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.

 TheBestBucketHead wrote:
I don't think declaring that you outright refuse to play with anyone who has an unpainted army is a good way to get people to paint.

But, at least for me, getting them to paint is not my goal. My policy is about one simple fact: I do not like playing with or against unpainted models. I will give a bit of room for someone who is in the process of painting and sacrifice some of my own enjoyment to bring them into the community but past that point I don't really care about player retention. I'm not going to play a game with the guy who hasn't painted a single model in years so whether or not he quits the hobby is not something I'm concerned about. Stay or go that person doesn't exist in my hobby and they don't have any interest in joining it.

 Shas'O Ky'husa wrote:

 TheBestBucketHead wrote:
I don't think declaring that you outright refuse to play with anyone who has an unpainted army is a good way to get people to paint.

But, at least for me, getting them to paint is not my goal. My policy is about one simple fact: I do not like playing with or against unpainted models. I will give a bit of room for someone who is in the process of painting and sacrifice some of my own enjoyment to bring them into the community but past that point I don't really care about player retention. I'm not going to play a game with the guy who hasn't painted a single model in years so whether or not he quits the hobby is not something I'm concerned about. Stay or go that person doesn't exist in my hobby and they don't have any interest in joining it.

I can understand that. You probably didn't see it, because I edited it in a bit after, but I was only referring to growing the hobby. I hate the look of unpainted Infinity models, and probably wouldn't play with someone who didn't have painted Infinity minis.

 TheBestBucketHead wrote:
Maybe the phrasing of it is what's causing a disconnect between the parties with good faith?

It seems like it's less that unpainted minis in general are a transgression, and more that ignoring the preferences of your opponents, and continuing to fight with unpainted minis is?

For example, the first few times you fight someone, they're trying to see if they enjoy it, and most of their army is grey. It becomes an issue if they keep bringing grey minis, making no progress, for every game?

I still think calling them lazy is rude, but judging them for not at least providing some level of flexibility and painting some models occasionally would be justified. It is a social hobby, and if only one player isn't willing to do something to make it more enjoyable for the other, they are the one being rude, even if only in a minor way.

I'd accept all of that to be fair [agreement on the Internet? Must be the fifth horseman!]

Some variation of 'Mate, i think it's a bit lazy*' is different to 'mate, you're a lazy slob'. One is a far more socially acceptable and appropriate way of phrasing it - it can be rude, and it can also be said in a manner than is respectful or polite. Christ I got worse/more hostile feedback from my teachers when I but zero effort into homework.

*assuming the context is someone who 'can't be bothered' to paint.

There's plenty of legitimate reasons to accomodate the grey. There's also plenty legitimate reasons to aspire away from grey.

 TheBestBucketHead wrote:
Though, and I'm sorry for posting so many times back to back, I don't think declaring that you outright refuse to play with anyone who has an unpainted army is a good way to get people to paint. From my experience, it seems to drive people away from the hobby entirely. The same issue applies with the 10 victory points for having a painted army.
I think a more leveled approach, like talking about how painting is fun and calming, after the first attempt or two, is a better way to get people into painting. I eventually just started watching shows while I paint, and while I'm a slow painter, it's still enjoyable.
But, I completely understand the dislike for playing against unpainted armies. I hate the look of unpainted Infinity models, and probably wouldn't play with someone who had their force entirely unpainted. Just saying what I think would help with people on the fence for painting.

How dare you post many times? :p ^throws Internet rock^

But i agree with you. 'Beware a righteous man*'. [*Or person] because they can never be reasoned with, dissuaded from or turned from their absolute convictions.

Absolutism, extreme positions without accomodation, tribalisation and weapinisation of 'grievance' doesn't help anyone. It's unhealthy.

