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.

Personally? I like watching my guys murder grey plastic minis just as much as well painted minis.

The Dead Pile is always beautiful.

Prefer playing painted models (couple of guys here have stunning 30K armies), but I will gladly play against unpainted as well. I also respect events that have painting requirements, but understand those that do not.

How is that for some Canadian waffles!

Prefer the bacon, myself.

Is it proper bacon though? And not US Lard with a hint o’meat facon?

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Is it proper bacon though? And not US Lard with a hint o’meat facon?

Dunno if it's "proper bacon" by UK standards. But it's different from from "US bacon". Closer to what we call "Hog Jawls" down here in the holler.

Insulting my American bacon right after I had a nice, greasy BLT. Right after my heart stops beating so fast, I might get offended.

But bacon is a good example. Some people prefer it super crispy, some people prefer it kind of soft. While the two disagree, all you have to do is not bring the crispy bacon guy to a place that does softer bacon, and it'll be fine. Preferring soft bacon is not universal, and you're not better than others for having a different taste.

Just don't bring unpainted models to a group that only plays against painted models, and don't go to a group that uses unpainted models if you hate playing against them. As long as the two groups respect each other, there's no issue.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Extreme but valid example?

Disability.

Not everyone can paint their models. And I’d rather take on unpainted models than “proxy” forces.

Disability is a legitimate reason but let's not pretend that disability is the reason in more than an incredibly tiny minority of cases. The vast majority of the time not painting is a deliberate refusal to paint, not that the person is unable to do so.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 JNAProductions wrote:
Why are they wrong to have fun?

Because if, as you acknowledge, everyone thinks painted models are better then you have a social obligation to do your part and provide that better experience. Refusing to paint is telling your opponent that you don't value their enjoyment of the game enough to meet that minimum standard.

Aecus Decimus wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
Why are they wrong to have fun?

Because if, as you acknowledge, everyone thinks painted models are better then you have a social obligation to do your part and provide that better experience. Refusing to paint is telling your opponent that you don't value their enjoyment of the game enough to meet that minimum standard.

Don't you have a social obligation to be polite?

 Gadzilla666 wrote:
Prefer the bacon, myself.

Indeed! I admire and respect all nations' bacon, but Canadian Bacon is our gift to the world.

brumbaer wrote:
Polls are not valid because they reflect only people that have taken part.
Those are not representative by design, because only people who read them and who are interested will vote. Even if all forum users would take part it would reflect the opinion of the vast majority of all Warhammer players only by chance.
Also prefer does not mean I care or that I will not play if the condition is not met.
I for one prefer to play against well painted armies, but I do not mind if my opponents army is not painted.

Yet polls are done constantly and results aren"t widely off mark. What makes this topic unpollable? What makes this unique?

There is no point to this topic. It’s like competitive versus casual ‘debates’ - it’s just the same stale, entrenched points going back and forth.

Aecus Decimus wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
Telling people they can't play if they don't paint their minis isn't conducive of a very positive experience for anyone but you.

For me, and for everyone else who values the aesthetic part of the game.

I value the aesthetics. I value them less than being a condescending a-hole to potential players.

I don't particularly care if people who don't contribute to an enjoyable game don't have a positive experience as a result of setting quality standards.

In others words, I don't care about your wellbeing if you don't do what I tell you to.

Very positive attitude to have.

Alternatively, you paint their minis for them. For free.

Or they could do the minimum expected and paint their models.

What states it's the minimum expected? Who laid out these rules? Who made this universal claim that this must be the case?

If you consider it the minimum expected, you do it for them, if you feel so strongly.

[Even a basic prime + contrast standard looks far better than that.

And if the models are painted in "incorrect" colours?

JNAProductions wrote:You can value the looks of a game while still enjoying it just fine with unpainted minis.

Again-I have no issue with you having your standards and sticking to them. But pretending that your standards are the objectively correct ones, I take umbrage with.

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:I do very much endorse the “your standards needn’t be my standards”.

Outside of organised play, it’s down to you and your opponent to agree terms and what constitutes Sporting Behaviour etc.

Completely agreed with both. Nothing wrong with having preferences, and even letting those determine what games you choose to play. But making blanket statements and acting like people are "lesser" or "wrong" for doing things in a way that you don't? That's a bigger issue than any painting choices.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 JNAProductions wrote:

Aecus Decimus wrote:
...you have a social obligation to do your part and provide that better experience. Refusing to paint is telling your opponent that you don't value their enjoyment of the game enough to meet that minimum standard.

