for it, when there are plenty of people who are terrible at playing the game and will go years without learning how to play the game and even crusade against anything remoted related to competative play, and yet the expectation is for everyone else to change how they do find fun for these other guys.

Seems to me like all take and no give.

 Luke_Prowler wrote:
I'm not necessarily sure why the expectation here is that people need to engage in painting when they aren't necessarily good or interested in it, and then punished for it, when there are plenty of people who are terrible at playing the game and will go years without learning how to play the game and even crusade against anything remoted related to competative play, and yet the expectation is for everyone else to change how they do find fun for these other guys.

Seems to me like all take and no give.

Because it makes the game look better for players and watchers and might get more people into the hobby in a way that grey tide games are less likely to. People that are terrible at the game lose games, that's their punishment. Saying that casual players never try to adjust is hilarious because tonnes of people change their armies just so they can keep up with the power gamers in their community.

 Irkjoe wrote:
First off, having standards isn't elitist

 Irkjoe wrote:
most basic requirements

And there we have it - if fully painted is a "basic requirement" your "standard" is high enough to become elitism.

So, yes, your are being an elitist.

And building is a perfect comparison because the hobby is separate from the game right? If you don't have to paint then I don't have to build, now play my proxies.

Yep 100% dishonest elitist argument here. Building has an impact on the game, painting doesn't.

Time factor is irrelevant, there are plenty of slow builders.

More dishonest stuff here. No model takes as long to build as it does to paint, even if you fully magnetize stuff like a helbrute.

Essentially you just want people to prioritize you views and enjoyment over their own. At the very least you could be honest enough to say that.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Quasistellar wrote:
You're going to have to quote someone saying this. I'm tired of seeing arguments that say thing this extreme without actually quoting the source.

Either quote it or stop with the hyperbole.

I kindly refer you to the posts below.

Also the 10 VP rule are absolute, you can find them in your corresponding rulebooks. If a single model is not smeared with a sloppy paintjob, you are getting punished.

 vict0988 wrote:

 Luke_Prowler wrote:
I'm not necessarily sure why the expectation here is that people need to engage in painting when they aren't necessarily good or interested in it, and then punished for it, when there are plenty of people who are terrible at playing the game and will go years without learning how to play the game and even crusade against anything remoted related to competative play, and yet the expectation is for everyone else to change how they do find fun for these other guys.

Seems to me like all take and no give.

Because it makes the game look better for players and watchers and might get more people into the hobby in a way that grey tide games are less likely to. People that are terrible at the game lose games, that's their punishment. Saying that casual players never try to adjust is hilarious because tonnes of people change their armies just so they can keep up with the power gamers in their community.

GW themselves pose a issue in that players could have there army changed, or made unplayable/boring to play.
They have spent years upending the game and providing incentive to not paint or take part in that part hobby, if they plan to sell then the paint will likely lower its value and lower the ability for them to engage in the part of the hobby they enjoy.

And it’s seen as fine to harass and belittle those players regularly. GW doesn’t want them to stop buying, and they are turning players to that rather than offer long term worth to players in the game focus of the hobby to invest in painting and collecting long term.
This I think is why it’s so hollow when players say to just paint the bare minimum, no effort or pride in the hobby.

 Dysartes wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:

 catbarf wrote:
And to be clear, I'm not saying- nor do I think anybody else here is saying- that you shouldn't be allowed to play if your army isn't 100% painted.

I'm very sure that some posters in this thread are implying exactly that, as is the whole "ask for permission" and "lose 10 VP" BS from GW is.

Point of order - at no point do you lose 10 VPs if your army isn't "Battle Ready".

Score 90 VPs with your "perfect" Generalship? Congratulations, you still have them regardless of what the status is of your army when it comes to paint.

You might not get the tertiary bonus of 10 VPs for having a Battle Ready army, but that isn't the same as losing 10 VPs - you've worked towards the primary and secondary objectives, and earned your VPs there instead.

This is just a glass is half full/empty discussion. If hand out cookies to a group of 10 kids and one doesn't get one, that kid is totally not fine with it. Go try it.

Looking back through my games I played in 9th, a solid fourth of them were close enough to decided by a 10 VP swing.

