Jump to content
Jabby

Painted vs Non-Painted

Recommended Posts

11 hours ago, Lord Ashram said:

Nope, but I would enjoy it more if they were painted:)

Thats true obviously, but I would say it aint right to refuse games with people who are upainted.

11 hours ago, Darth Sanguis said:

I say use painted as much as possible. I just finished making 3 custom E-Webs (see drop down box)and didn't have time to paint them before the match... While they don't hurt the look as bad as the space mats, they definitely stick out in an army of painted figures. 
 

  Reveal hidden contents

 


2tZUvIe.jpg

 

 

 

 


b1hNEz7.jpg

pXwEpJB.jpg

 

Those e-webs are amazing

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Derrault said:

Giving someone prizes for an unentangled Best paint job is a far cry from disqualifying players who didn’t have a painted minis.

If you want to enter (or not) the beauty pageant portion, that doesn’t have any bearing on your ability to play the game, and the two should never be entwined. 

Of course I am not saying that i would like to disqualify persons in a tournament, but to give some push to people who cares about the look of its army seems really nice to me. I know a lot of you will not understand the concept that represents that kind of game exhibit, but believe me when I say that winning or losing, in that kind of games, is NOT a goal and that you are completely wrong if you think that in a miniature wargame your ability to play and your ability to paint are not entwined... they are simply because both things are important for the experience, that you don't understand because you minimize the experience to just gaming.

Do you know how all this started? It was HG Wells who first made some kind of "ruling" in 1913 to be able to play with model minis. Before this, the representations of a terrain with small soldiers placed on top were usual in military schools to teach strategy and tactical in Prusia and other places in Europe at the beginning of the 19th century. THAT way of representing "war" had nothing to do with who "wins" or "loose", most of the times the "players" were just simply taking a historical text and representing ultrarealistic batles in front of their eyes. with model trees, scaled hills, rivers... It is an exhibiton of models more than a game, althought they played with diferent situations to simulate diferent outcomes... only to LEARN strategy, not to win or loose.

look, here it is a definition of miniature wargaming made in wikipedia:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miniature_wargaming

From this text i will extract just a couple of sentences that I consider important to explain what i mean:

Miniature wargaming is a form of wargaming in which players simulate battles between opposing military forces using miniature models of soldiers, artillery, and vehicles on a model of a battlefield. This is in contrast to other wargames which use abstract pieces such as counters or blocks to represent military units. The visual and tactile satisfaction of fully painted models moving around a beautiful model battlefield has a great appeal to fans of this genre, and players celebrate their artistry as much as their skill at play."

See? ...players celebrate their artistry AS MUCH AS their skill at play...

Where is the artistry in buying a new box, crack it open and placing its contents on a table?

If you don't understand that "visual satisfaction of fully painted models" it is not my fault, it is part of the experience, you don't get to catch it, well, it is a pity, but please don't suggest that the ones that apreciate and understand the painting and modelling part of this game should not be taken into consideration. The only way to considerate that part is to give prizes to their work, or at least take into consideration the efforts made. And it IS entwined, because trying to play well and trying to paint well are BOTH a demonstration of love for this hobby, and you should value both parts.

As I've said before, if you just think that the important part is to play, to win or to loose, to understand the principles of the rules or to learn the best way to "beat that list", you have understood just half the miniature wargaming experience, and so you could be equally happy playing board games, chits wargames, card games... and sure they are cheaper.

Edited by Tubb

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, ImhotepMagi said:

I missed this earlier but I want to say I specifically disagree with this.

When you refuse to play someone because they haven't done something time-consuming, costly and unnecessary to actual gameplay just to improve your own experience, I believe you are being rude. It sounds snobbish and smacks of gatekeeping. It creates an extra barrier to entry when the hobby has enough already. You can politely decline without reason or make an excuse but to tell a person they are not worth your time because of an arbitrary standard you have dictated is, in my opinion, rude. 

