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.

Why is calling someone that is illiterate, illiterate, being a donkey-cave?

Politeness means to preserve people in their ignorance?? I BELIEVE thats a rather cruel attitude.

Thats a really perverse way of thinking.

*edit to correct mispelling.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 TheBestBucketHead wrote:
Is someone in the literature community, despite only listening to literature podcasts? Yes.
Is someone in the literature community part of it even if they only listen to audio books, which is a more apt comparison? Yes.
If you tell someone that they're lazy, illiterate, stupid, or blind to the hobby because they prefer these aspects more, you're an donkey-cave.
Just like in Miniature Wargaming, you can feel free not to talk to people about literature if the only thing they do is one of those activities. But why insult them personally?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also, I'm a huge book fan. I've started a group for a series to talk to people about it. I cannot visualize. I can only read the text on paper, yet I enjoy reading. If I were to meet someone who only listened to podcasts about the book series, I'd love talking to them, and discussing what they think as someone who never read the series.

I can certainly have a productive discussion about 40K tactics with someone that dosent play with painted armies. Whats exactly your point?

The poll options are limited. There are a myriad of reasons why players chose not to paint their models.

That said I did check 'meta chasers; easier to sell the army'. I checked this one because, for the players I know, it's the reason their models are all grey all the time. They're constantly churning through factions, selling off their stuff to jump on the new hotness.

 jeff white wrote:
Painting is a main aspect of this hobby, as had been converting models to represent wysiwyg wargear etc... I voted all of the above, and understood it non-exhaustively, as there might be other reasons, but none of the above is plain false on its face, objectively, so how half the people responding chose that boggles the mind. Peak clown world, ... next, people will argue that they dont need to read the words to appreciate literature. How does something like this even make sense? Honestly, I am so confused.

listening to audiobooks doesnt let you appreciate literature?

And you clearly have a problem with seeing things from any other point of view than your own.
For YOU, painting is a main aspect of this hobby, so is converting. YOUR opinion is not the divine law, people are free to have different ones.

Feel free to block me since that seems to be your reaction to anyone not agreeing to you btw.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Vatsetis wrote:

What would you think about someone that pretends to be into the "literature hobby" just because they listen to literature podcasts altough they are (mostly) illeterate and their vocabulary is therefore somewhat limited.

Not only that but imagine that such individual feels a sort of pride of their illeterate status and rejects as "elitists" those that suggest that their appreciation of literature would actually improve if they took the time to learn to read and write.

??? whats with the gak analogy once again. And yes, if you listen to literature podcasts, you are still a part of the hobby ,even if you can't read.

Vatsetis wrote:

Perhaps painting is not "necessary" to engage into the 40K hobby, but it certainly enrich the experience.

FINALLY you're getting it.

-painting is not necessary
BUT
-It enriches the experience

thats what we've been saying for the past week



Automatically Appended Next Post:

Vatsetis wrote:
Why is calling someone that is illeterate, illetetate, being a donkey-cave?

are you REALLY asking that?

The reality is that Shas'O and Vatse are still just butthurt that they lost to unpainted armies and now want everyone to suffer.

jeff white wrote:next, people will argue that they dont need to read the words to appreciate literature. How does something like this even make sense? Honestly, I am so confused.

Have you heard of plays? Audio dramas? Spoken word poetry? Hell, any poetry reading? Songs? You can listen to all of those without seeing a single word written. Are they now not literature? Or are people not engaging with plays properly if they're not following along, script in hand?

Literature doesn't need to be written to be enjoyed and appreciated, and it's hilariously myopic to think so.

A better analogy between painting and choosing not to paint would be people who prefer to read poetry/drama out loud (as it is written to be read) vs. quietly to themselves.

Amishprn86 wrote:

 jeff white wrote:
, ... next, people will argue that they dont need to read the words to appreciate literature. How does something like this even make sense? Honestly, I am so confused.

No.... you dont need to paint to play thats the point.... You seem do not understand what a hobby is.