Or are you going to say at the end of the game that you "lost" your VPs for the Assassinate Secondary when you never attacked a Character during the game?

Uhm, yes, that's how it works.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 catbarf wrote:
I never said those are equivalent in terms of effort. I said that if expecting models to be painted is unfair to the disabled, then surely expecting models to be assembled, an activity which similarly requires motor skills and precision, is also unfair. Yet I have never seen the implicit requirement that models be assembled challenged on the grounds that it may be unreasonable for the disabled. Nobody puts piles of bits on 25mm bases and argues that they should be allowed to play it because maybe disabled people can't assemble their models.

I really don't want to go into the whole disabled thing (and never did) because it's just one of the many valid reasons why you aren't done painting your models yet.
However, I assume that most people suffering from such problems aren't unable to paint, but simply slower in doing so.
If I take an hour to assemble a box of plague marines, someone who takes three times as long takes three hours. If I take a week to get that box of plague marines painted, it takes them three weeks.
The reason why my stuff isn't getting painted is because I can just fit 4-5 hours hobby time per week, sometimes less. So that box of plague marines is sitting in my painting box for two months before it's done. I'm seriously dreading having to paint two or more units of beastsnagga boyz at this point.

If you're in it for the game and don't care for painting? Fine. I get it. I respect that. I'd never refuse a game on account of paint. Just recognize that you may be detracting from the experience of others (hence establishing painted minis as a standard and suggesting you seek permission), and own that decision; don't bs about the disabled because it sounds better or more justifiable than 'I'm okay with assembly but I don't want to paint'.

I just think that it's hypocritical that people are expected to find a consent for both sides to have fun when it comes to gaming, but when it comes to painting the enjoyment of one sides is much more important than the other.

The the standards of playing were the same as for painting, running over every new player, narrative army and casual player with top tier tournament list would be ok, because people should just not care about winning as much, spend more time on getting better or pay coaches.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Aash wrote:
Out of curiosity how would the player base react to this thought experiment:

Any code of conduct makes no mention of painted miniatures, and the 10 VPs for battle forged are removed and replaced with:

Stat boosts/special rules for units that are painted to battle ready, maybe a +1 toughness here, or a +3” range there and so on. Or strategems like “veteran Intercessors“ cost 0 CPs of the unit is painted to battle ready. This could be presented as representing the equipment is well maintained and in good working order, or a leadership boost representing a sense of martial pride for the unit in full battle colours. Conversely, stat reductions for unpainted miniatures.

After all there are already in game bonuses for painting, if your army is red marines, they get one bonus, if they are blue marines they get a different bonus. Maybe just remove the faction bonuses for unpainted minis?

Instead of an all or nothing 10 bonus VPs, it would reward players who are making progress with their painting, unit by unit.

It amounts to the same thing, an advantage to a player in the game for painting up their army, but on a sliding scale. At the end of the day, both this hypothetical and and the current 10 VPs rule make the player with a painted army more likely to win

I see what you are trying to do, and I definitely like it better than the 10 VP thing, but gaming and painting should not be connected in any way. In the end, giving bonuses to painted models always punishes the unpainted ones.
Personally, I don't need any reward for painting, having painted models look good on the table and later on pictures is reward enough.

What should be done is just putting something akin to this as one of the first sentences in the book:
"Warhammer 40k is about the spectacle unfolding on the table. Therefore games should be played with fully assembled and painted models and a good-looking base. While you might occasionally want to field a model you haven't had time to paint yet, many people prefer fighting against a fully painted foe. So make sure to talk with your opponent about bringing unpainted models before the game."

Boom, done. Everyone in this thread is happy. Well, except those actively seeking to punish unpainted models, but feth them.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Apple fox wrote:
And it’s seen as fine to harass and belittle those players regularly. GW doesn’t want them to stop buying, and they are turning players to that rather than offer long term worth to players in the game focus of the hobby to invest in painting and collecting long term.
This I think is why it’s so hollow when players say to just paint the bare minimum, no effort or pride in the hobby.

The "bare minimum" is also a big issue with these "thou have to paint" rules. I have a friend how has a craftword eldar army that he has painted in one Sunday, all 4000 points of them.