Just play the game and then beg off for a while. One game out of 10 won't kill you. And who knows, you might make a friend and they might eventually be inspired to *gasp* paint their own minis! :O

You can consider painting unnecesary for gameplay, but gameplay, as you can read just above in my last post, it is just half the experience of playing with miniature wargames. One game of ten will not kill me but it is just a matter of not wanting to expend two hours with a person seeing a lot of plastic grey minis moving through the table... I don't care who plays better, a lot of luck is involved and sometimes a lot of money helps, I sure will play my best if engaged and would try to win, but I simply prefer to enjoy the way, enjoy the visuals, enjoy the story that we are both evolving. I am having much more fun loosing a very fun game than winning. I really like to play, because the story unfolds in front of you, this is the great difference between playing an abstract game like chess or playing a realistic game. I don't like abstract games.

Same would happen to me if someone would tell me to play with imperials if i want to play with my imperials: i will look for someone playing rebels or I would use my rebel army... as i would find most disturbing to have two vaders or two Lukes on the table. It is an important aspect to me, and I would try to explain it to the player as best as i can and without being rude at all.. but I would not play with plastic grey bits against my army... XDDDD

Perhaps I am making a friend talking here, who knows :)

Edited by Tubb

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Tubb said:

It depends, in sw:legion there aren't, ...

What on earth gave you the impression that I was talking about any other game?

Paint doesn't give you points or win in SW: Legion.

Period.

Also, with your attitude I'm not sure I'd want to play you, and I bet my army and my terrain are prettier than yours. 

Edited by Zrob314

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, Tubb said:

Perhaps I am making a friend talking here, who knows :)

Doubtful.  You're really just coming off as a mansplaining neckbeard.  

Yes, I'm sure we all know about the Kriegspeil, however it doesn't matter.  This isn't that and it's also not even a Modern Historical game.

Also you're throwing a lot of motivations at people here and not knowing if they paint at all.  Just because some of us can accept playing against unpainted minis doesn't mean we don't appreciate the hobby aspect of the game or even devote a lot of value to it.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Tubb said:

You can consider painting unnecesary for gameplay, but gameplay, as you can read just above in my last post, it is just half the experience of playing with miniature wargames. One game of ten will not kill me but it is just a matter of not wanting to expend two hours with a person seeing a lot of plastic grey minis moving through the table... I don't care who plays better, a lot of luck is involved and sometimes a lot of money helps, I sure will play my best if engaged and would try to win, but I simply prefer to enjoy the way, enjoy the visuals, enjoy the story that we are both evolving. I am having much more fun loosing a very fun game than winning. I really like to play, because the story unfolds in front of you, this is the great difference between playing an abstract game like chess or playing a realistic game. I don't like abstract games.

Same would happen to me if someone would tell me to play with imperials if i want to play with my imperials: i will look for someone playing rebels or I would use my rebel army... as i would find most disturbing to have two vaders or two Lukes on the table. It is an important aspect to me, and I would try to explain it to the player as best as i can and without being rude at all.. but I would not play with plastic grey bits against my army... XDDDD

Perhaps I am making a friend talking here, who knows :)

Half of the experience in your opinion. I respect your opinion and I don't begrudge you the way you want to play. I'm just saying more ways to have fun with more people is better for me, and I think the hobby is better for having a freer attitude. I like all sorts of games, abstract, thematic, cards, board, miniatures, etc. So maybe I'm more liberal in my tastes. I also enjoy a good story unfolding on the tabletop, I've just never seen the need for it to be in full color every time. Like I said, I prefer a good movie in black and white to a boring one in color.

And I have plenty of friends I disagree with, so who knows. :P

Edited by ImhotepMagi

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Hawkstrike said:

Gaming trumps painting. If you show up to play, I'll play regardless of how your army looks, and be happy for the opponent. Yeah, I paint my stuff and appreciate a good paint job, but that's gravy.

//

Painting attitudes kept me out of miniatures games for 15 years. My first exposure was to Warhammer at a GW store. After expressing interest, I was then told how expensive a "competitive" army was, how the manufacturer dumped on it's customers all the time by changing rules to make things incompatible, and I was then told to be able to play I have to have everything painted in at least three colors. I'd never painted a mini in my life, so the idea of making a major investment in something that would go obsolete and to learn a new skill and put in a whole bunch of work before playing my first game ... well, you can see how welcome that would make someone feel.