Painting is a main aspect of this hobby

To you, some people dont see painting 40k as a part of their hobby, heck some people play with bottle caps.

as had been converting models to represent wysiwyg wargear

again to you, and GW seems to be against this anymore so you can't say its GWs intent either

Oh, i understand what a hobby is... and yours isnt mine, so do your thing and judge all you want but i still have less than zero interest sharing my hobby time with people who choose to do things your way. Should be clear enough, or maybe you dont understand hobby. There is no requirement that i have respect for your grey plastic. I mean, it is called a pile of shame for a reason.

TheBestBucketHead wrote:Is someone in the literature community, despite only listening to literature podcasts? Yes.
Is someone in the literature community part of it even if they only listen to audio books, which is a more apt comparison? Yes.
If you tell someone that they're lazy, illiterate, stupid, or blind to the hobby because they prefer these aspects more, you're an donkey-cave.
Just like in Miniature Wargaming, you can feel free not to talk to people about literature if the only thing they do is one of those activities. But why insult them personally?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also, I'm a huge book fan. I've started a group for a series to talk to people about it. I cannot visualize. I can only read the text on paper, yet I enjoy reading. If I were to meet someone who only listened to podcasts about the book series, I'd love talking to them, and discussing what they think as someone who never read the series.

I am an donkey-cave? Did you read my post? Oh, right... you like books but cannot "visualize". Let me make this picture clear: good readers, and good writers, understand the craft of wordsmithing e.g. alliteration, foreshadowing, meter. Nothing to do with community. You can either see the value in these things, or you cannot. If you cannot, I have zero interest in talking about books with you. Maybe others do. But call me an donkey-cave again, and I will flag your post and request that you be sanctioned by a mod, in clear, concise terms that require no imagination to appreciate.

 Gordon Shumway wrote:
A better analogy between painting and choosing not to paint would be people who prefer to read poetry/drama out loud (as it is written to be read) vs. quietly to themselves.

Why is this a "vs" situation, cant you do both?

Why limit yourselve to either of those options?

Un painted minis are the poorer option unless you are a meta chasser in need to recicle your army.

Amen, brother naut. Amen.

 jeff white wrote:

Amishprn86 wrote:

 jeff white wrote:
, ... next, people will argue that they dont need to read the words to appreciate literature. How does something like this even make sense? Honestly, I am so confused.

No.... you dont need to paint to play thats the point.... You seem do not understand what a hobby is.

Painting is a main aspect of this hobby

To you, some people dont see painting 40k as a part of their hobby, heck some people play with bottle caps.

as had been converting models to represent wysiwyg wargear

again to you, and GW seems to be against this anymore so you can't say its GWs intent either

Oh, i understand what a hobby is... and yours isnt mine, so do your thing and judge all you want but i still have less than zero interest sharing my hobby time with people who choose to do things your way. Should be clear enough, or maybe you dont understand hobby. There is no requirement that i have respect for your grey plastic. I mean, it is called a pile of shame for a reason.

TheBestBucketHead wrote:Is someone in the literature community, despite only listening to literature podcasts? Yes.
Is someone in the literature community part of it even if they only listen to audio books, which is a more apt comparison? Yes.
If you tell someone that they're lazy, illiterate, stupid, or blind to the hobby because they prefer these aspects more, you're an donkey-cave.
Just like in Miniature Wargaming, you can feel free not to talk to people about literature if the only thing they do is one of those activities. But why insult them personally?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also, I'm a huge book fan. I've started a group for a series to talk to people about it. I cannot visualize. I can only read the text on paper, yet I enjoy reading. If I were to meet someone who only listened to podcasts about the book series, I'd love talking to them, and discussing what they think as someone who never read the series.