Asmodios wrote:
One of my best friends IRL just hates to not only paint but even build his models, he's had a half-finished tau force with nothing glued to his bases for about 10 years. We are currently halfway through a narrative campaign where we all agreed to start new armies and paint them as we increased points. He isn't playing in the campaign because obviously a lot of the opponents wouldn't want to play against grey riptides with no arms placed sideways on a base. Not one of the people in the campaign is a jerk for not wanting to play against that and he's not a jerk for not wanting to paint his tau.

Eh, after 10 years the models should definitely be built - TLOS may be a pain in the backside, but it does assume the models are taking up roughly the right volume of space.

Have you (or your group) offered to help him get everything built fully, even if you don't go so far as offering help him get things painted?

 TheBestBucketHead wrote:
I really want to know how to see curse words. I'm tired of seeing donkey-cave.

If you don't want to see donkey-cave, don't use donkey-cave - the mods/admin have certain words filtered out, and as far as I know there's no way around that.

Edited


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Deadnight wrote:

 TheBestBucketHead wrote:
Maybe the phrasing of it is what's causing a disconnect between the parties with good faith?

It seems like it's less that unpainted minis in general are a transgression, and more that ignoring the preferences of your opponents, and continuing to fight with unpainted minis is?

For example, the first few times you fight someone, they're trying to see if they enjoy it, and most of their army is grey. It becomes an issue if they keep bringing grey minis, making no progress, for every game?

I still think calling them lazy is rude, but judging them for not at least providing some level of flexibility and painting some models occasionally would be justified. It is a social hobby, and if only one player isn't willing to do something to make it more enjoyable for the other, they are the one being rude, even if only in a minor way.

I'd accept all of that to be fair [agreement on the Internet? Must be the fifth horseman!]

Some variation of 'Mate, i think it's a bit lazy*' is different to 'mate, you're a lazy slob'. One is a far more socially acceptable and appropriate way of phrasing it - it can be rude, and it can also be said in a manner than is respectful or polite. Christ I got worse/more hostile feedback from my teachers when I but zero effort into homework.

*assuming the context is someone who 'can't be bothered' to paint.

There's plenty of legitimate reasons to accomodate the grey. There's also plenty legitimate reasons to aspire away from grey.

 TheBestBucketHead wrote:
Though, and I'm sorry for posting so many times back to back, I don't think declaring that you outright refuse to play with anyone who has an unpainted army is a good way to get people to paint. From my experience, it seems to drive people away from the hobby entirely. The same issue applies with the 10 victory points for having a painted army.
I think a more leveled approach, like talking about how painting is fun and calming, after the first attempt or two, is a better way to get people into painting. I eventually just started watching shows while I paint, and while I'm a slow painter, it's still enjoyable.
But, I completely understand the dislike for playing against unpainted armies. I hate the look of unpainted Infinity models, and probably wouldn't play with someone who had their force entirely unpainted. Just saying what I think would help with people on the fence for painting.

How dare you post many times? :p ^throws Internet rock^

But i agree with you. 'Beware a righteous man*'. [*Or person] because they can never be reasoned with, dissuaded from or turned from their absolute convictions.

Absolutism, extreme positions without accomodation, tribalisation and weapinisation of 'grievance' doesn't help anyone. It's unhealthy.

Unless you are stablishing a new religion like Jesus from Nazaret who "brings not peace but a sword".

I have been thinking more about the culture surrounding the game and painting.

With historical, it’s often games and groups can adapt and work though it over years. The investment in painting even if your focus on the game is a huge improvement.

With other games I play, even if the meta shifts and changes the company pushing the games don’t really rock the meta drastically.

My infinity army’s are all still playing like they should and feels fun to play without huge issues. And balance itself I feel has been handled well.

GW on the other hand, is regularly upending the meta game, with the different editions often having huge changes at some point that can leave large groups of players in weird places.
Meta changes or sweeping changes to how factions play at times, or small things like if you picked the wrong paint people complain if you want to use more appropriate or better fitting rules.
Things like this can make investment into the painting part of the hobby a negative. Even forcing a change if your focus is on the gameplay at heart of the hobby. And these can come often if you are a slow painter.