Get them into the game, expose them to good painting by example, then if they decide to try painting encourage them -- that grows communities.

So much this. I've talked with a bunch of people showing interest in various miniatures games at my FLGS, and the two things that scare them off are the expense, and painting, either due to the time or perceived skill required. Of the two I have found expense is easier to explain how to minimize in the course of a conversation (eBay, explaining minimum units required, and the cheapest way to buy them, etc etc). Properly explaining painting techniques is best done with a brush, paint, and miniature. To this end, my local store has a painting club that meets once a month to share techniques and generally hang out while painting. 

In my opinion, growing the community is in all of our best interests, as it gives us more opponents to play and more players increases the likelihood of the game continuing to be supported, both at the local level (stores carrying the product) and globally (company continuing to produce the product). 

To that end, if unpainted armies offend, rather than just refusing to play against people who don't have a painted army, start a painting club to help/encourage people paint their armies. This potentially helps people who want to paint but don't have the techniques, but of course won't do anything for those that actually don't care. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Tubb said:

Of course I am not saying that i would like to disqualify persons in a tournament, but to give some push to people who cares about the look of its army seems really nice to me. I know a lot of you will not understand the concept that represents that kind of game exhibit, but believe me when I say that winning or losing, in that kind of games, is NOT a goal and that you are completely wrong if you think that in a miniature wargame your ability to play and your ability to paint are not entwined... they are simply because both things are important for the experience, that you don't understand because you minimize the experience to just gaming.

Do you know how all this started? It was HG Wells who first made some kind of "ruling" in 1913 to be able to play with model minis. Before this, the representations of a terrain with small soldiers placed on top were usual in military schools to teach strategy and tactical in Prusia and other places in Europe at the beginning of the 19th century. THAT way of representing "war" had nothing to do with who "wins" or "loose", most of the times the "players" were just simply taking a historical text and representing ultrarealistic batles in front of their eyes. with model trees, scaled hills, rivers... It is an exhibiton of models more than a game, althought they played with diferent situations to simulate diferent outcomes... only to LEARN strategy, not to win or loose.

look, here it is a definition of miniature wargaming made in wikipedia:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miniature_wargaming

From this text i will extract just a couple of sentences that I consider important to explain what i mean:

Miniature wargaming is a form of wargaming in which players simulate battles between opposing military forces using miniature models of soldiers, artillery, and vehicles on a model of a battlefield. This is in contrast to other wargames which use abstract pieces such as counters or blocks to represent military units. The visual and tactile satisfaction of fully painted models moving around a beautiful model battlefield has a great appeal to fans of this genre, and players celebrate their artistry as much as their skill at play."

See? ...players celebrate their artistry AS MUCH AS their skill at play...

Where is the artistry in buying a new box, crack it open and placing its contents on a table?

If you don't understand that "visual satisfaction of fully painted models" it is not my fault, it is part of the experience, you don't get to catch it, well, it is a pity, but please don't suggest that the ones that apreciate and understand the painting and modelling part of this game should not be taken into consideration. The only way to considerate that part is to give prizes to their work, or at least take into consideration the efforts made. And it IS entwined, because trying to play well and trying to paint well are BOTH a demonstration of love for this hobby, and you should value both parts.

As I've said before, if you just think that the important part is to play, to win or to loose, to understand the principles of the rules or to learn the best way to "beat that list", you have understood just half the miniature wargaming experience, and so you could be equally happy playing board games, chits wargames, card games... and sure they are cheaper.

As has been noted, many times, it simply doesn’t matter what the historical origins of wargaming, or even the creation and use of miniatures is in relation to wargaming, insofar as this mini game is concerned. 

And, with respect to HG wells and whatever random dog on the internet wrote their opinion into the Wikipedia page, if such things never evolved, we’d still be recreating Waterloo, or following Clausewitz’s half baked ideas on Strategy and Intelligence in war (yeah I said it).

In this fantasy game there’s virtually no relation to reality, and, as is fitting for a game that takes place firmly in the tactical, only a loose connection to strategy.

And that’s a good thing. This is a game to be played, not a diorama of a historical battle just to be looked at. If it looks nice, that’s a bonus, but only that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, ImhotepMagi said:

 

When you refuse to play someone because they haven't done something time-consuming, costly and unnecessary

See I've done it both ways. I used to think like you. Then I found out I was dead wrong.