I am an donkey-cave? Did you read my post? Oh, right... you like books but cannot "visualize". Let me make this picture clear: good readers, and good writers, understand the craft of wordsmithing e.g. alliteration, foreshadowing, meter. Nothing to do with community. You can either see the value in these things, or you cannot. If you cannot, I have zero interest in talking about books with you. Maybe others do. But call me an donkey-cave again, and I will flag your post and request that you be sanctioned by a mod, in clear, concise terms that require no imagination to appreciate.

I can't visualize, as in I cannot see images in my head. You just said I can't see the value in all of those things simply because I cannot see anything but the written word on paper, not due to not being able to appeciate it, but due to a mental inability of just not being able to see things in my head. If you call me lazy, or stupid, or tell me that I'm an idiot, or just that I can't appreciate literature, yes, I'm going to call you an donkey-cave.

jeff white wrote:Let me make this picture clear: good readers, and good writers, understand the craft of wordsmithing e.g. alliteration, foreshadowing, meter. Nothing to do with community.

Good writers and creatives also recognise the practicality of performance and in spoken word, and how alliteration, assonance, sibilance and rhyme in particular are something that takes on more significance when spoken aloud, not read, which you seemed to decry earlier as "not appreciating literature".

Literature is to be appreciated by the audience in whatever way they see fit, according to their own preferences. Literature is for everyone, as is this hobby, unless you try and shove others out of it.

You can either see the value in these things, or you cannot. If you cannot, I have zero interest in talking about books with you.

I also have no interest in talking about *literature* with someone who can't appreciate the spoken elements of it, and gatekeeps the enjoyment of it.

But call me an donkey-cave again, and I will flag your post and request that you be sanctioned by a mod, in clear, concise terms that require no imagination to appreciate.

Good luck with that. The mods seem to be asleep.

I also selected none of the above. Admitedly nobody in my friend circle shares my hobby but I assume most people with grey armies just don't enjoy that part of the hobby or don't have the time/ability/money (for commisioned painters or the like) to do it on a level they enjoy at the moment. And that's about it. No need to be a d*** about it.

These threads are created and then filled with a small minority of vocal players who happen to inhabit a very old school style forum. As with the last thread similar to this the voting options are too split and nearly half of the votes are for None of the Above.

Outside of health reasons, serious home issues, or financial issues you should be able to paint your army.

You're not obligated to but others would perceive you to be having "less fun" than enjoying all facets of the hobby. It's where you allocate your time. I know many commission painters or hobbyists who only paint and have never played or have no interest in it.

If I spent 80-90% of my hobby time building and painting models and getting a few games in a month... my hobby is the painting and modeling side.

Folks who do not paint their armies? Maybe they want to spend that 10% of time gluing some grey warriors together and then getting to the 90% of dice rolling and gaming. Some players only convert and never paint.

The only downside to not painting is a lesser visual, harder to understand what you're looking at model wise if you're not familiar with your opponent at the local store (I had this issue in Warmachine frequently with white metal models). The last downside is the -10 VPs which nearly everyone in these threads exist is a bit dumb.

The most frequent "grey tide" players are however the tournament meta chasers.

 oni wrote:
The poll options are limited. There are a myriad of reasons why players chose not to paint their models.

That said I did check 'meta chasers; easier to sell the army'. I checked this one because, for the players I know, it's the reason their models are all grey all the time. They're constantly churning through factions, selling off their stuff to jump on the new hotness.

With how the future is going - GW may turn to a AT43 formula and offer prepainted minis in the future. I'm a huge fan of heroclix and Mageknight and think this is a viable future idea that would resolve MANY players issues. Ultramarines right out of the box would be fantastic honestly.


But you'd be hard pressed top say that this:



is a better visual game than:




Boils down to real life home issues and not having the time to "fully invest" into the hobby and if you want to play a GAME and not pick up an ART then some folks won't paint. The majority of hobbyists do however like to glue and build models. It's just finishing an army is daunting.

That was a really nice post, would be lovelly to finish the thread with such a positive note.