Don't you have a social obligation to be polite?

According to them, no - because they claim that if people don't follow their standards of how models are supposed to look, they aren't worth respecting and engendering a positive relationship with.

It's the classic double standard of "respect my standards, but I won't respect you".

trouble is, force someone who doesn't want to paint, to actually paint and you are back to "three colour maximum", where one is the primer showing through

some don't enjoy it, some are not good at it, some would pay others but lack the cash, many reasons

what matters is being a good, decent and enjoyable person to game against, nail that and a lot else is forgiven

locally we have those whop paint, those who paint well, those who don't enjoy painting but try, those who can paint but don't enjoy it so apart from the odd character model don't, mixed bag but it works, there is gentle ribbing in all directions

e.g. was playing my painted LotR Orcs the other day v an unpainted force of dwarves, ribbing about "still not done the eyes then" from "captain bare resin", doesn't matter as the game is fun


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Snord wrote:
There is no point to this topic. It’s like competitive versus casual ‘debates’ - it’s just the same stale, entrenched points going back and forth.

always worth having one or two such threads open though, so such debates can stay out of the rest

Just ask one simple question:

Would the game be more fun, if the minis were painted? Everybody would agree on that. So not painting is a choice to be lazy and please spare me the exceptions where you have blind gamers, colourblind gamers or gamers with no arms.

I am pretty hard line on this but only for myself, my models do not hit the table in 30k unless they are painted these days, having a fully painted force just makes the setting and game so much better for me.

if given the choice between several players though and 1 did not have a painted army then I would rather play the painted armies but I would politely encourage that player to get their stuff done at their own pace.

tneva82 wrote:
Yet polls are done constantly and results aren"t widely off mark. What makes this topic unpollable? What makes this unique?

Nothing is unpollable. Is this a word ? We probably should make a poll

I'm questioning the validity of polls on dakka for all of Warhammer-Kind in general and especially that polls about "the preference to play against painted armies" are answering what percentage of players will not play against an unpainted army.

Let's say you take a poll about income in your country. If this poll is done by "Millionaires Weekly" the result will surely not be close to the average income in your country.
Only readers of the forum, that read and care about the question (there are polls with 2k participants and some with 30k), will participate in it. I'm sure most Warhammer players have never heard about dakka and do not care. I'd make a poll here, but they wouldn't participate
This doesn't mean that the results of a dakka poll may not be "correct" for all Warhammer-Kind, you just can't count on it.

And there is a difference whether you ask "Do you prefer to play against painted armies" or "Do you only play against painted armies". To conclude the second from the first is not valid.

 Strg Alt wrote:
Just ask one simple question:

Would the game be more fun, if the minis were painted? Everybody would agree on that. So not painting is a choice to be lazy and please spare me the exceptions where you have blind gamers, colourblind gamers or gamers with no arms.

No, no it would not be.

I simply do not care if the other person has painted their miniatures. Sure, if you made a list of things that would be nice "Painted miniatures" would be on there, but it would be low down on the list that it just doesn't matter. The logic doesn't really hold up. There's always going to be ways to make the game "funner", but that does not mean the effort to do so justifies it. It also comes with a cost. The last thing I want is to push away good people just to have paint on miniatures. That's a huge cost for extremely little value.

That said, you are absolutely welcome to have that, or whatever other rules your group has. I am not going to tell others how or who to play. Personally I just want good people to play with, that's priority number 1, 2, and 3. That said the game is a hobby. I don't agree with insulting others for enjoying it differently to oneself.

brumbaer wrote:

tneva82 wrote:
Yet polls are done constantly and results aren"t widely off mark. What makes this topic unpollable? What makes this unique?

Nothing is unpollable. Is this a word ? We probably should make a poll

I'm questioning the validity of polls on dakka for all of Warhammer-Kind in general and especially that polls about "the preference to play against painted armies" are answering what percentage of players will not play against an unpainted army.

Let's say you take a poll about income in your country. If this poll is done by "Millionaires Weekly" the result will surely not be close to the average income in your country.
Only readers of the forum, that read and care about the question (there are polls with 2k participants and some with 30k), will participate in it. I'm sure most Warhammer players have never heard about dakka and do not care. I'd make a poll here, but they wouldn't participate
This doesn't mean that the results of a dakka poll may not be "correct" for all Warhammer-Kind, you just can't count on it.