I got a lot more entrenched when I figured out that costly and time-consuming where myths. It's only unnecessary for figuring out who won. The game is SO much more than who wins. The DnD phenomena of the 70's and 80's revolutionized and redefined the term "game". The raison d'etre of these games, the whole reason they were invented, is to use armies of model soldiers that yes, are in living color. I really get sick of being treated like I'm full-on crazy for just doing the basic minimum of the thing that is the hobby we all adopted of our free will. Fully painted armies are no big deal. They are not expensive or time consuming. If it wasn't for the cost of the new models, I'd go make a youtube video in realtime where I paint 800 points of Legion in around 4 hours just to prove it. I have no particular skills or talents, just the will to only use painted models.

Quote

experience, I believe you are being rude. It sounds snobbish and smacks of gatekeeping. It creates an extra barrier to entry when the hobby has enough already. You can politely decline without reason or make an excuse but to tell a person they are not worth your time because of an arbitrary standard you have dictated is, in my opinion, rude. 

 

I don't turn down anyone but, would it be any more rude than people who turn down a mirror matchup?

At the end of the day though, I'd rather have 4 good miniaturists who like games, than 10 gamers who like the rules to this miniatures game. Because if your club isn't driven by a desire to play with toys, next thing you know you go to game night and everyone is playing some new boardgame or cardgame that they "heard has Really Good Gameplay." I've seen it over and over. Really Good Gameplay is a catchphrase among non-modellers that seems to always mean "bidding and set collection, with a non-violent backstory". I only care about playing games IF they use little toy people on a model layout. I just want to push my man-dolls around in an interesting story. I don't play X-Wing (and gave up Battletech) cause it doesn't use little toy people. I'm suspicious of 15mm historicals but willing to try cause my friend likes it. At the end of the day, I'm really just looking to play games that use model people who are an inch or so tall. If I wanted any other gaming experience, I could just stay home and play card/boardgames with my wife. The only reason I even got interested in RPG's is cause I was told that's what those miniatures I saw in stores were for. Though I do like other aspects of RPG's.

 

Quote

Just play the game and then beg off for a while. One game out of 10 won't kill you.

1 game out of 10 is maybe how often I see another painted army. Unpainted (and even incomplete models missing arms and stuff) is the vast norm and yet STILL they act like they have a persecution complex. It really feels like the sales department has seduced everyone into caring more about using the official, branded, copyrighted fancy mini-tokens than they care about the reason why the fancy minis exist in the first place. It seems like gaining the approval of a big company far away is really subconsciously important to players for some reason. If I was buying into this for the approval of faraway others, I'd just go be a football fan like everyone else and gain a much bigger slice of social capital.

The whole gamer culture is so weird about this issue. We knew a guy who came to a paint and take. He LOVED it. He loved it so much he bought a whole 40k army because he discovered that he loved painting miniatures so much. He then sent his 40k army (which he bought cause he discovered a love of painting) off to China to be painted for him. What the heck? It's like there's active social pressure NOT to paint.

Edited by TauntaunScout

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, TauntaunScout said:

1 game out of 10 is maybe how often I see another painted army. Unpainted (and even incomplete models missing arms and stuff) is the vast norm

Thats very interesting. I wonder if it would be possible to find any sort of stats of the ratio of painted to unpainted armies at tournaments 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, Derrault said:

 If it looks nice, that’s a bonus, but only that.

If it had been released with standees, I wouldn't have played.  The good looks are literally the reason I play this instead of something else. See to me, if the rules are really good, that's a bonus, but only that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@TauntaunScout you keep mentioning how people treat you crazy for painting. I work in a game store with a vibrant miniatures community. We don't require any painting. We have people who paint and don't paint. Somehow people who play unpainted seem to find their way to paint without anyone insisting on doing it. It sounds like your community is very different. I have never encountered anti-painting sentiment.