It’s also why I think the just spray and contrast and easy paint it can feel so holow, as well as devaluing the models.
GW have crated there own culture around painting, and I think a lot of players feed into it.

I'm happy to play with anyone but I prefer to play with people whose army is fully painted or partially painted. I especially love it when they do custom color schemes for their dudes.

Apple fox wrote:
I have been thinking more about the culture surrounding the game and painting.

Let's add another one: Warmachine/Hordes and its aggressively toxic Page 5 "WINNING IS ALL THAT MATTERS" community. Has anyone ever looked at a WM/H game full of half-assembled and unpainted miniatures on paper cutout "terrain" and thought "wow, that looks so cool, I really want to do that"? Has the total disregard for the models as anything but very expensive tokens helped or hurt WM/H? I don't think it's at all a coincidence that the game with the most notoriously toxic fanbase is the one where I can't remember ever seeing a game with more than 1-2 painted models, usually very badly painted.

Or how about two more: X-Wing and Armada. Fully painted miniatures right out of the box, and a substantial community dedicated to re-paints. At least before covid wrecked everything their games always seemed to be thriving and had uninvolved people watching. The spectacle of x-wings and star destroyers looked awesome and I know quite a few people got into it purely because they wanted to collect the cool spaceships. Is it a coincidence that the community has a reputation for being welcoming to newbies, appealing to non-gamers, and "fly casual" as the popular slogan even in tournament play?

(And yes, I know the "we didn't mean it that way" defense of Page 5. That doesn't change the fact that far too many people in that community treat it as endorsement of the worst kinds of WAAC TFG behavior.)

I am not sure what is toxic about winning or wanting to win. Only thing toxic I ever encountered in table top games was people saying they don't care or want to win, and then spill their littany of things that have to be done durning the game, which somehow end up making their army better and have a better chance to win.
Also the thing that killed warmachine, in my part of europe, was the fact that the company started doing some extremly shady things as far as sending models here. And it started way before covid, because warmachine was dead already when I was starting w40k in 8th.

When models are impossible to get, and the company creates specific lists where to play you need a specific number of specific models to play, and you can't get them the game will not be played. If GW decided that every space marine army in 10th need 20 intercessors, 10 hellblasters and 10 bladeguards, and you wouldn't be able to buy those models, outside of a secondary market, the game would be in huge trouble too. And size wise w40k secondary market is a gigant comparing to what exists for other games.

 Gene St. Ealer wrote:

ccs wrote:

 Gene St. Ealer wrote:
I prefer to fight against painted models, or at the very least, see progress week by week from my opponents.

I think if i played with someone with this expectation I'd make an effort to get one model in a unit finished per week.
And then never actually include that unit in a list I fielded against them.

Yep, making progress....

I don't think you'd have to worry about that, buddy, given how you post on here

Fine.... I'll put the unit in the roster, pay the cp to place it in strat reserve & probably forget about it until at least turn #4.
Would that soothe your sense of entitlement?

 Dysartes wrote:

Eh, after 10 years the models should definitely be built - TLOS may be a pain in the backside, but it does assume the models are taking up roughly the right volume of space.
.

Try playing with GK termintors then, specialy the metal ones, with huge swords and halbards pointed upwards or Draigo with a banner which double his size. Before they were legended in 8th I had to remove , as in cut off, banners from all of my dreadnoughts, because they were making the dreadnoughts impossible to use before the era of 9" tall L shaped terrain. A guy who started at the same time as me in 8th, moved to AoS, after he converted a BA capting out of a stormcast eternal model. Which looked cool, but because it was afixed to its base on a pice of magical cloth, it was taller then a demon prince. TLOS is a stupid thing, and it encourges stuff like crawling or kneeling melee models. Or the top of esthetics ork boys being bent over in a naruto run pose.

