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.

I think that they are referring to the courtesy of them not being required to spend a few hours in an experience that they wouldn't enjoy ie the act of painting.

Rihgu wrote:
I think that they are referring to the courtesy of them not being required to spend a few hours in an experience that they wouldn't enjoy ie the act of painting.

GW has simply spelled out the expectation that has been implicit since the beginning - to GW the game is meant to be played with painted models. With this player's code they are saying you are free to do otherwise, but ask your opponent first if they are OK playing against unpainted models. Seems pretty simple. Most tourneys require painted models - is that being somehow discourteous to those who don't like painting?

It is not "having fun wrong" to play with unpainted models, but its not how GW see the game being played. Individuals and groups are free to come up with their own norms. GW doesn't control what happens outside their stores and events. They are trying to set an expectation of painted models - players can either paint or not. Does seem odd to me that people spend money on a game system that has a hobby component if they don't like the hobby component, but to each their own I suppose.

 JNAProductions wrote:
People accepting that others have different tastes.

In this and other threads, there’s a strong implication, if not outright statement, that I’m doing it wrong.

I accept and understand that you have different tastes.

Neither I nor anyone else here is demanding you paint or saying you shouldn't be allowed to play unless you paint.

It is the standard, though, so the rule is that you should ask if it's okay to play with unpainted models. You already said that you could understand a player refusing a game for that reason, so this shouldn't be an issue.

So what's the problem?

 catbarf wrote:
So what's the problem?

Having to ask to use my models? The implication that I'm not "doing it right" because of an aspect I either cannot or choose not to engage in? The arrogant and ignorant notion that those who are not engaging with that aspect of the hobby just aren't "trying hard enough"? The very notion that an aspect of the hobby that is unrelated to the rules can have a tangible impact upon the game?

Any or all of the above. Your choice.

You kinda have to ask to play to begin with, right? How is this any different?

Racerguy180 wrote:
You kinda have to ask to play to begin with, right? How is this any different?

The difference is that one is agreeing to a consent where both players have the same standing, while the other is asking for permission where one of the players has the absolute right to decide without involving the other player.

But if one is painted and one is not, are they on equal standing?

I have denied games against unfinished armies in situations I just want a nice battle if I know the player still haven't made progress to their army. For new players or if I want to practice for events I don't really care since my goals are different in those situations.

I can usually be found painting/talking at the painting table at our club and my mood is what determines what I play and against what I am willing to play against. The better painted, or at least the larger % painted, the higher the chance I will accept a casual game.

I like painting but not because I like the actual act of painting very much but rather because I love to see painting miniatures face off against other painted miniatures. I like the actual gaming part for itself more than the painting but if all I had to play against were unpainted miniatures I would just play boardgames or card games.

I love tournaments for this reason. All painted armies and lots of high quality games back to back. Can try to get rewarded for both my playing and painting at the same time. Got best painted and placed 3d with a 4-1 finish at the last GT I played so I would say I take both aspects quite seriously.

People not painting at all directly affects my experience of the game and I would feel cheated if someone asked me to play and I agreed and then they put a pure grey plastic army on the table without telling me beforehand. I am quite sure I would feel way worse about it than the same player asking if it was fine would feel about doing this "humiliating" act. At least they would feel less bad than when I start packing up and go back to doing something more productive after springing it on me. That would probably feel worse for them. If they asked beforehand there would be more chance for me to enjoy the game if I felt up for a game and go through with it despite the grey tide. I could set my expectations to the right level and enjoy a game without feeling tricked.

Luckily the standard and expectations around here is for things to be painted. Even those that hate painting or even have conditions that make it hard to paint, I haven't heard complain about the standard of everything should be painted. They think it's great, they just wish they didn't had to.

There are many reasons to deny a game without the other person having a say on it. Not just on painting. Trying to make it so is to force the player who dislikes grey tide to a game against their own willingness. No different from not playing against the loud guy, the smelly guy, the ultra competitive guy who never tones down lists, the guy you think might be cheating, the slow player or the tenth Iron Hand player in a row etc. Any reason to deny is valid. I would even go as far as say that racist or sexist reasons might be a good reason to deny a game. If the racist/sexist guy don't want to play against you for inborn characteristics I don't think you would have a nice game with them anyway. The person is probably an donkey-cave and it's better not to play them even if you could force them to play the same way some here want people have to play their unpainted miniatures.