Wanting fewer people who meet your standards is plain bad for a community. The hobby reaches far more people when you let people do their own thing. A person may never paint but their opponent may play a game against them, decide that game was ugly and get painting themselves. I've watched popular games die in our store because only a couple people played. It becomes unsustainable if you don't grow and sometimes that means welcoming people who aren't like you.

And costly, time-consuming and unnecessary aren't myths. Painting costs money and time especially when applied across an entire army's worth of miniatures. It might not be a lot of cost, but a person has a right to choose how they spend their money, no matter how little. It is unnecessary because miniatures wargames can still be played without paint. You can watch the same battle play out in grey as in color, it just won't be as visually pleasing. Some people just don't need the same level of immersion as you do.

I paint. I have a standard I like and it takes me a while to achieve. So unpainted miniatures hit the table. I certainly am not going to ruin perfectly good, expensive miniatures with a bad, minimal paint job I would be ashamed of to suit your needs. I'm not going to ask another person to do the same. But if they want that bad paint job or even no paint, I'm ok with that.

Because without players, the painting part dies completely. If there were no game to drive sales of miniatures, very few people would collect them just to paint and make dioramas. Those people would very rarely meet just to show off their work. So the game has to come first or the painting never comes instead of it coming slowly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, TauntaunScout said:

We knew a guy who came to a paint and take. He LOVED it. He loved it so much he bought a whole 40k army because he discovered that he loved painting miniatures so much.

This is actually my exact story, just Legion instead of 40k. Our LGS did a learn to paint day and I won 2nd place for people with no Exp. 
40104433_706894423013070_664307431241469

After that I bought $40 of paints and set my sight on an old ZOIDs model. 

40414486_708741829494996_785380653209223

After that I was so into painting I bought into Legion. 

41764908_716012322101280_526525435295563

I don't know if I'd ever have units sent off to be painted. Unless there was just a disgusting amount that needed it. ( I painted 5 units of stormies and that really tested my patience lol).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have painted over 150 legion minis for my own army. Unpainted is fine. I've seen these self proclaimed "miniature games veterans" stating they wouldn't play someone that doesn't have a painted army. They act like they're somehow gracing the table with the presence of their lovely painted army. Now I love the hobby aspect of the game and I especially like to see custom mods. But refusing to play someone because their army is not painted is so childish and ridiculous. Other than creating a toxic elitist environment, it has other bad consequences such as excluding casual players. Not everyone is lucky enough to have several nights a week to paint. Placing a painting rule will very likely exclude a player or two. It's also unnecessary. The highest levels of play tends to attract the try-hard type of player anyway. They will have the most meta list with a very nicely painted army and immense knowledge. I will not hold myself to arbitrary definitions of what is or is not wargamming. The rules make the game good and worth playing, not the painted plastic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@TauntaunScout I don't think you are crazy for painting, I too love painting my miniatures, and even agree there is a special quality to seeing a table full of painted minis engaging in make believe battle. But I don't view it as "necessary" to many games, and  have played games with either my own miniatures in various states of painted/unpainted/completely assembled (poster putty to hold minis to bases when I plan to do more elaborate basing, or shields so I can get to the body easier) or my opponent's miniatures in similar states. The "fun" for me is in playing the game, not necessarily tied to "winning" but just having a good game, trying out a list, learning more about the strategy of the game, things I could do better, etc. 

I get "fatigue" from painting the same kind of miniature over and over, so like to mix it up and work on minis for a different game, bouncing back and forth. Regardless, when I do focus on a single army it probably takes me longer than 4 hours actual paint time to complete them to my personal standard, and significantly longer than that in regards to "days." The primer I have found suits my paint style best (coverage, ease of application, retaining detail) requires a few hours to dry, which translates into a full day at minimum with my availability. I also make a point of doing some parts of basing first, either because I am making greenstuff bases with rollers,  or so any mistakes with the pumice/sand/paint can be fixed without messing up the paint on the model. If any paint from the model messes up the base, I just cover it up with some flock, static grass, or some other unpainted basing material which I apply last. Regardless, the basing material also needs to dry/harden, which since I can only paint in the evening, typically means that is the entirety of the progress on those minis that night. THEN I start on actual painting. So preparing the miniatures (basing then priming) takes up two day's hobby slots for me, because even if I have time left, I need to wait for the previous step to dry fully. Once I start actual painting it can go fairly quickly, but each hobby session starts and ends with setup/cleanup by necessity, which also takes away some of the available time for hobby stuff.  