He just lined up aspect warriors primed black, dumped a huge brush in to their corresponding aspect color and covered all their helmets with one thick coat of it. And no, he wasn't using contrast.
In the same manner, all guns got a big blurb of bleached bone on them and for the tanks he took a slightly smaller brush and ran along their lines in purple.

They look like gak. But yes, totally worth 10 VP and according to some here a paragon of the hobby, doing it right.

 Jidmah wrote:

What should be done is just putting something akin to this as one of the first sentences in the book:
"Warhammer 40k is about the spectacle unfolding on the table. Therefore games should be played with fully assembled and painted models and a good-looking base. While you might occasionally want to field a model you haven't had time to paint yet, many people prefer fighting against a fully painted foe. So make sure to talk with your opponent about bringing unpainted models before the game."

I'm baffled as to how this is supposed to be different from the line in the proposed code of conduct.

So... this discussion again.

From my experience and wiev, it looks like some people are more intersted in the personal enjoyment of winning than the enjoyment of both players (the visual). Is this correct?

 jhnbrg wrote:
So... this discussion again.

From my experience and wiev, it looks like some people are more intersted in the personal enjoyment of winning than the enjoyment of both players (the visual). Is this correct?

This is so dismissive.

 vipoid wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:

What should be done is just putting something akin to this as one of the first sentences in the book:
"Warhammer 40k is about the spectacle unfolding on the table. Therefore games should be played with fully assembled and painted models and a good-looking base. While you might occasionally want to field a model you haven't had time to paint yet, many people prefer fighting against a fully painted foe. So make sure to talk with your opponent about bringing unpainted models before the game."

I'm baffled as to how this is supposed to be different from the line in the proposed code of conduct.

The difference is "Agree on a points level with your opponent" while the propose one is "You have to ask the person with more models for permission to play a game smaller than the maximum points they can field."

I think as a guideline you could go “it’s important that all players have similar painting expectations of the game, if you are unsure ask them for there opinion” could be better written for sure, and maybe only even need the first line.

The other part of the rule I think should as a guideline “use appropriate models” I know GW would prefer a barrier to other companies, but that’s even more anti hobby

Apple fox wrote:

 jhnbrg wrote:
So... this discussion again.

From my experience and wiev, it looks like some people are more intersted in the personal enjoyment of winning than the enjoyment of both players (the visual). Is this correct?

This is so dismissive.

Can you explain?

 jhnbrg wrote:

Apple fox wrote:

 jhnbrg wrote:
So... this discussion again.

From my experience and wiev, it looks like some people are more intersted in the personal enjoyment of winning than the enjoyment of both players (the visual). Is this correct?

This is so dismissive.

Can you explain?

I don’t think anyone does, in a lot of these cases it’s being pushed to the detriment of some players. And it’s funny that you seem to imply only one side is interested in wining when the advantage is givin to the other side.
The side that in the case of 40k seems very protective of that advantage, and dismissive of the hobby that other people have.

Apple fox wrote:

 jhnbrg wrote:

Apple fox wrote:

 jhnbrg wrote:
So... this discussion again.

From my experience and wiev, it looks like some people are more intersted in the personal enjoyment of winning than the enjoyment of both players (the visual). Is this correct?

This is so dismissive.

Can you explain?

I don’t think anyone does, in a lot of these cases it’s being pushed to the detriment of some players. And it’s funny that you seem to imply only one side is interested in wining when the advantage is givin to the other side.
The side that in the case of 40k seems very protective of that advantage, and dismissive of the hobby that other people have.

I mot sure if i get your point. In all the time i have played this game. the People who never bother with painting or WYSIWYG are the same people that see winning as the most important aspects of the game.

I struggle with building a competetive list nowadays, there is to much information to absorb and i am mostly one or more editions behind in my head. This will cost me a lot more than 10VP.

 jhnbrg wrote:

Apple fox wrote:

 jhnbrg wrote:

Apple fox wrote:

 jhnbrg wrote:
So... this discussion again.

From my experience and wiev, it looks like some people are more intersted in the personal enjoyment of winning than the enjoyment of both players (the visual). Is this correct?

This is so dismissive.

Can you explain?

