"Help me vent about unpainted miniatures...." Topic

At least where I live the unpainted figure issue is confined to Fantasy/SciFi gaming. Which I don't do and could care less about.

We don't have that problem with historical players. We all have painted figures. Even so I always furnish both sides in my games so I don't have to worry about it. I paint or have had painted everything.

Historical players here will not allow unpainted figures on the table. A friend of mine needed 12 British lancers painted for one of our monthly games and I volunteered to paint them for him, free of charge. That is how much we are committed to the hobby.

One time (this is the only time I remember this happening) someone bought some painted ECW cavalry online for a scenario and they were so poorly painted we wouldn't let him use them.

It was all in good fun (they were really bad) and he even thought it was funny. Nothing serious. We already had plenty of cavalry. I think someone took them home and repainted them for him.

Honestly this is a visual hobby and if I don't like the look of a game then I wont play. I have been to conventions and have seen games I just won't play in. If the guy did not take the time to do his figs and terrain right, then it doesn't bode well for the game.

I would rather play a good board game than play miniatures with unpainted figures. When it comes to terrain I wince when I see masking tape roads and blue tape rivers but I usually grin and bear it. For local games I am happy to furnish terrain for someone else's game. No problem. We have a great bunch who love history and love to play in well thought out historical games.

There is absolutely no excuse, no excuse whatsoever for unpainted miniatures on the table when highly realistic figures such as these:

and these:

are only a few mouse clicks away…

Although I often rant about if some company made French Nap's in 15 mm and I wouldn't paint em' (especially if they came in French blue) I know **** well I would paint them ASAP. Unpainted went out after I had my first division painted and should with anyone else. Unpainted if new, use what you have, after first division painted bye bye unpainted.

Let's compare:
Same figures. But there's something different about them.

It strikes me as vaguely amusing that so many seem to think they have the right to decide how others should engage in this hobby and also seem to feel that their view should be the accepted one when among a group of players.

My partner believes that most war gamers have social issues; some of the posts in this thread seem to prove her right.

Fantastic job on the Tin Golem Cuirassier Regiment of Herr Doktor Bizarro Tin Dictator!

Tin Dictator,
They are not the same figures;). Dragaoons at the top and cuirassiers at the bottom;).

It strikes me as vaguely amusing that so many seem to think they have the right to decide how others should engage in this hobby and also seem to feel that their view should be the accepted one when among a group of players.

I think you missed the point. Nobody that I read is saying whether people can play with unpainted figures or not. What is being said is that they will not participate in a game with unpainted figures. It's a free country, you want to base up a bunch of silver colored troops and play whatever game, then no problem. But I will not be playing in that game and will not have unpainted figures in a game I am running or playing in, I can just leave. It's a free country after all.

Hi,
Colinjallen, I couldn't agree with you more. I've never seen a better advert for giving up wargaming as this thread and so many posts which reinforce the geeky stereotype which most of the general public have when they think of wargamers.
Also, for what it's worth, I don't think wargaming, no matter how clever the mechanisms it employs ever comes remotely close to a "combat simulation" it's always just a game as your life will never be at risk playing it. That's as it should be as I don't think those involved in real wars find them much fun. However, if you want to delude yourself and think you are Napoleon, Alexander the Great or are on the Prussian general staff that's ok with me as it's your freedom of expression to do it. Just don't expect most "normal" (non-wargaming) people to understand it.
All the best,
George.

Uh…Clay…how do you feel when someone plonks down bare plastic miniatures on the table and tells you he is too busy to paint them?

Rallynow,
Actually, several posters have stated that they would not "allow" someone to use unpainted figures in a game that they were playing; that is about imposing one's view on others and deciding how others should participate in this hobby.

As for anyone who seriously thinks that they are engaging in a " combat simulation" (I suspect that the person who wrote that was being ironic), 30 years ago I was in combat and nothing in wargaming comes close to simulating combat, seeing your friends burned to death and believing that you are going to die as well. It is just a game.

George:

Again nobody said that war gaming is the same as real war. It isn't, not even close. It is a good way to study history, just doing the research is a great way to learn history.

It is rather curious that you throw stones even though you are in a glass house. I think you confuse people who are passionate about their hobby with something else.

I encounter the same thing in other hobbies like collector cars, railroaders, remote control airplanes, gardening, sports or whatever. Every hobby has it's own version of zealots. You have to remember where you are at. This form is made by and for hobby enthusiasts. I would never try to explain what goes on here to other people I know. "When planets collide!"