I've seen groups disintegrate even for games that are about the setting/story/miniatures because "This other game has better *setting/story/miniatures/rules*" and whose members almost entirely have painted miniatures (except when playing with a list they are in the process of building). Having a bunch of painted figures doesn't ensure loyalty, especially since those same beautifully painted miniatures can easily be used with other rulesets or as proxies. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I gladly declare that I have nothing to say to others regarding how they play with their toys. I’ll happily encourage them to paint if they haven’t, but in the end they’ll do as they wish with their toys. 

Personally, I refuse to put any of my minis out for a game until they’re painted. But, that’s just my preference. 

Then again, a lot of people would say I’m missing a big chunk of the Legion hobby- I don’t play competitively or in any kind of tournaments, and I build my lists based on what I’d like to see on the table rather than worrying over the most efficient or meta-style list. As Rebels, I LIKE playing with the T-47, just as I like my AT-ST for the Empire. Beyond what sounds like fun, I’ll then adjust my list to get the best use I can of the units I have available and chose to use. (Hence, my Stormtroopers usually have AT-ST support to help limit Rebel mobility, and they usually have concussion grenades so that when they get close they can deal some good damage to the Rebels regardless of cover. And grenades get better dice than the rifles...)

I’ll play my best with the list I’m using, and I’ll try to build a good list, but the list will be built based on theme and aesthetic ideas rather than on tournament results, netlisting, or simple activation spam. 

Given the emphasis on list-building in most competitive games, I appear to be skipping a big part of Legion. If I do that, who am I to criticize others for skipping the (subjectively) fun part of painting their models?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, TauntaunScout said:

This one goes out to you then! I was recently very fortunate to see the original Heroquest test models. I believe they are metal, and slightly finer in some details than the plastic production pieces. Seems they were painted before the plastics were ready so they'd have stuff to use for pics. No one told me this, I'm making educated guesses.

nNBtKRr.jpg

nfzDGvd.jpg

5LuSBzk.jpg

nkSBohD.jpg

HRuHr16.jpg

 

That’s awesome!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, WillKill said:

Get off your high horse.


Umm, no need to be hostile and rude... :(

The aesthetics of the game matter, or else we'd all be playing with little cardboard discs that were labeled instead of miniatures.  But many of us are here because this is a miniatures game, and the minis look great.  How much the aesthetics matter to any individual gamer is a subjective matter of personal taste.

Some folks are happy playing with partly assembled and unpainted miniatures on a kitchen table using salt shakers, ceramic bowls, and tv remotes as terrain.  That's great, good for them!  Others want to play with painted miniatures on a table with completed hobby terrain. 

There's no right or wrong way to play and enjoy this game.  But congrats on being hostile and acting like anyone who prefers more attention to visual detail is somehow inappropriate and needs to cater to the preferences of folks who don't paint.  You don't have to paint your miniatures anymore than I need to play games against folks with unpainted armies.  Let each group enjoy the game how they want.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, WillKill said:

The rules make the game good and worth playing, not the painted plastic.

The reason I said the reverse of the above (which may be misconstrued) is this. Over the years I've seen that good looking figures and a cool backstory can give commercial success to a mediocre rules set. I've not seen a miniature wargame that had clunky figures, an uncompelling background, and great rules, succeed.  Some of the most popular things out there are, frankly, kind of unsophisticated and stagnant from a game design perspective. For a non-miniature gaming, very extreme example, many years Monopoly is still the # 1 selling boardgame. I won't give any examples from gamer-gaming cause people don't like hearing bad things about their favorite games. But I think we can all agree Monopoly is far from the best rules set to pick from at the toy store nowadays.

Legion is a great example of that. If it had been released as a non-Star Wars game, would it be generating buzz? Or would it be just another game? I had lots of other games to have fun with. Without Star Wars toys I wouldn't play Legion, and no matter how bad the rules had been rumored to be, well, it's still playing with Star Wars guys via dice and such, so I'd get sucked in eventually.

