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.

 JNAProductions wrote:
How do you get “not that many would play against unpainted minis” when 47% (as of writing this post) voted 0?

as i pointed out : lack of reading comprehension. This feels like a troll account thats just leeching on the current topic


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Vatsetis wrote:

Amongst them there is a minority that even feel (or at least express loudly) that they are victims of the pro painted camp.

Well when they get insulted for not painting, of course they're gonna feel like victims.....

No, I think that post might just have a legitimate typo.
They happen.

Because it was a mistake on my posted... It should read "wouldnt".

Is an obvious errata as latter in the same paragrah I refer to the "10"option is this pool.

Sorry for the confusion.

Lol at people being "insulted".

I think the worst insult that was ACTUALLY levelled at people who don't want to paint is the word lazy and it was by a single poster who regretted and took it back.

Arguably, selfish is also an insult, though I was trying to illustrate it as an ethical position (hence the parenthetical ethical egoism) rather than using it for the purpose of insult. Still, that definition got so horribly strawmanned and twisted that I am not surprised people felt insulted - if they read from my definition what they indeed claimed they read from it, then fine.

So "lazy" and "selfish". Terrible insults, I know - besmirching the very soul. Why, we might even call them "heartbreakers" next.

Meanwhile, people who want to encourage painting in the hobby are "absolutists", "extremists", and "supremacists", who are "gatekeeping" and "ableist".

Do I have the words used by the two sides correctly?

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Lol at people being "insulted".

I think the worst insult that was ACTUALLY levelled at people who don't want to paint is the word lazy and it was by a single poster who regretted and took it back.

Arguably, selfish is also an insult, though I was trying to illustrate it as an ethical position (hence the parenthetical ethical egoism) rather than using it for the purpose of insult. Still, that definition got so horribly strawmanned and twisted that I am not surprised people felt insulted - if they read from my definition what they indeed claimed they read from it, then fine.

So "lazy" and "selfish". Terrible insults, I know - besmirching the very soul. Why, we might even call them "heartbreakers" next.

Meanwhile, people who want to encourage painting in the hobby are "absolutists", "extremists", and "supremacists", who are "gatekeeping" and "ableist".

Do I have the words used by the two sides correctly?

And the attitudes as far as being apologetic. You'll also notice the sides match up with the "Forge the Narrative" pro and con camps as well. I doubt that's an accident...

 Just Tony wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Lol at people being "insulted".

I think the worst insult that was ACTUALLY levelled at people who don't want to paint is the word lazy and it was by a single poster who regretted and took it back.

Arguably, selfish is also an insult, though I was trying to illustrate it as an ethical position (hence the parenthetical ethical egoism) rather than using it for the purpose of insult. Still, that definition got so horribly strawmanned and twisted that I am not surprised people felt insulted - if they read from my definition what they indeed claimed they read from it, then fine.

So "lazy" and "selfish". Terrible insults, I know - besmirching the very soul. Why, we might even call them "heartbreakers" next.

Meanwhile, people who want to encourage painting in the hobby are "absolutists", "extremists", and "supremacists", who are "gatekeeping" and "ableist".

Do I have the words used by the two sides correctly?

And the attitudes as far as being apologetic. You'll also notice the sides match up with the "Forge the Narrative" pro and con camps as well. I doubt that's an accident...

In which sense? could you please develop your statement? thanks

I cannot understand why anyone would want to invest in this hobby without painting, building cool terrain, creating a realistic battlefield, but whatevs. Game away with bare plastic and soda cans, I wont be involved.

 jeff white wrote:
I cannot understand why anyone would want to invest in this hobby without painting, building cool terrain, creating a realistic battlefield, but whatevs. Game away with bare plastic and soda cans, I wont be involved.

Some people are in the game for playing and hangout time with cool lore, not everyone needs to have 100hrs of hours invested into toys to enjoy them. When reading a book do you care that you have to use your imagination to visualize the world? Or do you need a show/movie to enjoy it?