Be a nice and clean person who think about your opponents fund and paint your minis if you care about maximizing the amount of opponents or be prepared to be denied games a bit more often. You will still be denied even if you do your best but if you don't even try to meet the standards don't complain about it. And if you do paint your miniatures and still get denied games as often it's probably something else that is the problem. You might be obnoxious or smelly without knowing it or something else. Refusal to paint because you don't want to and don't think it should matter for your opponent could be closely linked to some other traits that isn't preferable in an opponent.

Racerguy180 wrote:
But if one is painted and one is not, are they on equal standing?

Implying that they are not is elitism.

Just to reiterate because it keeps getting buried:

1) Having normative guidelines in a community is not elitism.
2) Miniatures wargaming has always been about spectacle, and painting miniatures has always been a part of feeding that spectacle.
3) Because of 2, there is an expectation (not a requirement) for at least some painting effort to be applied.


To use yet another golf example, this is like showing up to a golf tournament and clapping loudly, whooping, hollering, etc. It isn't elitism when someone asks you to be quiet.

"My elitist standards aren't elitism because I say so. Now bow down peasant and don't you dare enjoy the hobby in any other way than I command."

Oh, and I wouldn't exactly use a golf as a good example of a sport that had good standards in regards to who is/was allowed to play.

 Jidmah wrote:
"My elitist standards aren't elitism because I say so. Now bow down peasant and don't you dare enjoy the hobby in any other way than I command."

Oh, and I wouldn't exactly use a golf as a good example of a sport that had good standards in regards to who is/was allowed to play.

Hyperbole and fake worst case scenario: ENGAGE!

Spend some of this energy you're using to make up fake bullgak that never happens in reality and apply it to painting your miniatures.

Honestly, I'm now pretty convinced that you don't actually play the game with other people in person, because if you did, you'd know that the things you're saying don't align with reality for 99.99% of people.

 Jidmah wrote:
"My elitist standards aren't elitism because I say so. Now bow down peasant and don't you dare enjoy the hobby in any other way than I command."

Oh, and I wouldn't exactly use a golf as a good example of a sport that had good standards in regards to who is/was allowed to play.

Not just because I say so, tradition and the very idea of the miniature hobby. I assert that there's a set of acceptable expectations that includes paint among other things; we would never play because you don't meet them and you can't play in tournaments so nobody is forced or negatively impacted in any way.

 Jidmah wrote:

Racerguy180 wrote:
But if one is painted and one is not, are they on equal standing?

Implying that they are not is elitism.

Stating the obvious(1 paint, 1 no paint) is apparently elitism, cool.

Gee the box of unopened minis must then be the same so, boxed minis on the tabletop everyone!

Oh, look, I managed to bait three at once.

And they brought their favorite logical fallacies, ad hominem attack, appeal to tradition and false analogy!

That will show the dirty peasant that he is not worthy of being part of our elitist club of people who had made the time to smear our plastic miniatures with sufficient amounts of pigment!

Jidmah, in the nicest way possible, why are framing people expecting painted models when they play 40k as some kind of class war?
It's pretty explicit in GW's marketing what they consider to be "The Hobby" and it's printed on the cover of the "Getting Started with 40k" booklet that it's viewed as "Collect, Build, Paint, Play". Citadel makes the miniatures and paints so there's the connection there, when you go into a GW store you get a test game and a free miniature to paint in store, and there are starter sets that include miniatures and paint together.
People have made it pretty clear that they aren't adverse to their opponent having unpainted models as there are many reasons that this would be the case. However, when they discuss their expectations in their hobby group/community, you and others frame them as bourgeoisie elitist painters oppressing the proletariat unpainted model users. From what I've read they aren't being rude or calling you lesser for not painting your models, they're giving their opinion in a thread asking for it and all you seem to be able to do is write troll-posts decrying the evils of painted miniatures while at the same time denying the reality of the hobby where painting your miniatures is a core aspect for creating the cinematic spectacle and the ease of unit/faction identification in-game.