This thread is crazy. Reminds me of that "is 40k a hobby" thread from a while back.

ccs 806156 11408133 wrote:

Fine.... I'll put the unit in the roster, pay the cp to place it in strat reserve & probably forget about it until at least turn #4.
Would that soothe your sense of entitlement?

throwing a game on purpose is probably one of the worse things one can do. It is like saying, you are not worth playing for real, but I will waste your time and create as much of a negative expiriance for you as possible. It is like a dude who could easily win against you, but would rather go the full match lenght gaine 2 points, then lose one for a foul, gain one point, then foul you again etc.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Sim-Life wrote:
This thread is crazy. Reminds me of that "is 40k a hobby" thread from a while back.

Differences in budgets , while playing the same game at the same point costs size, makes people view the "hobby" side of GW games differently. Someone who can buy a new army in 2-3 months , or who already owns multiple armies will have a different view on what is okey and not okey, then someone who has to save up for 18-24 months to get 2k pts.

 Sim-Life wrote:
This thread is crazy. Reminds me of that "is 40k a hobby" thread from a while back.

People have a tendency to do crazy things at the peak of the summer.

Vatsetis wrote:

Tiberias wrote:

Vatsetis wrote:
Well, it is unpleasant to be judged in rude terms.

But, if you break a social convention (like entering barefoot into a supermarket, not ussing the fork at the table or you know playing a minis wargame with unpainted minis) be prepare to suffer some sort of judjement for doing so... Surely if you have a reasonable explanation for your social "transgression" sensible people will accept it without further debate.

Playing with unpainted minis is a social transgression that deserves to be negatively judged? At least your post makes it sound like that.
Again, nobody can tell you that you have to play with someone who has unpainted minis, but negatively judging them just for the fact is really, really stupid. And I would argue it's nothing like going into a supermarket bare footed, it's someone's personal property and they can damn well do with it whatever they like unless they start throwing their models at people. A better and more honest comparison would have been if you said that someone should be negatively judged if they don't wear a certain band specific clothing for a metal festival, which is equally as stupid an argument.

By going barefoot into a supermarket do you damage anyone (apart from yourselve, perhaps)? Why do I have to please the aesthetic and social conventions of other people? Ussing shoes is so elitist and snob!!

It might look that Im making a reduction at absurdum but Im not... Many people expect you to paint your minis when playing and expect you to have shoes when entering a supermarket... Perhaps you live/play in a community that allows such attitudes, but dont be surprise if others outside your circle findthem disturbing or inconvinient for some reason.

Living in the broader society is optional... But has its advantajes (and therefore its taxes)... An important part of adulthood is accepting that.

Like I already said previously, I personally paint all my models and I prefer playing with and against painted models. I even painstakingly built and painted a gaming table plus scenery for my gaming group. I just don't expect anyone of my gaming circle to paint their minis because I know how stressful their lives can be. I just encourage it by setting an example and by trying to help them make the process easier by showing them new painting techniques.
Whatever happened to "strict to oneself, lenient towards others".

That also my motto.

Apple fox wrote:
It’s also why I think the just spray and contrast and easy paint it can feel so holow, as well as devaluing the models.
GW have crated there own culture around painting, and I think a lot of players feed into it.

I think it's truer to say that people involved in the competitive environment can have a more skewed approach to painting with the effects of 'churn' rather than just laying it all at gw's feet.

Regarding 'churn', its not necessarily a gw thing either. My wmh armies looked radically different at the end of mk2 than they did at the start and my mk3 lists were totally different again. Looking at the recently announced wmh mk4, pp have 'legacied' the majority of the releases up until now. It will have support apparently but the future 'real' game will be the 'new' releases and only some of the current rosters so i fully expect a lotof what i have to lt have a place outside of a specific format.

Shas'O Ky'husa wrote:

Let's add another one: Warmachine/Hordes and its aggressively toxic Page 5 "WINNING IS ALL THAT MATTERS" community. Has anyone ever looked at a WM/H game full of half-assembled and unpainted miniatures on paper cutout "terrain" and thought "wow, that looks so cool, I really want to do that"? Has the total disregard for the models as anything but very expensive tokens helped or hurt WM/H? I don't think it's at all a coincidence that the game with the most notoriously toxic fanbase is the one where I can't remember ever seeing a game with more than 1-2 painted models, usually very badly painted.