4 hours ago, ImhotepMagi said:

@TauntaunScout you keep mentioning how people treat you crazy for painting. I work in a game store with a vibrant miniatures community. We don't require any painting.

It's funny how much people talk about this seemingly scary "required" painting. Other than GW's old tournament rules, or their Outrider application rules, I've never run into anything that actually required painting. Never seen a store, a club, or a fan run convention tournament that actually required it. People did it, but it wasn't required. And when someone's army wasn't painted, you assumed they just ran out of time before the con, or were a newbie, or whatever. Now the safer bet is, they just don't care. To me these painting requirements seem like an exaggerated thing that has grown into a mythical time of persecution in gamer culture. Doubtless, clubs have required it, but they seem much exaggerated.

Quote

 I have never encountered anti-painting sentiment.

I have! Tons of it! Some opponents even ask why I'd ever waste so much time painting an army. In a lot of stores, the unspoken rule is using unpainted miniatures is how you prove you are a serious tactician who is accepting of others. Using grey, broken, (but always name brand!) models makes for some serious virtue signaling. People talk a LOT about how much they seriously super-duper don't require painting. A LOT. As if the contents of the tables didn't give that away. It's like they are creating a little cheerleading section to egg each other on to keep not-painting. It's weird AF. Now in Imperial Assault I got that: it was more of a boardgame as shown by how FFG never really released pics of painted figures for it. But in Legion they rarely if ever release a picture of an unpainted mini. Different game, different thing. Though with IA, I was still sucked into painting it all because MOAR Star Wars toys!

Quote

Wanting fewer people who meet your standards is plain bad for a community.

For an overarching community in the metro region maybe, not for my gaming group. It's like an RPG group but instead of rolling up characters, we all choose a faction in a miniatures game. But it doesn't have to be "bad" for a community, there's more to the goodness of a community than sheer numbers.

Quote

I paint. I have a standard I like and it takes me a while to achieve. So unpainted miniatures hit the table. I certainly am not going to ruin perfectly good, expensive miniatures with a bad, minimal paint job I would be ashamed of to suit your needs. I'm not going to ask another person to do the same. But if they want that bad paint job or even no paint, I'm ok with that.

For the millionth time I don't refuse to play anyone ever. But 9/10th's of the time I'm playing someone who is the equivalent, to me, of that kid who crashes his own vehicles into each other for a laugh. Why isn't it more common to be figuring out how to make a paintjob look pretty cool at the halfway point and still be able to revisit it later? That sort of thing used to be common. These are the kinds of things you develop better strategies for if you swear off using unpainted minis for awhile. Sometimes I bring half-painted figures to game night but they still look nice from a few feet away. And for the majority that were never gonna paint their army anyways, a basic paintjob woulda looked better. I knew this one guy who painted all his 'mechs blue and drybrushed them white so they'd look like holograms on a sensorscape in some futuristic war room, and you know what? It was pretty cool, cheap, and easy!

Quote

Because without players, the painting part dies completely. If there were no game to drive sales of miniatures, very few people would collect them just to paint and make dioramas.

See though, sales were doing  just fine back when the now-old games boomed up in the 80's and 90's, when painting full armies was much more common. Maybe it was a fad but it is possible to be profitable among a community that largely paints. Also, until Flames of War made historical gaming more mainstream, historical gamers pretty much painted 110% of their armies. Historical manufacturers were still selling enough.

It seems like a lot of the unpainted apologists definition of "to play" is "to find out who wins" and I soundly reject that as a constructive conclusion in this post-Gygax hobby gaming world. Painting doesn't affect who wins, so it doesn't matter, according to them. If I cared who won things that much, I'd follow sports.

And again, unlike most people, I've actually tried both ways. I've tried not caring just to have some battles, and I've tried swearing off unpainted models. It's amazing how much easier they get to paint once you just decide to do it. For a Legion example, Darth Vader takes like 10 minutes and he's over 25% of an army. It takes longer to assemble an AT-ST than to paint it and it too is over 25% of an army.  Once you get over the hurdle of a full sized army (which varies by game system) you just add to it as is convenient or fun. Or as dire tactical need demands.