I don’t think anyone does, in a lot of these cases it’s being pushed to the detriment of some players. And it’s funny that you seem to imply only one side is interested in wining when the advantage is givin to the other side.
The side that in the case of 40k seems very protective of that advantage, and dismissive of the hobby that other people have.

I mot sure if i get your point. In all the time i have played this game. the People who never bother with painting or WYSIWYG are the same people that see winning as the most important aspects of the game.

You are lumping in "People who never bother with painting or WYSIWYG" with the people who spend a lot of time painting and care much about WYSIWYG, but have some unpainted miniatures.

I struggle with building a competetive list nowadays, there is to much information to absorb and i am mostly one or more editions behind in my head. This will cost me a lot more than 10VP.

So, does your lack of knowledge also cost you painting contests?

 jhnbrg wrote:

Apple fox wrote:

 jhnbrg wrote:

Apple fox wrote:

 jhnbrg wrote:
So... this discussion again.

From my experience and wiev, it looks like some people are more intersted in the personal enjoyment of winning than the enjoyment of both players (the visual). Is this correct?

This is so dismissive.

Can you explain?

I don’t think anyone does, in a lot of these cases it’s being pushed to the detriment of some players. And it’s funny that you seem to imply only one side is interested in wining when the advantage is givin to the other side.
The side that in the case of 40k seems very protective of that advantage, and dismissive of the hobby that other people have.

I mot sure if i get your point. In all the time i have played this game. the People who never bother with painting or WYSIWYG are the same people that see winning as the most important aspects of the game.

I struggle with building a competetive list nowadays, there is to much information to absorb and i am mostly one or more editions behind in my head. This will cost me a lot more than 10VP.

So you feel fine to dismiss others and consider wining as a important aspect or the most important aspect as a negative. And consider that as a slight against people. I think that itself is quite a negative attitude.
WAAC and CAAC I think I equal in how they can be negative.

With competitive lists, I also struggle a bit. But I don’t hold it against players. A lot of those players could be painters as well.
But I think that’s to blame on GW, the rules are a mess and bloated with no care or thought to the design and playability of the game.
No reason to hold that against others, especially if a player is new or unable to paint or field a good army themselves.

Painting expectations are important, but GW doesn’t care about that. If they did we wouldn’t see so many factions neglected.
Maybe individuals do, but as a company they have yet to show it.

Apple fox wrote:


So you feel fine to dismiss others and consider wining as a important aspect or the most important aspect as a negative. And consider that as a slight against people. I think that itself is quite a negative attitude.
WAAC and CAAC I think I equal in how they can be negative.

With competitive lists, I also struggle a bit. But I don’t hold it against players. A lot of those players could be painters as well.
But I think that’s to blame on GW, the rules are a mess and bloated with no care or thought to the design and playability of the game.
No reason to hold that against others, especially if a player is new or unable to paint or field a good army themselves.

Painting expectations are important, but GW doesn’t care about that. If they did we wouldn’t see so many factions neglected.
Maybe individuals do, but as a company they have yet to show it.

You are missing the point. I try to stay away from the waac vs caac argument. This is about the trend i see in recent editions of 40k, the actual gameplay as something that is more and more separated from the rest of the hobby.

40k is gradually becoming a ccg with all the combos and the way you assamble your list. I am being forced out of the game with the constant rules changes and huge amonts of books needed to play.
There was a time when the miniatures was the most important aspect of 40k.

I am propably not making a clear point, sorry.

 Jidmah wrote:

The difference is "Agree on a points level with your opponent" while the propose one is "You have to ask the person with more models for permission to play a game smaller than the maximum points they can field."

But it isn't. Because your proposal is still the guy with unpainted models asking permission to use them, which is what people were objecting to in the first place..

All you really did was add some spiel at the beginning about how the game is better with painted models.

 jhnbrg wrote:

Apple fox wrote:


So you feel fine to dismiss others and consider wining as a important aspect or the most important aspect as a negative. And consider that as a slight against people. I think that itself is quite a negative attitude.
WAAC and CAAC I think I equal in how they can be negative.

With competitive lists, I also struggle a bit. But I don’t hold it against players. A lot of those players could be painters as well.
But I think that’s to blame on GW, the rules are a mess and bloated with no care or thought to the design and playability of the game.
No reason to hold that against others, especially if a player is new or unable to paint or field a good army themselves.