(And yes, I know the "we didn't mean it that way" defense of Page 5. That doesn't change the fact that far too many people in that community treat it as endorsement of the worst kinds of WAAC TFG behavior.)

The worst offenders never read to the end of page 5 which states page 5 wasnt an excuse to ruin other peoples fun. Page 5 had some very positive messaging wrapped up in a ridiculously ott delivery. It was deeply ironic. A lot of the worst adherents of the toxicity were former-40k players who migrated over when gw was self-combusting about ten years ago.

Youre not wrong about the painting but at the same time - I've also seen plenty wmh players paint their stuff. Like me. At one point I had about 400 wmh figures - all painted to a very good standard, some painted twice. Similarly regarding the comment about the most notoriously toxic fanbase - its a bit harsh and a bit misplaced. Some of the most wonderful people I've ever met were part of that community. It might be true now in that what's left is an overly competitive rump community, but that's after a lot of the casual players and less competitive players have bled away over thr end of mk2 and era of mk3. I've seen more toxic 40k players that wmh players, though the one of the latter that comes to mind easily ranks amongst the worst I've come across in twenty years.

Not having a go by the way, just an additional perspective.

Karol wrote:I am not sure what is toxic about winning or wanting to win.

It depends how far you push 'wanting to win' though. Competition can be healthy but it can also very quickly get out of control and destructive I mean, there's plenty downright nasty and unethical/immoral things that can be done by someone who only 'wants to win' - whether it's within the context of the rules or outside - you yourseld often talk about people spiking other competitors drinks or sabotaging their equipment. And on top of that, when the consequences of those actions and approaches often poison everyone elses experience and enjoyment - That's what's often toxic.

 Arschbombe wrote:

 skchsan wrote:

You guys talk like it's a god given right to be able to play with unpainted models.

But it is their right isn't it? They don't have to paint if they don't want to. I think the friction comes from them wanting to a) not be judged for that and b) not to be discriminated against.

People with painted army has zero obligations whatsoever to play against your unpainted army. It's their freedom to not play with you if they don't want to play with you, just as it is your freedom to not paint your toys. Similarly, you have no right whatsoever for condemning a person from forming their own opinion (what you're referring to as being 'judging'), just as you're free to believe you're being 'discriminated' against.

It's a simple matter of agreeing to disagree - not a cause to pick up your pitch forks and torches and rally against each other.

 skchsan wrote:

 Arschbombe wrote:

 skchsan wrote:

You guys talk like it's a god given right to be able to play with unpainted models.

But it is their right isn't it? They don't have to paint if they don't want to. I think the friction comes from them wanting to a) not be judged for that and b) not to be discriminated against.

People with painted army has zero obligations whatsoever to play against your unpainted army. It's their freedom to not play with you if they don't want to play with you, just as it is your freedom to not paint your toys. Similarly, you have no right whatsoever for condemning a person from forming their own opinion (what you're referring to as being 'judging'), just as you're free to believe you're being 'discriminated' against.

It's a simple matter of agreeing to disagree - not a cause to pick up your pitch forks and torches and rally against each other.

You do grasp that telling people that they're 'free to believe they're being discriminated against' (bonus points for single quotes around 'discriminated' and 'judging') is picking up a pitchfork yourself, right? You're implicitly taking a hostile stance yourself, even if you don't believe you are.

Paint or not, but have some awareness of the tone of the thread, the hostility started strong right off the bat, and keeps continuing.

Voss wrote:

 skchsan wrote:

 Arschbombe wrote:

 skchsan wrote:

You guys talk like it's a god given right to be able to play with unpainted models.

But it is their right isn't it? They don't have to paint if they don't want to. I think the friction comes from them wanting to a) not be judged for that and b) not to be discriminated against.