I'll play anyone but I think the people who plan to never paint their army because it's too time consuming and expensive don't know how much easier it can be.

Edited by TauntaunScout

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, AllWingsStandyingBy said:


Umm, no need to be hostile and rude... :(

The aesthetics of the game matter, or else we'd all be playing with little cardboard discs that were labeled instead of miniatures.  But many of us are here because this is a miniatures game, and the minis look great.  How much the aesthetics matter to any individual gamer is a subjective matter of personal taste.

Some folks are happy playing with partly assembled and unpainted miniatures on a kitchen table using salt shakers, ceramic bowls, and tv remotes as terrain.  That's great, good for them!  Others want to play with painted miniatures on a table with completed hobby terrain. 

There's no right or wrong way to play and enjoy this game.  But congrats on being hostile and acting like anyone who prefers more attention to visual detail is somehow inappropriate and needs to cater to the preferences of folks who don't paint.  You don't have to paint your miniatures anymore than I need to play games against folks with unpainted armies.  Let each group enjoy the game how they want.

By refusing to play people with unpainted armies, you're already being hostile and rude to those people. The "high horse" comment was plenty justified. You're refusing to play with them because they're not meeting your personal pre-defined "rules" of how the game should be played. Not because they've done anything wrong or because you can't play against them.

If there's no right or wrong way to play and enjoy the game, then why encourage the segregation of "painted vs. unpainted" by turning away people who just want to play the game but don't have painted armies?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, AllWingsStandyingBy said:


Umm, no need to be hostile and rude... :(

The aesthetics of the game matter, or else we'd all be playing with little cardboard discs that were labeled instead of miniatures.  But many of us are here because this is a miniatures game, and the minis look great.  How much the aesthetics matter to any individual gamer is a subjective matter of personal taste.

Some folks are happy playing with partly assembled and unpainted miniatures on a kitchen table using salt shakers, ceramic bowls, and tv remotes as terrain.  That's great, good for them!  Others want to play with painted miniatures on a table with completed hobby terrain. 

There's no right or wrong way to play and enjoy this game.  But congrats on being hostile and acting like anyone who prefers more attention to visual detail is somehow inappropriate and needs to cater to the preferences of folks who don't paint.  You don't have to paint your miniatures anymore than I need to play games against folks with unpainted armies.  Let each group enjoy the game how they want.

Depending on how you go about "filtering" your opponents your behaviour could also be considered quite rude. So to try to head off some of the anger, How do you go about filtering your opponents to only those with painted armies?

Do you only play with friends, and totally avoid pick up games? Do you refuse requests for pickup games during free play at a store? Do you avoid tournaments, or do you concede if you are paired with a person with an unpainted army? 

 

@TauntaunScout  Edit: Sorry too quick on enter: I think some of those "you"s are the generic you, as in "a person who refuses to play against unpainted" not you specifically as a person. 

Edited by Caimheul1313

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Derpzilla88 said:

If there's no right or wrong way to play and enjoy the game, then why encourage the segregation of "painted vs. unpainted" by turning away people who just want to play the game but don't have painted armies?


First, did you read what I wrote?

Second, it's not my job to play against anyone and everyone who wants to get a game in.  Some folks don't want to play a mirror match of Han Rebels vs Han Rebels, because they want the more thematic Rebels vs Imperials match-up.  Should they be forced to play the mirror match just because there is an opponent who would want to do so?  I have one night a week to play games.  Should I be forced to juggle my whole weekly schedule around so I can get to the game store to play someone who can only play on Tuesday night but really wants to play?  Or if someone has a bad reputation as a dice-blaming, angry, whining table-flipper who is a miserable NPE to play with, should I be forced to play against them so that they don't get left out?  If I'm looking for a game of Legion, and my would-be opponent shows up but tells me he only brought his X-Wing stuff instead because he wants to play X-Wing now, should I be forced to indulge his desire to X-Wing?

Don't be ridiculous.  No one is forced to play anyone against their will (outside of a tournament with random pairings--but that's what you signed up for), as that's not how the hobby works.  No one has an obligation to accommodate whatever whim their might-be opponent demands of them, and to try and guilt people into doing otherwise is coercive and a sure-fire way to make a community miserable. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...