The fact that you can not understand others is more shocking to me than the trolls on here.

Painting minis to 40K is sort of like being able to read to appreciate literature...

... "TECHNICALLY" you can experience both hobbies with out them (with unpainted figures or a podcast) but in practical terms painting and reading are both important aspects of their respectives hobbies.

People only deny this for some akward reason of entitlement or not being mature enough to accept "defeat" on an online debate.

Its pretty sad, actually :(

Painting minis is only vital to the painting minis hobby. It is not vital to the playing wargames hobby.

Vatsetis wrote:

 Just Tony wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Lol at people being "insulted".

I think the worst insult that was ACTUALLY levelled at people who don't want to paint is the word lazy and it was by a single poster who regretted and took it back.

Arguably, selfish is also an insult, though I was trying to illustrate it as an ethical position (hence the parenthetical ethical egoism) rather than using it for the purpose of insult. Still, that definition got so horribly strawmanned and twisted that I am not surprised people felt insulted - if they read from my definition what they indeed claimed they read from it, then fine.

So "lazy" and "selfish". Terrible insults, I know - besmirching the very soul. Why, we might even call them "heartbreakers" next.

Meanwhile, people who want to encourage painting in the hobby are "absolutists", "extremists", and "supremacists", who are "gatekeeping" and "ableist".

Do I have the words used by the two sides correctly?

And the attitudes as far as being apologetic. You'll also notice the sides match up with the "Forge the Narrative" pro and con camps as well. I doubt that's an accident...

In which sense? could you please develop your statement? thanks

Allusion and inference. I am not going to do your job for you...

Vatsetis wrote:Painting minis to 40K is sort of like being able to read to appreciate literature...

... "TECHNICALLY" you can experience both hobbies with out them (with unpainted figures or a podcast) but in practical terms painting and reading are both important aspects of their respectives hobbies.(

Like I've said in your other thread, this isn't the case with either.

Literature doesn't become invalid when spoken, unless you don't believe that plays, spoken word poems, poetry recitals, audio dramas, or songs are valid "literature". Can you only appreciate Shakespeare when you're following along, script in hand? I'd argue that in that case, it's the other way around!

And it's not even a "technically" experiencing the hobby without painting - you can. It's an experience, reified by the simple act of doing.
Importance is only relevant to people who deem it so. It's not important to everyone, and that's okay.

Why do you care what other people do?

Vatsetis wrote:
Painting minis to 40K is sort of like being able to read to appreciate literature...

... "TECHNICALLY" you can experience both hobbies with out them (with unpainted figures or a podcast) but in practical terms painting and reading are both important aspects of their respectives hobbies.

People only deny this for some akward reason of entitlement or not being mature enough to accept "defeat" on an online debate.

Its pretty sad, actually :(

Or, and hear me out on this, it isnt. People aren’t denying painting is part of 40K or war gaming. People just simply don’t participate in that section of the hobby. For them it isn’t fun or worthwhile.

 TheBestBucketHead wrote:
Painting minis is only vital to the painting minis hobby. It is not vital to the playing wargames hobby.

40k would be a dead hobby without painting. People don't see gray hordes and think "WOW COOL I WANT THAT", they're drawn in by fully painted armies on nice terrain. Take away the painting and you get Warmachine, a game that died as soon as the WAAC players went back to 40k because hardly anyone cared about its models or lore. Take away the painting and you get $500 for a 10-man infantry box as GW desperately tries to extract as much profit as possible from a shrinking customer base before the inevitable end. You're just fortunate that enough other people continue to paint and keep the game alive, and that an occasional unpainted army won't do too much damage.