Painting expectations are important, but GW doesn’t care about that. If they did we wouldn’t see so many factions neglected.
Maybe individuals do, but as a company they have yet to show it.

You are missing the point. I try to stay away from the waac vs caac argument. This is about the trend i see in recent editions of 40k, the actual gameplay as something that is more and more separated from the rest of the hobby.

40k is gradually becoming a ccg with all the combos and the way you assamble your list. I am being forced out of the game with the constant rules changes and huge amonts of books needed to play.
There was a time when the miniatures was the most important aspect of 40k.

I am propably not making a clear point, sorry.

This may be a issue with both our English it’s all good. But if I understand, I agree. GW has mismanaged the game, and I think the lack of faith in the rules has inadvertently created players with little faith that the value of there miniatures staying relevant and taking value from the part of the hobby they see as less enjoyable.
GW bloated rules are a issue, and I don’t think they can fix it.
40k has had a bit of its core gutted and hasn’t really been given any replacements and leads to needing a lot of design support to give interesting units and game play.

I don’t really think it’s really taking understanding from ccg mechanics, I think they are taking inspiration from other table top games and bolting them onto the 40k game systems without really taking the time for maintaining or the future design of those systems.
Management seems to think of the rules as the end part of the project, and we end up with a game that seems to be trying to be several different things.

I don't think expecting painted miniatures in a miniatures game is elitist.

It's a basic standard.

At the risk of repeating myself, I will say again: the whole point of playing a Miniatures Game is the cool spectacle. That is what sets it apart from games that use cardboard chits or other abstractions of units and actors in the game.

Therefore, unlike some other tabletop game types, the spectacle is part of the point of playing. Otherwise, there are plenty of other ways to consume Warhammer content that doesn't provide the same spectacle (if that isn't what you care about).

The shopping cart example from upthread is a good example; is it elitist to suggest people put their carts away?

Simply having normative behaviors in a social setting isn't what "elitism" is, especially when those normative behaviors have been standard for decades and are what sets the activity apart from other activities.

It isn't elitist to insist people use golf balls to play golf rather than soccer balls.

 Jidmah wrote:

 Irkjoe wrote:
First off, having standards isn't elitist

 Irkjoe wrote:
most basic requirements

And there we have it - if fully painted is a "basic requirement" your "standard" is high enough to become elitism.

So, yes, your are being an elitist.

And building is a perfect comparison because the hobby is separate from the game right? If you don't have to paint then I don't have to build, now play my proxies.

Yep 100% dishonest elitist argument here. Building has an impact on the game, painting doesn't.

Time factor is irrelevant, there are plenty of slow builders.

More dishonest stuff here. No model takes as long to build as it does to paint, even if you fully magnetize stuff like a helbrute.

Essentially you just want people to prioritize you views and enjoyment over their own. At the very least you could be honest enough to say that.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Quasistellar wrote:
You're going to have to quote someone saying this. I'm tired of seeing arguments that say thing this extreme without actually quoting the source.

Either quote it or stop with the hyperbole.

I kindly refer you to the posts below.

Also the 10 VP rule are absolute, you can find them in your corresponding rulebooks. If a single model is not smeared with a sloppy paintjob, you are getting punished.

Ah more hyperbole and outright lies now. My guilty pleasure continues.

 Jidmah wrote:

And building is a perfect comparison because the hobby is separate from the game right? If you don't have to paint then I don't have to build, now play my proxies.

Yep 100% dishonest elitist argument here. Building has an impact on the game, painting doesn't.

*looks at subfaction rules that are tied to specific paint schemes, and the complaining about that recently*

You sure about that, Gracie?

Yup,
My Salamanders are green so....
My Bloody Rose are red so...

Pretty sure paint colour has in game effects so...

Aash wrote:
Out of curiosity how would the player base react to this thought experiment:

Any code of conduct makes no mention of painted miniatures, and the 10 VPs for battle forged are removed and replaced with:

Stat boosts/special rules for units that are painted to battle ready, maybe a +1 toughness here, or a +3” range there and so on. Or strategems like “veteran Intercessors“ cost 0 CPs of the unit is painted to battle ready. This could be presented as representing the equipment is well maintained and in good working order, or a leadership boost representing a sense of martial pride for the unit in full battle colours. Conversely, stat reductions for unpainted miniatures.