People with painted army has zero obligations whatsoever to play against your unpainted army. It's their freedom to not play with you if they don't want to play with you, just as it is your freedom to not paint your toys. Similarly, you have no right whatsoever for condemning a person from forming their own opinion (what you're referring to as being 'judging'), just as you're free to believe you're being 'discriminated' against.

It's a simple matter of agreeing to disagree - not a cause to pick up your pitch forks and torches and rally against each other.

You do grasp that telling people that they're 'free to believe they're being discriminated against' (bonus points for single quotes around 'discriminated' and 'judging') is picking up a pitchfork yourself, right? You're implicitly taking a hostile stance yourself, even if you don't believe you are.

Paint or not, but have some awareness of the tone of the thread, the hostility started strong right off the bat, and keeps continuing.

If you take offense to what I wrote, then that's on you.

The topic is "what level of painting do YOU require for YOUR games". People are sharing the level of painting they require when setting up THEIR games - ergo, a house rule of sort in regards to painting levels.
Don't go and tell people what they house rule is "wrong" because YOU feel discriminated against.

There is no "entitlement" for playing with unpainted models. I could choose not to play with you for many reasons other than you not having a painted army, and THAT is everyone's right.

I personally don't give a hoot whether you have unpainted army or not. But if my personal experiences mean anything, I had a fair share of games when my opponent tried to cheat saying that he couldn't keep track of which unit had what upgrades because "they're all grey". Most of the people that I played against that played with unpainted armies were the "gamey" meta-chaser type that were unnecessarily overly competitive that would try and cheat like that. These players weren't painting because [REASONS], but simply because they switch out their units with the next "new shiny thing that GW was too lazy to balance properly" so often that they were simply too lazy to paint (their words) or didn't have the time to (also their words).

I have to say, given the poll results have a minority majority saying they don't give a flying fudge what level of paint their opponent has, that anyone making an argument about not-painting being a violation of social norms (and thus something worthy of being judgmental about, rather than just Letting Things Be) should really support their argument with... something.

 Unusual Suspect wrote:
I have to say, given the poll results have a minority majority saying they don't give a flying fudge what level of paint their opponent has, that anyone making an argument about not-painting being a violation of social norms (and thus something worthy of being judgmental about, rather than just Letting Things Be) should really support their argument with... something.

If you and your group has decided and agreed upon to bring fully painted army for a game day and you didn't, then you'd have violated a social norm that was expected amongst the members of the group.

If a tournament required a minimum painting level and you showed up with grey plastic army and was subsequently ejected from the event, that's on you, not the TO's.

 Unusual Suspect wrote:
I have to say, given the poll results have a minority majority saying they don't give a flying fudge what level of paint their opponent has, that anyone making an argument about not-painting being a violation of social norms (and thus something worthy of being judgmental about, rather than just Letting Things Be) should really support their argument with... something.

Sure an internet poll with 300? Answers defines what are broad social conventions.

 Unusual Suspect wrote:
I have to say, given the poll results have a minority majority saying they don't give a flying fudge what level of paint their opponent has, that anyone making an argument about not-painting being a violation of social norms (and thus something worthy of being judgmental about, rather than just Letting Things Be) should really support their argument with... something.

There are many people in this thread who said "I voted zero because it is not a requirement but would prefer to play against painted armies" in so many words.

Which is exactly what social norms are. I am not going to citizen's arrest someone for being barefoot near me in a supermarket, but I would prefer if they were not.

If the poll was worded "do you prefer to play against painted armies", you probably would see more Yes's than Nos.

 Unusual Suspect wrote:
I have to say, given the poll results have a minority majority saying they don't give a flying fudge what level of paint their opponent has, that anyone making an argument about not-painting being a violation of social norms (and thus something worthy of being judgmental about, rather than just Letting Things Be) should really support their argument with... something.