And there is a difference whether you ask "Do you prefer to play against painted armies" or "Do you only play against painted armies". To conclude the second from the first is not valid.

Thanks for pointing this out. It is difficult to extrapolate reliably from data, which is why research is hard.

Strg Alt wrote:Just ask one simple question:

Would the game be more fun, if the minis were painted? Everybody would agree on that. So not painting is a choice to be lazy and please spare me the exceptions where you have blind gamers, colourblind gamers or gamers with no arms.

My simple question in counterpoint - would the game be more fun if people didn't call people weren't needlessly antagonistic and called people lazy because they haven't painted their little plastic toy soldiers?

Everybody would agree on that.

I think most of us agree that if everything else would be the same, we would prefer to play with and against painted armies.
The real question is "how important is it in comparison to those things covered by everything else".

The fun I have in a game depends on:
The player I play against. Resolution of rules disputes, is he expecting generosity, but not granting it, attitude and manners etc..
The overall balance, depending on relative strength of our lists, the dice rolls on both sides, the mission etc..
"Fun moments" because of situations on and off the table.
And there are others. Somebody else will write them down and I go "Oh yeaah, that too".
And all those will get the "prefer" predicate, as "all painted" does.
"All painted" hides somewhere in between all the others, but quite towards the bottom in order of importance.

To finish that thought the most important ingredient is the opponent. If I like him and we have a good time all the other things don't matter and if he is an * (whatever you think belongs here), I will not enjoy the game regardless of the rest, Having said that, I might not enjoy the game, but will enjoy all the more should I win against him.

brumbaer wrote:
I think most of us agree that if everything else would be the same, we would prefer to play with and against painted armies.
The real question is "how important is it in comparison to those things covered by everything else".

The fun I have in a game depends on:
The player I play against. Resolution of rules disputes, is he expecting generosity, but not granting it, attitude and manners etc..
The overall balance, depending on relative strength of our lists, the dice rolls on both sides, the mission etc..
"Fun moments" because of situations on and off the table.
And there are others. Somebody else will write them down and I go "Oh yeaah, that too".
And all those will get the "prefer" predicate, as "all painted" does.
"All painted" hides somewhere in between all the others, but quite towards the bottom in order of importance.

To finish that thought the most important ingredient is the opponent. If I like him and we have a good time all the other things don't matter and if he is an * (whatever you think belongs here), I will not enjoy the game regardless of the rest, Having said that, I might not enjoy the game, but will enjoy all the more should I win against him.

A very thoughtful post that captures the nuanced point of view that most people in my gaming communities seem to follow as well.

Beast_of_Guanyin wrote:

 Strg Alt wrote:
Just ask one simple question:

Would the game be more fun, if the minis were painted? Everybody would agree on that. So not painting is a choice to be lazy and please spare me the exceptions where you have blind gamers, colourblind gamers or gamers with no arms.

No, no it would not be.

I simply do not care if the other person has painted their miniatures. Sure, if you made a list of things that would be nice "Painted miniatures" would be on there, but it would be low down on the list that it just doesn't matter. The logic doesn't really hold up. There's always going to be ways to make the game "funner", but that does not mean the effort to do so justifies it. It also comes with a cost. The last thing I want is to push away good people just to have paint on miniatures. That's a huge cost for extremely little value.

That said, you are absolutely welcome to have that, or whatever other rules your group has. I am not going to tell others how or who to play. Personally I just want good people to play with, that's priority number 1, 2, and 3. That said the game is a hobby. I don't agree with insulting others for enjoying it differently to oneself.

No, we are talking here not about exceptions but general appeal. So no instances of snowflakes voicing their unique point of view. Since GW has released battle reports all the minis were assembled and painted. This is consensus among the majority of players in the community. Disagreeing with that is simply being disingenuous and having the "Need to be right" mindset.

 Strg Alt wrote:

Beast_of_Guanyin wrote:

 Strg Alt wrote:
Just ask one simple question:

Would the game be more fun, if the minis were painted? Everybody would agree on that. So not painting is a choice to be lazy and please spare me the exceptions where you have blind gamers, colourblind gamers or gamers with no arms.

No, no it would not be.