I used to hate painting; it was after all completely coincidental to the game and took so much work for making my models look worse. But I was in the middle of painting up some Tyranids for a tournament when I realized that I would have a better time if I spent the time I would have at the tournament painting my models. It's just a better hobby. Easier on my back at least.

 jeff white wrote:

Amishprn86 wrote:

 jeff white wrote:
, ... next, people will argue that they dont need to read the words to appreciate literature. How does something like this even make sense? Honestly, I am so confused.

No.... you dont need to paint to play thats the point.... You seem do not understand what a hobby is.

Painting is a main aspect of this hobby

To you, some people dont see painting 40k as a part of their hobby, heck some people play with bottle caps.

as had been converting models to represent wysiwyg wargear

again to you, and GW seems to be against this anymore so you can't say its GWs intent either

Oh, i understand what a hobby is... and yours isnt mine, so do your thing and judge all you want but i still have less than zero interest sharing my hobby time with people who choose to do things your way. Should be clear enough, or maybe you dont understand hobby. There is no requirement that i have respect for your grey plastic. I mean, it is called a pile of shame for a reason.

I never said you need to play with others with non painted models, and I never said to not paint your models for your hobby. I said I can not understand how you can't understand others that dont have the same feeling in THEIR hobbies. You want to play with others with painted models, Cool for you, but others dont care, guess what, cool for them. One persons hobby doesn't need to interact with yours if you dont like it.

I also never judged you for how you handle your hobby, you are the one that is being "judge" about it You are calling peoples unpainted models a pile of shame. It really sounds like you are the Judgement one here and again you seem to not understand what a hobby is.No one is telling you to play against non painted models, we all are trying to help you understand why many people just dont care and you are acting like its an attack on you.

 Shas'O Ky'husa wrote:

The Black Adder wrote:
Agreed. I don't think I've met anybody or even seen anybody post about being against painting. It's often more that people can't paint, think they won't do a good job, or simply have other priorities. The thread title seems to posit that there are some people who are philosophically opposed to painting minis. If so, I've yet to see evidence of them.

It was in one of the other threads, but someone in response to a modified 10 VP rule where you still get the 10 VP as long as you have painted more since your last game said that they would deliberately make the smallest possible amount of progress on a single unit, put that unit in reserve, and leave it there to be automatically destroyed on turn 4 without ever seeing the table. Why? Pure self-destructive spite at the idea of having painted models.

Oh that's me.
What? Is me fielding 1 more painted Grot each time NOT progress? Must I also play the unit to your expectations as well?

Do not confuse me with being against painting. I'm not. I simply do it at my own pace. Wich happens to be pretty damned slow & isn't likely to ever change.
The person I responded to (was that you?) stated that they EXPECTED to see progress. Well La-dee-da. Let me tell you, unless your my boss & it's a paying job, (it's not, it's a game of toy soldiers) that elitest attitude crap will only ever elicit a spiteful response from me. So progress EXPECTED, progress delivered. Just 1 grot at a time, painted to a decent standard. Eventually the whole force will look this good.

ccs wrote:

 Shas'O Ky'husa wrote:

The Black Adder wrote:
Agreed. I don't think I've met anybody or even seen anybody post about being against painting. It's often more that people can't paint, think they won't do a good job, or simply have other priorities. The thread title seems to posit that there are some people who are philosophically opposed to painting minis. If so, I've yet to see evidence of them.

It was in one of the other threads, but someone in response to a modified 10 VP rule where you still get the 10 VP as long as you have painted more since your last game said that they would deliberately make the smallest possible amount of progress on a single unit, put that unit in reserve, and leave it there to be automatically destroyed on turn 4 without ever seeing the table. Why? Pure self-destructive spite at the idea of having painted models.

Oh that's me.
What? Is me fielding 1 more painted Grot each time NOT progress? Must I also play the unit to your expectations as well?