Not necessarily. Online communities are not a representative sample of the game as a whole.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Unusual Suspect wrote:
I have to say, given the poll results have a minority majority saying they don't give a flying fudge what level of paint their opponent has, that anyone making an argument about not-painting being a violation of social norms (and thus something worthy of being judgmental about, rather than just Letting Things Be) should really support their argument with... something.

There are many people in this thread who said "I voted zero because it is not a requirement but would prefer to play against painted armies" in so many words.

Which is exactly what social norms are. I am not going to citizen's arrest someone for being barefoot near me in a supermarket, but I would prefer if they were not.

If the poll was worded "do you prefer to play against painted armies", you probably would see more Yes's than Nos.

In the words of the late Great Captain Bellerophon 'Tornado' Shanks, "If If's and Buts were Candies and Nuts, We'd all have a merry Christmas."

 Dysartes wrote:

Asmodios wrote:
One of my best friends IRL just hates to not only paint but even build his models, he's had a half-finished tau force with nothing glued to his bases for about 10 years. We are currently halfway through a narrative campaign where we all agreed to start new armies and paint them as we increased points. He isn't playing in the campaign because obviously a lot of the opponents wouldn't want to play against grey riptides with no arms placed sideways on a base. Not one of the people in the campaign is a jerk for not wanting to play against that and he's not a jerk for not wanting to paint his tau.

Eh, after 10 years the models should definitely be built - TLOS may be a pain in the backside, but it does assume the models are taking up roughly the right volume of space.

Have you (or your group) offered to help him get everything built fully, even if you don't go so far as offering help him get things painted?

We have even offered to help him build/paint, but funnily enough, he's very particular in what his vision is that they will look like and wants to do it himself. Luckily, he hasn't had an issue with "hey look man we are doing the escalation league with fully painted models your welcome to join but you would have to finish". Like I said he's actually seen how much fun we have had with it and is starting a new low model count army to be a member of the next escalation campaign.

My position on my buddy is what shaped my overall outlook in this thread (which seems to be the position of most of the painted crowd). I'm all for unpainted games to get someone into the hobby or if they are growing their force or wanna try something out. But it's also perfectly fine for a person or group of people to just say "sorry man this game/league/tournament is painted only"


Automatically Appended Next Post:

ccs wrote:

 Gene St. Ealer wrote:

ccs wrote:

 Gene St. Ealer wrote:
I prefer to fight against painted models, or at the very least, see progress week by week from my opponents.

I think if i played with someone with this expectation I'd make an effort to get one model in a unit finished per week.
And then never actually include that unit in a list I fielded against them.

Yep, making progress....

I don't think you'd have to worry about that, buddy, given how you post on here

Fine.... I'll put the unit in the roster, pay the cp to place it in strat reserve & probably forget about it until at least turn #4.
Would that soothe your sense of entitlement?

Posts like this do a beautiful job of reinforcing why some people in this thread steer clear of people with unpainted armies that act like this. You are literally reinforcing the stereotype that people who don't paint their armies are miserable TFG.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Unusual Suspect wrote:
I have to say, given the poll results have a minority majority saying they don't give a flying fudge what level of paint their opponent has, that anyone making an argument about not-painting being a violation of social norms (and thus something worthy of being judgmental about, rather than just Letting Things Be) should really support their argument with... something.

Considering most major tournaments have added a three-color minimum standard and tournaments have seen an uptick in participation after this, id say basing this daka thread with a couple of hundred people as your data is weak

Shas'O Ky'husa wrote:Let's add another one: Warmachine/Hordes and its aggressively toxic Page 5 "WINNING IS ALL THAT MATTERS" community. Has anyone ever looked at a WM/H game full of half-assembled and unpainted miniatures on paper cutout "terrain" and thought "wow, that looks so cool, I really want to do that"? Has the total disregard for the models as anything but very expensive tokens helped or hurt WM/H? I don't think it's at all a coincidence that the game with the most notoriously toxic fanbase is the one where I can't remember ever seeing a game with more than 1-2 painted models, usually very badly painted.