 Gert wrote:
Jidmah, in the nicest way possible, why are framing people expecting painted models when they play 40k as some kind of class war?
It's pretty explicit in GW's marketing what they consider to be "The Hobby" and it's printed on the cover of the "Getting Started with 40k" booklet that it's viewed as "Collect, Build, Paint, Play". Citadel makes the miniatures and paints so there's the connection there, when you go into a GW store you get a test game and a free miniature to paint in store, and there are starter sets that include miniatures and paint together.
People have made it pretty clear that they aren't adverse to their opponent having unpainted models as there are many reasons that this would be the case. However, when they discuss their expectations in their hobby group/community, you and others frame them as bourgeoisie elitist painters oppressing the proletariat unpainted model users. From what I've read they aren't being rude or calling you lesser for not painting your models, they're giving their opinion in a thread asking for it and all you seem to be able to do is write troll-posts decrying the evils of painted miniatures while at the same time denying the reality of the hobby where painting your miniatures is a core aspect for creating the cinematic spectacle and the ease of unit/faction identification in-game.

Apparently it is all out class warfare. GW has never shown models in any of their promotional material unpainted minis(unless black & white photos). When they post on IG/Twit/fbook it is always fully painted & based minis. The paint job might not be of the specific faction you want, but painted it is.

So I guess GW must've been mistaken for doing that???
Jid will prob say yes.

And McDonalds advertises their burgers as being full and delicious, not scrappy little meat-things.

I do agree that Jid is being over the top, despite not liking the debated portion of the Player's Code, though.

 Gert wrote:

It's pretty explicit in GW's marketing what they consider to be "The Hobby" and it's printed on the cover of the "Getting Started with 40k" booklet that it's viewed as "Collect, Build, Paint, Play".

(Emphasis mine.)

So you'd agree that anyone who builds and paints models but doesn't play with them is also doing the hobby wrong? And so any painting competition should exclude them on that basis alone.

 vipoid wrote:

 Gert wrote:

It's pretty explicit in GW's marketing what they consider to be "The Hobby" and it's printed on the cover of the "Getting Started with 40k" booklet that it's viewed as "Collect, Build, Paint, Play".

(Emphasis mine.)

So you'd agree that anyone who builds and paints models but doesn't play with them is also doing the hobby wrong? And so any painting competition should exclude them on that basis alone.

The first thing to say is we're not so much talking about "The Hobby" as we are "GW's definition of The Hobby". It's their game and their code of conduct after all. I'd argue that under the definition GW is using playing the game includes using painted models. A painting competition does not include the requirement to play the game, by definition. I suspect GW might say someone who builds and paints but doesn't play is not participating in the entire Hobby.

There's also a difference between a solo activity and a shared activity. Somebody sitting at home painting their models and never interacting with another hobbyist is not affecting those hobbyists one way or another. Someone who wants to use unpainted model in a game could potentially reduce the enjoyment of their opponent. I think the code of conduct is just highlighting this as a potential issue, while subtly reinforcing the view of GW about what The Hobby is.

Thats some poor logic and I think you know that.
People can engage with the hobby without ever touching a miniature or paintbrush, that's not in question. What is in question is why people are so willing to die on the hill of "if you want painted models you're an elitist gatekeeper". People have been really clear that they aren't going to crucify their opponent if they occasionally bring an unpainted unit but the expectation, especially for long term players, is to have a painted army. You can deny reality all you want but if you're so entrenched in the idea that 40k is intended to be played with unpainted minis then just go ahead. I couldn't care less about what you do, I care about you insulting people because they dared to say you should paint your minis.

Yep, as I thought.

"Games Workshop defines the hobby as Build, Paint Play, therefore anyone building and playing without painting is doing the hobby wrong and deserves to be punished. But someone building and painting but not playing is totally different in every conceivable way and definitely not doing anything wrong at all. Because it's fine for one section of hobbyists to ignore the aspect they don't enjoy but totally unacceptable for another section of hobbyists to ignore another section they don't enjoy (or even just to do it in a timeframe that suits them)."

If you think this is an honest or reasonable argument and not just blatant hypocrisy on your part then we're done here.

 vipoid wrote:
Yep, as I thought.