Do not confuse me with being against painting. I'm not. I simply do it at my own pace. Wich happens to be pretty damned slow & isn't likely to ever change.
The person I responded to (was that you?) stated that they EXPECTED to see progress. Well La-dee-da. Let me tell you, unless your my boss & it's a paying job, (it's not, it's a game of toy soldiers) that elitest attitude crap will only ever elicit a spiteful response from me. So progress EXPECTED, progress delivered. Just 1 grot at a time, painted to a decent standard. Eventually the whole force will look this good.

Watch out, we've got a selfishbones over here!

I always thought "pile of shame" was a reference to unpainted models by people who want to paint their models but haven't done so yet. I did not think that it referred to unpainted models in general as some people in this thread are doing. Am I wrong in my understanding of the term or is it just being used incorrectly?

Leo_the_Rat wrote:
I always thought "pile of shame" was a reference to unpainted models by people who want to paint their models but haven't done so yet. I did not think that it referred to unpainted models in general as some people in this thread are doing. Am I wrong in my understanding of the term or is it just being used incorrectly?

Correct, its your "back flow of projects you started" it doesn't even need to be unpainted it could be unbuilt even. If you have no intent to paint or build then its not a pile of shame.

 Amishprn86 wrote:
If you have no intent to paint or build then its not a pile of shame.

If you have a pile of models you don't even intend to build you absolutely should be ashamed of your financial irresponsibility and hoarding.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Leo_the_Rat wrote:
I always thought "pile of shame" was a reference to unpainted models by people who want to paint their models but haven't done so yet. I did not think that it referred to unpainted models in general as some people in this thread are doing. Am I wrong in my understanding of the term or is it just being used incorrectly?

You're wrong about it. It has always meant both the embarrassing stuff you bought but haven't touched and the unpainted models in your army. People who are opposed to painting just don't like that second meaning and have tried to make it exclusively about the first.

 Shas'O Ky'husa wrote:

 Amishprn86 wrote:
If you have no intent to paint or build then its not a pile of shame.

If you have a pile of models you don't even intend to build you absolutely should be ashamed of your financial irresponsibility and hoarding.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Leo_the_Rat wrote:
I always thought "pile of shame" was a reference to unpainted models by people who want to paint their models but haven't done so yet. I did not think that it referred to unpainted models in general as some people in this thread are doing. Am I wrong in my understanding of the term or is it just being used incorrectly?

You're wrong about it. It has always meant both the embarrassing stuff you bought but haven't touched and the unpainted models in your army. People who are opposed to painting just don't like that second meaning and have tried to make it exclusively about the first.

You do know a lot of boxes are 1 time buys with set bundle boxes and it is generally cheaper to buy the box now and sell the other minis than it is to piece buy the ones you want, or wait 6months to a year to get them right? Not all of use are irresponsible or hoarding. Then there are boxes you get for parts of models or bits to kit base, i have many of those, and some other reasons as well... but I guess you dont know about any of that bc you dont really care to think outside your tiny box. Heck even if someone wanted to collect the models, who cares! Are you going to tell people that play the lottery they are irresponsibly to bc they like that rush once a week? To be irresponsible you need to be in final problems, not bc someone likes to spend money on things they like.

 Shas'O Ky'husa wrote:

 Amishprn86 wrote:
If you have no intent to paint or build then its not a pile of shame.

If you have a pile of models you don't even intend to build you absolutely should be ashamed of your financial irresponsibility and hoarding.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Leo_the_Rat wrote:
I always thought "pile of shame" was a reference to unpainted models by people who want to paint their models but haven't done so yet. I did not think that it referred to unpainted models in general as some people in this thread are doing. Am I wrong in my understanding of the term or is it just being used incorrectly?

You're wrong about it. It has always meant both the embarrassing stuff you bought but haven't touched and the unpainted models in your army. People who are opposed to painting just don't like that second meaning and have tried to make it exclusively about the first.

But "its my property" I can do whatever I want with it... If I want to use GW kits to get high by burning the plastic, how is that less valid than painting the kit to a high standard for the amussement of everyone???

Making a difference between painted and unpainted miniatures in the hobby opens the door to a totalitarian hellscape!!!!!