Or how about two more: X-Wing and Armada. Fully painted miniatures right out of the box, and a substantial community dedicated to re-paints. At least before covid wrecked everything their games always seemed to be thriving and had uninvolved people watching. The spectacle of x-wings and star destroyers looked awesome and I know quite a few people got into it purely because they wanted to collect the cool spaceships. Is it a coincidence that the community has a reputation for being welcoming to newbies, appealing to non-gamers, and "fly casual" as the popular slogan even in tournament play?

(And yes, I know the "we didn't mean it that way" defense of Page 5. That doesn't change the fact that far too many people in that community treat it as endorsement of the worst kinds of WAAC TFG behavior.)

I was actually going to say something along the lines of 'they didn't mean it that way' but you're right, too many people did interpret it that way.

One of my favorite compromises in terms of accessibility was Dust. The minis came assembled and primed in faction colors (grey for Germans, green for Americans, yellow-green-brown for Sino-Soviets, etc) with then a few simple transfers of the white star, Balkenkreuz, or red star. They still looked fine when you plopped them down right out of the box onto the table, but weren't as expensive as pre-paints tend to be.

With either Dust or X-Wing you can buy a few boxes and immediately join in the ongoing games. You can't do that with 40K and it's not just because you need to paint models, it's because you need to spend a lot of money to get a playable force, and then you need to assemble them. GW's trying to correct this to a degree with more focus on small game sizes, but there's still a higher barrier to entry.

And it's not just the models themselves. Books. Board. Terrain. Like, if you sit down and compare just how much stuff you need to invest in to have a good, 'proper' game of 40K versus the same for X-Wing, it's not even close.

Asmodios wrote:

ccs wrote:
Fine.... I'll put the unit in the roster, pay the cp to place it in strat reserve & probably forget about it until at least turn #4.
Would that soothe your sense of entitlement?

Posts like this do a beautiful job of reinforcing why some people in this thread steer clear of people with unpainted armies that act like this. You are literally reinforcing the stereotype that people who don't paint their armies are miserable TFG.

A thousand times this.

'I not only don't respect your preference, I will passive-aggressively spite your preference just to upset you' makes you a dick.

 skchsan wrote:

Voss wrote:

 skchsan wrote:

 Arschbombe wrote:

 skchsan wrote:

You guys talk like it's a god given right to be able to play with unpainted models.

But it is their right isn't it? They don't have to paint if they don't want to. I think the friction comes from them wanting to a) not be judged for that and b) not to be discriminated against.

People with painted army has zero obligations whatsoever to play against your unpainted army. It's their freedom to not play with you if they don't want to play with you, just as it is your freedom to not paint your toys. Similarly, you have no right whatsoever for condemning a person from forming their own opinion (what you're referring to as being 'judging'), just as you're free to believe you're being 'discriminated' against.

It's a simple matter of agreeing to disagree - not a cause to pick up your pitch forks and torches and rally against each other.

You do grasp that telling people that they're 'free to believe they're being discriminated against' (bonus points for single quotes around 'discriminated' and 'judging') is picking up a pitchfork yourself, right? You're implicitly taking a hostile stance yourself, even if you don't believe you are.

Paint or not, but have some awareness of the tone of the thread, the hostility started strong right off the bat, and keeps continuing.

If you take offense to what I wrote, then that's on you.
.

It wasn't about 'taking offense.' Just pointing out if you're really trying to genuinely de-escalate the situation (agree to disagree), telling people how -they- should feel is _exactly_ the wrong way to go about it.
That's a basic conflict resolution skill.

 Unusual Suspect wrote:
I have to say, given the poll results have a minority majority saying they don't give a flying fudge what level of paint their opponent has, that anyone making an argument about not-painting being a violation of social norms (and thus something worthy of being judgmental about, rather than just Letting Things Be) should really support their argument with... something.

The poll is badly-constructed, with unclear options - any data derived from it is inherently suspect.