"Games Workshop defines the hobby as Build, Paint Play, therefore anyone building and playing without painting is doing the hobby wrong and deserves to be punished. But someone building and painting but not playing is totally different in every conceivable way and definitely not doing anything wrong at all. Because it's fine for one section of hobbyists to ignore the aspect they don't enjoy but totally unacceptable for another section of hobbyists to ignore another section they don't enjoy (or even just to do it in a timeframe that suits them)."

If you think this is an honest or reasonable argument and not just blatant hypocrisy on your part then we're done here.

Well, if you build and paint, you are being punished far more than if you build and play. For example, if you play, you can get as many as 90VP, but if you only build and paint you can never score any VP. So, yes, if getting 10 less VP for not painting is a punishment, then getting up to 100 less VP for not playing is a much larger punishment.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 catbarf wrote:
So what's the problem?

Having to ask to use my models? The implication that I'm not "doing it right" because of an aspect I either cannot or choose not to engage in? The arrogant and ignorant notion that those who are not engaging with that aspect of the hobby just aren't "trying hard enough"? The very notion that an aspect of the hobby that is unrelated to the rules can have a tangible impact upon the game?

Any or all of the above. Your choice.

ok dude, how hard is it to say "My models aren't painted, I assume that's not a problem for you?" ?

Likewise if someone does say they have an issue with it, do you spend the next hour verbally attacking them? or do you make note of it, note you're never going to play with him and go and find a game with someone more your style of play? seriously, how is this a giant problem?

do you object because the formal ettiquite document implies painting is the norm?

WELL NO gak IT DOES.

Here's a clue as to WHY

Racerguy180 wrote:
But if one is painted and one is not, are they on equal standing?

So your saying that people without a fully painted army should be treated as scond class players, inferior to people that that have painted armies?Good for nothing but belittlement, insults and scorn?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Irkjoe wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:
"My elitist standards aren't elitism because I say so. Now bow down peasant and don't you dare enjoy the hobby in any other way than I command."

Oh, and I wouldn't exactly use a golf as a good example of a sport that had good standards in regards to who is/was allowed to play.

Not just because I say so, tradition and the very idea of the miniature hobby. I assert that there's a set of acceptable expectations that includes paint among other things; we would never play because you don't meet them and you can't play in tournaments so nobody is forced or negatively impacted in any way.

Aka Because I said so.

Not because I said so, but because that's the culture of minis wargaming. The whole hobby of sitting down and painting them is what is celebrated about it, vis a vis other games like boardgames.

If you disagree with that, you can. But it isn't because *I* said so. That's because of how it is.

Just like how clapping quietly at golf isn't a request from one person ("he said so") but rather an expected behavior within the hobby.

Tresson wrote:

Racerguy180 wrote:
But if one is painted and one is not, are they on equal standing?

So your saying that people without a fully painted army should be treated as scond class players, inferior to people that that have painted armies?Good for nothing but belittlement, insults and scorn?

How is that creating a class? It is creating apparent apprehension from those that do not like/want/can't paint.

But it is a discussion that should already be happening before any game to begin with. If you ask to play a game, it's kinda implied that you are going to use the correct miniatures(with individual exemption), the correct rules(with individual exemption) and "fully painted"(with individual exemption). It's a discussion that either happens in person, online, or wherever.

You're the only one saying anything about belittlement, insults, & scorn.

Tresson wrote:

Racerguy180 wrote:
But if one is painted and one is not, are they on equal standing?

So your saying that people without a fully painted army should be treated as scond class players, inferior to people that that have painted armies?Good for nothing but belittlement, insults and scorn?

way to over read it. Look everyone plays 40k for differant reasons, and has differant expectations of the game.

No one owes you a game of Warhammer

BrianDavion wrote:

Tresson wrote:

Racerguy180 wrote:
But if one is painted and one is not, are they on equal standing?

So your saying that people without a fully painted army should be treated as scond class players, inferior to people that that have painted armies?Good for nothing but belittlement, insults and scorn?

way to over read it. Look everyone plays 40k for differant reasons, and has differant expectations of the game.

No one owes you a game of Warhammer

I think the code saying one side needs to ask permission in itself says that one sides owes more than the other.
And I think some of the other posters in this thread have well made it they think they are at least on here.

Maybe the code should be "inform" if you will be using unpainted and/or proxy, rather than "ask permission".