Yes, Shas'o makes a good point here. Back when I first started playing and had grey plastic and I would fight grey plastic at an LGS, basically nobody would stop by and watch or comment. With painted models, really regardless of the paint job (I am decidedly an average/mediocre painter), it's rare to have a day where somebody *doesn't* stop and watch or comment. Especially families with younger kids; a kid (or even a parent) uninterested in warhammer fluff or rules but may still be curious about these detailed, colorful miniatures on the table.

 Shas'O Ky'husa wrote:

 TheBestBucketHead wrote:
Painting minis is only vital to the painting minis hobby. It is not vital to the playing wargames hobby.

40k would be a dead hobby without painting. People don't see gray hordes and think "WOW COOL I WANT THAT", they're drawn in by fully painted armies on nice terrain. Take away the painting and you get Warmachine, a game that died as soon as the WAAC players went back to 40k because hardly anyone cared about its models or lore. Take away the painting and you get $500 for a 10-man infantry box as GW desperately tries to extract as much profit as possible from a shrinking customer base before the inevitable end. You're just fortunate that enough other people continue to paint and keep the game alive, and that an occasional unpainted army won't do too much damage.

40k would be dead without the IP itself. Their miniatures are not more special than anyone else's and the rules suck. People are attached to the IP, full stop.

 Shas'O Ky'husa wrote:

 TheBestBucketHead wrote:
Painting minis is only vital to the painting minis hobby. It is not vital to the playing wargames hobby.

40k would be a dead hobby without painting. People don't see gray hordes and think "WOW COOL I WANT THAT", they're drawn in by fully painted armies on nice terrain. Take away the painting and you get Warmachine, a game that died as soon as the WAAC players went back to 40k because hardly anyone cared about its models or lore. Take away the painting and you get $500 for a 10-man infantry box as GW desperately tries to extract as much profit as possible from a shrinking customer base before the inevitable end. You're just fortunate that enough other people continue to paint and keep the game alive, and that an occasional unpainted army won't do too much damage.

Man, I'm very glad that I said 40k, and not wargames. I sure did miss that one. I don't care about the 40k wargame, so eh. However, I've been drawn to games due to rules, rather than minis. Painting is not vital to my enjoyment of a wargame, board game, or any game. Unpainted Infinity miniatures look like garbage, but if they put unpainted chits with the name of the unit on top, and the gun on the bottom, I'd happily play against that person.

Also, I don't care if a game is currently popular, alive, or dead in the water. I'll gladly play games with my friends that haven't gotten an update since over 20 years ago, and be quite happy. I didn't know how any Infinity models looked before I was interested, and I didn't know what Warcaster models looked before I checked it out. I was enamored by unpainted Battletech minis the moment I saw them, and impulse bought some immediately, and am still waiting on that cool infantry kit.

EviscerationPlague wrote:
40k would be dead without the IP itself. Their miniatures are not more special than anyone else's and the rules suck. People are attached to the IP, full stop.

And that IP is represented on the table by fully painted armies on nice terrain. If the hobby was represented by a bunch of gray plastic on random cardboard boxes and beer cans for "terrain" like Warmachine it wouldn't draw nearly as much interest. Most people would take one look at the disappointing game, decide it's a waste of money, and go back to playing the cool video game and pretending to be a space marine.

Like it or not that's how miniatures games work. Does anyone remember the old WOTC Star Wars miniatures game? It was a complete failure because the models sucked. FFG releases a Star Wars miniatures game with excellent (and fully painted out of the box) models and suddenly people see it in a shop and want to have it, even people who never played the game.

EviscerationPlague wrote:
Their miniatures are not more special than anyone else's and the rules suck. People are attached to the IP, full stop.

I think this is really a matter of opinion.

I've only come back to wargaming and painting relatively recently, but I think Games Workshop do make pretty amazing miniatures. My Mrs even has a whole bunch of Nighthaunt models purely because she likes the asthetic; she knows literally nothing about the lore and doesn't play the game. There are pretty awesome non-GW miniatures kicking around, particularly as 3D printing has become more ubiquitous, but without a 3D printer they might as well not exist for me. Sure I could pay for someone to print them for me, but that is extra cost and quality issues are much more likely to be a problem. GW miniatures are high quality, readily available and they have some amazing sculpts, so for me that does make them 'more special' than the alternatives.