I simply do not care if the other person has painted their miniatures. Sure, if you made a list of things that would be nice "Painted miniatures" would be on there, but it would be low down on the list that it just doesn't matter. The logic doesn't really hold up. There's always going to be ways to make the game "funner", but that does not mean the effort to do so justifies it. It also comes with a cost. The last thing I want is to push away good people just to have paint on miniatures. That's a huge cost for extremely little value.

That said, you are absolutely welcome to have that, or whatever other rules your group has. I am not going to tell others how or who to play. Personally I just want good people to play with, that's priority number 1, 2, and 3. That said the game is a hobby. I don't agree with insulting others for enjoying it differently to oneself.

No, we are talking here not about exceptions but general appeal. So no instances of snowflakes voicing their unique point of view. Since GW has released battle reports all the minis were assembled and painted. This is consensus among the majority of players in the community. Disagreeing with that is simply being disingenuous and having the "Need to be right" mindset.

I don't get what point you're trying to make-no duh GW releases reports with painted minis, they make gakloads of money selling paints and brushes and all that.

And there's a difference between "The game looks cooler when minis are painted," and "The game isn't worth playing if the minis aren't painted."
There's a good chunk of people who have fun regardless of paintedness. I'm one of them-no idea if I'm in the minority or majority, but that doesn't really matter. What matters is that the people involved in my games have fun.

 JNAProductions wrote:

 Strg Alt wrote:

Beast_of_Guanyin wrote:

 Strg Alt wrote:
Just ask one simple question:

Would the game be more fun, if the minis were painted? Everybody would agree on that. So not painting is a choice to be lazy and please spare me the exceptions where you have blind gamers, colourblind gamers or gamers with no arms.

No, no it would not be.

I simply do not care if the other person has painted their miniatures. Sure, if you made a list of things that would be nice "Painted miniatures" would be on there, but it would be low down on the list that it just doesn't matter. The logic doesn't really hold up. There's always going to be ways to make the game "funner", but that does not mean the effort to do so justifies it. It also comes with a cost. The last thing I want is to push away good people just to have paint on miniatures. That's a huge cost for extremely little value.

That said, you are absolutely welcome to have that, or whatever other rules your group has. I am not going to tell others how or who to play. Personally I just want good people to play with, that's priority number 1, 2, and 3. That said the game is a hobby. I don't agree with insulting others for enjoying it differently to oneself.

No, we are talking here not about exceptions but general appeal. So no instances of snowflakes voicing their unique point of view. Since GW has released battle reports all the minis were assembled and painted. This is consensus among the majority of players in the community. Disagreeing with that is simply being disingenuous and having the "Need to be right" mindset.

I don't get what point you're trying to make-no duh GW releases reports with painted minis, they make gakloads of money selling paints and brushes and all that.

And there's a difference between "The game looks cooler when minis are painted," and "The game isn't worth playing if the minis aren't painted."
There's a good chunk of people who have fun regardless of paintedness. I'm one of them-no idea if I'm in the minority or majority, but that doesn't really matter. What matters is that the people involved in my games have fun.

Would they have more fun with painted minis instead of grey plastic?

What was that about a “need to be right” mindset?

Because my claim is not “Universally paint doesn’t matter.” It’s that, for me and my buddies specifically, paint doesn’t matter.

 JNAProductions wrote:
What was that about a “need to be right” mindset?

Because my claim is not “Universally paint doesn’t matter.” It’s that, for me and my buddies specifically, paint doesn’t matter.

They would of course prefer painted models. You are disingenuous. Ask people visiting a cinema, if they want to see the movie in colour or black/white. No one would prefer the latter option. We are done here.

Do you have more fun if you win?
If yes, why don’t your expect opponents to throw games for your enjoyment?

Your enjoyment matters. So does your opponent’s. Which is why I’ve never advocated for playing a game you wouldn’t have fun with-whether that’s because the opponent is naff or unpainted minis or any other reason.

The only times I would argue it's actually appropriate to bring up painting issues is if you genuinely have an in-game problem or if the paint scheme in question is radically altered from a given faction.

For the former, it would be a situation of having an unpainted army that has two Legions in it i.e. old Shattered Legions lists or just an Allied detachment. Remembering which units are which is much easier even if just basic colours are applied.