After all there are already in game bonuses for painting, if your army is red marines, they get one bonus, if they are blue marines they get a different bonus. Maybe just remove the faction bonuses for unpainted minis?

Instead of an all or nothing 10 bonus VPs, it would reward players who are making progress with their painting, unit by unit.

It amounts to the same thing, an advantage to a player in the game for painting up their army, but on a sliding scale. At the end of the day, both this hypothetical and and the current 10 VPs rule make the player with a painted army more likely to win

I strongly support painting but I would never, ever accept that.

The difference is that the 10VP bonus is immaterial to the actual gameplay. It does not come into play at all until you total up VP at the end. When you tally the total and find that you got 65VP and your opponent got 70VP, you know whose generalship was superior, even if the rules then say you get 10VP for being painted and thus are technically the winner. It's effectively immaterial; a codification of standards that doesn't matter for casual play (who cares who technically won?), is likely superseded by painting rules for tournament play, and generally doesn't matter in a game where wins tend to be by a lot more than a 10VP margin. Its impact is more symbolic than anything else.

The instant you start making paint matter for turn-by-turn gameplay, then it goes from symbolic to a really big deal. The difference between a painted army and an unpainted army is no longer a single line on a scoring sheet that you don't care about until the very end (if even then); instead it becomes a constant factor with tangible gameplay effects. That's far, far harsher against newbies than a simple VP bonus- getting tabled because your entire army is debuffed is a lot more demoralizing than a close-fought loss that gets marginally amplified by a painting bonus.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
I don't think expecting painted miniatures in a miniatures game is elitist.

It's a basic standard.

At the risk of repeating myself, I will say again: the whole point of playing a Miniatures Game is the cool spectacle. That is what sets it apart from games that use cardboard chits or other abstractions of units and actors in the game.

Therefore, unlike some other tabletop game types, the spectacle is part of the point of playing. Otherwise, there are plenty of other ways to consume Warhammer content that doesn't provide the same spectacle (if that isn't what you care about).

The shopping cart example from upthread is a good example; is it elitist to suggest people put their carts away?

Simply having normative behaviors in a social setting isn't what "elitism" is, especially when those normative behaviors have been standard for decades and are what sets the activity apart from other activities.

It isn't elitist to insist people use golf balls to play golf rather than soccer balls.

Putting a shopping cart away is cleaning up after yourself and takes 1-2 minutes to do. You used the cart WHICH YOU DO NOT OWN and your putting it back so they can be reused without some poor worker having to round up the carts from all over the parking lot (and not obstructing parking with carts cluttering up the place).

A golf ball costs a very tiny amount of money and takes basically an insignificant amount of effort to acquire from a store.

Painting an army is tens to hundreds of hours of dedicated work. That is a LOT of resources of money, time, and personal effort which many people cannot or do not want to spend. Basically its saying the people who are busy in life, have to work a lot to get by, or lack some means (be it motivation, ability, whatever) to do all of that painting then they better just sit on the sidelines because their kind isn't accepted here unless you humble yourself to beg for permission to play from those who has the resources to have fully painted armies. If you make $10 an hour (a very low wage in the states) and your painting up a full army which takes 100 hours in this example then your talking about work that has the opportunity cost of $1000 plus the cost of brushes and paint plus however much that army of models cost (add on top of that the half dozen books GW seems to want its customers to buy with rules scattered about). For somebody who likes painting its not as much of a problem (still have that 100 hours of effort lead time before you can play the game "properly") but for those who do not then it can be the same as working a job.

How can you try to compare tiny things like putting a cart away or using a golf ball in golf to painting an entire army of miniatures? They aren't even remotely in the same ball park of effort/investment.

 Dysartes wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:

And building is a perfect comparison because the hobby is separate from the game right? If you don't have to paint then I don't have to build, now play my proxies.

Yep 100% dishonest elitist argument here. Building has an impact on the game, painting doesn't.

*looks at subfaction rules that are tied to specific paint schemes, and the complaining about that recently*

You sure about that, Gracie?