I only use my models in games if they are painted.
I prefer to play against people who also have painted miniatures, because the spectacle is a part of why I enjoy wargaming.
I would rather play against unpainted than not play though, especially against players who are still working on their first army, but like to see more paint each time.
I someone doesn't intend to paint their miniatures then they can enjoy the hobby their way, but I will not invite them to play me.

It does irk me when someone could play a painted army, but puts the new half built thing on the table instead.

Not for 40k anymore, but same applies.

 TheBestBucketHead wrote:

 Shas'O Ky'husa wrote:

 TheBestBucketHead wrote:
Painting minis is only vital to the painting minis hobby. It is not vital to the playing wargames hobby.

40k would be a dead hobby without painting. People don't see gray hordes and think "WOW COOL I WANT THAT", they're drawn in by fully painted armies on nice terrain. Take away the painting and you get Warmachine, a game that died as soon as the WAAC players went back to 40k because hardly anyone cared about its models or lore. Take away the painting and you get $500 for a 10-man infantry box as GW desperately tries to extract as much profit as possible from a shrinking customer base before the inevitable end. You're just fortunate that enough other people continue to paint and keep the game alive, and that an occasional unpainted army won't do too much damage.

Man, I'm very glad that I said 40k, and not wargames. I sure did miss that one. I don't care about the 40k wargame, so eh. However, I've been drawn to games due to rules, rather than minis. Painting is not vital to my enjoyment of a wargame, board game, or any game. Unpainted Infinity miniatures look like garbage, but if they put unpainted chits with the name of the unit on top, and the gun on the bottom, I'd happily play against that person.

Also, I don't care if a game is currently popular, alive, or dead in the water. I'll gladly play games with my friends that haven't gotten an update since over 20 years ago, and be quite happy. I didn't know how any Infinity models looked before I was interested, and I didn't know what Warcaster models looked before I checked it out. I was enamored by unpainted Battletech minis the moment I saw them, and impulse bought some immediately, and am still waiting on that cool infantry kit.

You know I think that this is something that the "pro-painting" side is completely ignoring. War gaming is a hobby, there are TONS of games out there that have 3D figures to play those games. At no point do any of them require paint in order to play those games. The only game that I know off where paint has any effect is 40k but I think most everyone can agree that 40k rules are not something to be idolized.

Modeling and war gaming are connected but not the same hobby. For a lot of people they like the war game hobby, like myself. I take part in the modeling hobby because it is a part of the war game hobby but I am not really interested in modeling. I think that most people who are on the "pro-paint" side would enjoy never even playing the game and just enjoying the models and painting. Just like with war gamers, there are certainly cross over where modelers enjoy the game but to them the focus is on the modeling.

40k is books, video games, models, war games and so much more. Everyone takes part in it differently, everyone enjoys certain aspects more than others. It rubs me such the wrong way that the "pro-paint" side of this argument seems to think that they are the base line, their opinions are truth and everyone else is a deviation. Just like it is possible for someone to buy the models and paint them without ever playing the game it is just as reasonable and possible for someone to buy the models and play the game without ever painting them. Neither way is better or worse than the other. People need to check their egos.

Arbiter_Shade wrote:
You know I think that this is something that the "pro-painting" side is completely ignoring. War gaming is a hobby, there are TONS of games out there that have 3D figures to play those games. At no point do any of them require paint in order to play those games. The only game that I know off where paint has any effect is 40k but I think most everyone can agree that 40k rules are not something to be idolized.

I'm not sure I'd be holding up games like Warmachine as an example of a successful wargame. Yeah, there's no painting requirement, but it's a game that died because once the hardcore tournament players went back to 40k nobody cared about the models or the fluff. Would it have been guaranteed to survive if there had been a painting requirement? No, but I believe it would have helped.