For the latter, if someone is running neon green Marines with an eagle badge in HH, I would be opposed to that because it doesn't even come close to any sort of Legion colour scheme. The following is what I still consider fine within the setting:
- Historical schemes i.e. Warhounds, Luna Wolves.
- Themed schemes i.e. Rogue Trader colours, post-corruption Emperor's Children.
- Colour-combo schemes i.e. Primary black/secondary red Word Bearers.
- Camo schemes i.e. Pathfinder White Scars, Badab War Salamanders.
- Successor-inspired themes i.e. Ultramarines with quartered blue and white of the Novamarines.
This rule sort of applies when it comes to models as well but generally speaking, I give a lot of leeway with this. Word Bearers or Sons of Horus built using the new CSM with some extra Heresy-era parts thrown in or a Blood Angels or White Scars army uses some Mk7 and Indomitus models to represent the Legions at the Siege of Terra is all cool by me. Heck if someone went to the effort of making a HH-compatible Nurgle-corrupted Death Guard army for HH then I'd say awesome.

 Strg Alt wrote:

Beast_of_Guanyin wrote:

 Strg Alt wrote:
Just ask one simple question:

Would the game be more fun, if the minis were painted? Everybody would agree on that. So not painting is a choice to be lazy and please spare me the exceptions where you have blind gamers, colourblind gamers or gamers with no arms.

No, no it would not be.

I simply do not care if the other person has painted their miniatures. Sure, if you made a list of things that would be nice "Painted miniatures" would be on there, but it would be low down on the list that it just doesn't matter. The logic doesn't really hold up. There's always going to be ways to make the game "funner", but that does not mean the effort to do so justifies it. It also comes with a cost. The last thing I want is to push away good people just to have paint on miniatures. That's a huge cost for extremely little value.

That said, you are absolutely welcome to have that, or whatever other rules your group has. I am not going to tell others how or who to play. Personally I just want good people to play with, that's priority number 1, 2, and 3. That said the game is a hobby. I don't agree with insulting others for enjoying it differently to oneself.

No, we are talking here not about exceptions but general appeal. So no instances of snowflakes voicing their unique point of view. Since GW has released battle reports all the minis were assembled and painted. This is consensus among the majority of players in the community. Disagreeing with that is simply being disingenuous and having the "Need to be right" mindset.

I'm confused. A question was asked. I answered it. As it is an opinion it cannot be wrong. Did you respond to me by accident?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 JNAProductions wrote:

 Strg Alt wrote:

Beast_of_Guanyin wrote:

 Strg Alt wrote:
Just ask one simple question:

Would the game be more fun, if the minis were painted? Everybody would agree on that. So not painting is a choice to be lazy and please spare me the exceptions where you have blind gamers, colourblind gamers or gamers with no arms.

No, no it would not be.

I simply do not care if the other person has painted their miniatures. Sure, if you made a list of things that would be nice "Painted miniatures" would be on there, but it would be low down on the list that it just doesn't matter. The logic doesn't really hold up. There's always going to be ways to make the game "funner", but that does not mean the effort to do so justifies it. It also comes with a cost. The last thing I want is to push away good people just to have paint on miniatures. That's a huge cost for extremely little value.

That said, you are absolutely welcome to have that, or whatever other rules your group has. I am not going to tell others how or who to play. Personally I just want good people to play with, that's priority number 1, 2, and 3. That said the game is a hobby. I don't agree with insulting others for enjoying it differently to oneself.

No, we are talking here not about exceptions but general appeal. So no instances of snowflakes voicing their unique point of view. Since GW has released battle reports all the minis were assembled and painted. This is consensus among the majority of players in the community. Disagreeing with that is simply being disingenuous and having the "Need to be right" mindset.

I don't get what point you're trying to make-no duh GW releases reports with painted minis, they make gakloads of money selling paints and brushes and all that.

And there's a difference between "The game looks cooler when minis are painted," and "The game isn't worth playing if the minis aren't painted."
There's a good chunk of people who have fun regardless of paintedness. I'm one of them-no idea if I'm in the minority or majority, but that doesn't really matter. What matters is that the people involved in my games have fun.

I think of it this way. I'd rather have 10 good people to play with and 2 grey armies than 8 good people and 0 grey armies.

Painted armies come with an opportunity cost. To me, personally that cost is much too high as I value good people over everything. Yes, in a vacuum painted is better, but we don't live in a vacuum.

Still going with this? Has anyone won yet?