*Looks at 3rd ed Ork dex from 1999, with the "Red Paint Job" upgrade. You know, in the times when all weapons and wargear had to represented on the model and WYSIWYG was more stringent. So, the implication being to get said upgrade you had to paint your vehicle red.

 Vankraken wrote:
Painting an army is tens to hundreds of hours of dedicated work. That is a LOT of resources of money, time, and personal effort which many people cannot or do not want to spend. Basically its saying the people who are busy in life, have to work a lot to get by, or lack some means (be it motivation, ability, whatever) to do all of that painting

Frankly, money and time are not credible objections for someone who has the money and time to buy an entire army, assemble and base it, play with it regularly, and then go on the Internet and complain about being expected to paint it too. Nobody's expecting you to win a Golden Demon; if you really don't care to put any effort into painting, you can bang out the three-color Battle Ready standard in a weekend. Spray, Contrast, pick out two accent colors, apply a basing technical, and you're done. It's a very, very low bar, but it's better to play against than grey tide.

 Vankraken wrote:
How can you try to compare tiny things like putting a cart away or using a golf ball in golf to painting an entire army of miniatures? They aren't even remotely in the same ball park of effort/investment.

A more direct comparison might be the requirement that you use golf clubs to play golf.

Golf clubs are incredibly expensive and represent a significant barrier to entry, but those are the rules, that's the hobby. You're free to play golf with a cricket bat with your friends in your backyard if you're so inclined, but if you go to a more formal event or even just to play against casuals at the local golf course, it's not elitist to expect you to actually use golf clubs. It's a basic requirement of the game/hobby/sport, and you knew going into it that people play golf with golf clubs. Every picture the PGA puts out of formal golf involves golf clubs, the majority of players use golf clubs, every major event requires golf clubs, and here you are complaining about the elitism of you being expected to use golf clubs and having to ask permission to use your cricket bat instead.

(Edit: And if you want to get hung up on golf clubs being something that has a gameplay element rather than 'window dressing', bear in mind that golf also generally has dress codes for both public courses and formal events)

Having standards, requirements, or expectations for a sport or hobby- even ones that may not be accessible to everyone- isn't elitism. Painting minis for tabletop wargaming isn't a new thing. It's not a surprise requirement that GW has suddenly dropped on us. It's always been part of the hobby and a basic expectation. If you have a group of friends or regulars who don't care about painting, more power to you. But as soon as you play against someone who does care about that aspect of the hobby, you have to recognize that you are not meeting the commonly accepted standard, and that puts you in a position where the polite thing to do is ask your opponent if they're fine with it.

That is a very bad example. You can perfectly well play w40k with unpainted models, you can't play golf without proper clubs.

For eight edition it was not required for armies to be painted. So the argument, that the painting of models was and part of the gaming is not true either. It was only in 9th, when the rule was forced on to people. And while GW can do with rules what ever they can, it can't be said that people knew or know that the hobby requires painting their models when for 30 years plus they did not have to do it to play. How many people with unpainted armies or new people who are starting the game, and get to know that the rules exists, have you seen saying that it is a good rules and they welcome it. No the only people that like the rule is people that like painting and/or who have painted armies.

It very much is a suprising requirement when for 30+ years you did not have to do it. And also the commonly accepted standard is something claimed by people who like painting,and that isn't even the majority of all player, and even less of new players. In fact from the new players perspective painting is seens as an unwanted chore and additional cost they would rather avoid, if it was possible. And they did exactly that for 8 editions.

I mean the rule in 9th is just GW attempting to get people to buy more of their products but at the same time supporting the fact that using painted models is how they desire their game to be played.
Anyone seriously arguing that "painting your models isn't part of the hobby" is talking out their butt.
And declaring people who ask people to paint their models as elitist is just sad. All of the marketing has the models painted, all of the Codex images are of painted models, all of the box art is painted models. It is not elitist to expect a painted army.
And for everyone saying "what about new hobbyists/hobbyists with disabilities", do you seriously not think people would just make an exception. Nobody is going to scream at a 12-year-old child with only one arm that they aren't playing 40k right because their models aren't painted. Take a long hard look at yourself and decide if that was really the best form of the argument you could have made here.