And yes, non-miniatures games exist. I'm not painting my board game pieces, but I'm also paying $50 for the entire game instead of $500+ minimum. Standards are different when you're selling your game based on the aesthetic value of the miniatures.

I think that most people who are on the "pro-paint" side would enjoy never even playing the game and just enjoying the models and painting.

Counter-argument: virtually every major tournament, events that are focused almost entirely on the game and skill at playing it, has a requirement for fully painted armies with zero tolerance for unpainted models. Unpainted stuff is only allowed in casual kitchen table games between people whose total lifetime number of games played is probably less than what an average tournament player plays in a month.

It rubs me such the wrong way that the "pro-paint" side of this argument seems to think that they are the base line, their opinions are truth and everyone else is a deviation.

You would hate historical miniatures then. Painting is not an optional thing there, you either bring a fully painted army (and it had better be historically accurate) or you don't play the game. 40k and its tolerance for unpainted models is really the exception to the rule.

Not that I care whether my opponents paint their army or not, but it's a disingenuous argument to say painting is not part of 40k as a game.

Painting may not be necessary requirements to play board game genre referred to as wargaming, but it certainly is a huge part of specific type/brand of game that falls within the wargaming genre that is called Warhammer 40K & other various Games Workshop board game product lines.

Sure, not painting your army doesn't affect the outcome of the dice rolls or how far a model moves, but the game is undoubtedly paint-and-play. If you don't paint your army, you're only partaking in the "play" part of the "paint-and-play".

Amishprn86 wrote:

 jeff white wrote:
I cannot understand why anyone would want to invest in this hobby without painting, building cool terrain, creating a realistic battlefield, but whatevs. Game away with bare plastic and soda cans, I wont be involved.

Some people are in the game for playing and hangout time with cool lore, not everyone needs to have 100hrs of hours invested into toys to enjoy them. When reading a book do you care that you have to use your imagination to visualize the world? Or do you need a show/movie to enjoy it?

The fact that you can not understand others is more shocking to me than the trolls on here.

I think Jeff White means that they don't see the appeal of the hobby without the spectacle of a well represented battlefield.
I must say that I agree. To me a model representation of the battle I am playing out on the table is a fundamental part of the hobby.
I honestly don't understand why someone would bother with models or wargaming without making a game look like what it is supposed to represent (not too fussed with how well it's painted beyond basic tabletop though).

I had plenty of fun playing strategy games (PC and board games) before seeing a table of figures and thinking it's an amazing thing that I must find a way to participate in.
I can make and enjoy cool lore while hanging out by playing any other tabletop game or doing whatever has replaced LAN parties.

The physical representation of the battle is what makes it wargaming.

To me at least.
Please don't confuse that with an inability to grasp, acknowledge and accept that other people enjoy things that don't appeal to me. As a wargamer I am well aware that what I enjoy seems strange to others, so it only makes sense that it goes the other way around.
There are people who enjoy following the lives of other people who are famous for not apparent reason.
There are people who enjoy watching other people run after a ball on a field and even make the team they root for part of their identity.
There are people who spend a significant amount of time, money and energy on clivias.

Enjoy and let enjoy.

 skchsan wrote:
If you don't paint your army, you're only partaking in the "play" part of the "paint-and-play".

And that's fine, if that's the part you enjoy. Some people don't play at all, and just paint. Or read the books. Or make endless army list variations and never actually build a model. Some people sculpt models from scratch, some convert every model they build, some build everything strictly by the instruction sheet. Some use only GW models, some use whatever models they have to hand, some source models for a specific look.

At the end of day, it's your hobby. Do the things that make you happy, find like-minded people to share your hobby with, and don't sweat the rest of it.


This thread seems to have more than run its course by now. Moving on.