Step 1: stop ascribing motive to the people across the isle. It only serves to shift the argument into "nuh uh, but you".

Step 2: control what you can and stop putting so much emphasis on trying to be holier than the next poster.

Their circumstances are their own, as well as their actions and intentions. As wise man once said: assuming makes an ass out of you and me.

 Amishprn86 wrote:
You do know a lot of boxes are 1 time buys with set bundle boxes and it is generally cheaper to buy the box now and sell the other minis than it is to piece buy the ones you want, or wait 6months to a year to get them right?

Having a bundle deal that you bought all at once and plan to use soon isn't really a "pile".

Then there are boxes you get for parts of models or bits to kit base

Having leftovers from a box you bought to use in building other models is not the same as buying stuff with no intent to build it.

Are you going to tell people that play the lottery they are irresponsibly to bc they like that rush once a week?

I absolutely will say that. There's a reason there's a saying that lotteries are a tax on stupid people.

 Shas'O Ky'husa wrote:

 Amishprn86 wrote:
You do know a lot of boxes are 1 time buys with set bundle boxes and it is generally cheaper to buy the box now and sell the other minis than it is to piece buy the ones you want, or wait 6months to a year to get them right?

Having a bundle deal that you bought all at once and plan to use soon isn't really a "pile".

Then there are boxes you get for parts of models or bits to kit base

The other models you dont plan to use..... do you even think about things before you type? seriously please slow down and think.

Example Suppressors literally only come in 1 box and there is no way i need Impulsors, so sell the Impulsor later, or hold onto if rules change.

 Amishprn86 wrote:
The other models you dont plan to use..... do you even think about things before you type? seriously please slow down and think.

...

You literally described using the model by taking pieces of it out to build something else.

Edit: and now you changed your post to something else.

Example Suppressors literally only come in 1 box and there is no way i need Impulsors, so sell the Impulsor later, or hold onto if rules change.

Having a model from a bundle deal that hasn't yet sold on ebay is not a "pile of shame" because it is not a pile. Please stop moving the goalposts from your original comment about people who buy stuff with no intent to build or paint it.

 Shas'O Ky'husa wrote:

 Amishprn86 wrote:
The other models you dont plan to use..... do you even think about things before you type? seriously please slow down and think.

...

You literally described using the model by taking pieces of it out to build something else.

Edit: and now you changed your post to something else.

Example Suppressors literally only come in 1 box and there is no way i need Impulsors, so sell the Impulsor later, or hold onto if rules change.

Having a model from a bundle deal that hasn't yet sold on ebay is not a "pile of shame" because it is not a pile. Please stop moving the goalposts from your original comment about people who buy stuff with no intent to build or paint it.

If you do not intent to PAINT or BUILD them its NOT a pile of shame... do you disagree with that? You are the one that is arguing against that. Someone wanted to clarify and i did, a Pile of Shame is a group of stuff you want to finish, why would you be shamed for having it for other purposes other than not finishing it? Seriously man come on lol. I. I just can't stop laughing.

Let me be more clear Clears throat "People with Grey toys that dont like to paint are not shameful of that"

Is it really so hard to hold yourself to a standard, but not others?

You can practice your religion, does that mean everyone should?

You can speak whatever language you want, does that mean everyone should speak as you do?

If you hate facing plastic models, find someone who has painted ones.

If you hate facing a judgemental donkey hole, face someone else.

Simple as.

 Amishprn86 wrote:
If you do not intent to PAINT or BUILD them its NOT a pile of shame... do you disagree with that?

Yes, I disagree with that. If you have a substantial number of kits you bought with no intent to ever use then you should be ashamed of your poor impulse control, financial irresponsibility, and hoarding behavior. But please stop trying to move the goalposts, an occasional extra kit you bought as part of a bundle deal is not a "pile".

"People with Grey toys that dont like to paint are not shameful of that"

They aren't. Whether they should be is a very different question.