Veeerry eeeenteresting colinjallen,

but what you fail to take into account my friend is that every cavalryman in the Tin Golem Army of Herr Doktor Bizarro is by definition a Cuirassier.

And zey said I vas mad! mad ! Ahaa hahahahaha!!

The hangover is gone and I still feel the same way.

Paint or die!

Timbo,
Ah, I see; they are, by the very nature of being tin, all cuirassiers! I did wonder why they looked rather metallic!

these guys might expand in to napoleonics TMP link I believe the original post related to armies and enemies of the Corsican short arse

Actually, The silver legion is Timpo and the painted Curassiers are Esci. So they are all plastic.

So you are correct. They aren't the same figures.
I guess my point is therefore invalid.

Obviously the goal is for everyone to have painted miniatures since we choose miniatures for the aesthetic. But playing a game with a good natured group of people is far more important to me than the paint job or lack thereof.
There are however, more important things in life to worry about.

They aren't very many historical gamers here because the kids don't want to play with a bunch of grumps that argue rules, paint jobs, etc. I can't field two whole armies of totally painted figures to demonstrate new rules, historical periods. So to try to get new players, the games are demo ed half nude. At least we don't game IN the nude….

That would not be a petty sight if we did.

I have no problem playing against someone who's figures are not totally painted.

As long as they make the effort to put more paint unto them for later battles.

Plus the quality of the paint job does not mean how the unit will perform on the tabletop.

A lot of times they will just look nicer as they run off the table.

They aren't very many historical gamers here because the kids don't want to play with a bunch of grumps…

So what's you're point? Who wants to game with some kids. That's what 40K is for. Nothing wrong with grumpiness.

Have you considered teaching them how to paint figures? How to do the research. Start off with simple stuff like Ospreys and go from there. Fill your bookshelf before buying a figure.

I have and the games are much more enjoyable because they are using figures they painted themselves. How much more interesting it is teaching kids about history with painted figures. Historical gaming is a great way to learn history.

Then again I do not feel responsible for getting kids interested in historical miniatures.

You know…there's another side to this debate that I don't think anyone has raised. What if you are in my situation.

A friend talked me into a new period – sounded interesting so we each agree to buy and paint (of course) an army.

Well, real life got in his way and 90% of his army is unpainted almost two years later. His opinion is much like many posters here that he doesn't want to play with an unpainted army – he assures me he will continue painting soon.

Personally, I'd be happy to play his unpainted troops as it seems better than my army (100+ 28mm painted figures) collecting dust waiting for a game that will likely never happen.

Clay:

I think the cancer is spreading because of points base gaming and tournament play. Just a few years ago you rarely if ever saw a points based historical game (with the exception of some campaign gaming and ancients.)

But FOW started it and Lasalle brought it to Napoleonics. Now it is all I hear about, how many points this and that.

So they spend points on figures but they are too impatient to paint them because they want to use them as soon as possible. When you take the history out of historical gaming it's just a points game. I for one refuse to take part.

I could care less if it does bring more players into the hobby. We have enough already. People moan about the so called "graying of the hobby" when in fact this is the golden age of miniature wargaming.

Look at all the blogs, websites, conventions, manufacturers of all kinds of stuff for gaming. We have a few teenagers that game historicals where I live and that's enough. I can't think of another time when so much was going on in the hobby. Enjoy it, treasure it, live the moment.

Well today it is NaW (Napoleon at War) for the Napoleonic tournament scene.

They are following the same FoW format. Point Base armies that will usually have nothing to do historical battles.

Can we say Guard and Elites forces along with Veterans units.

Not sure if they will put out any army books, but if they do you can expect them to be changed in a year or so.

Just so that you will have to buy them inorder to play.

I hate FoW and NaW is turning Napoleonics into a bucket of dice game.

The only good thing about it that there will not be any parking lots on the table like there is in FoW.

As CraigH has pointed out sometimes if you want to game you just might game with unpainted figures until you can get them all painted.

He has been waiting for two years.

Yes the miniatures look better when painted but they will give you the same game even if they are never painted.

I have no one to play Napoleonics with in my area. I am sure, if I did, the expectation would be painted-only armies. Which is reasonable. I would never get to play. I work two jobs. I raise two children. I have yardwork and auto work to do. I make enough to get by, not nearly enough to pay to have my figures painted. I am hard-pressed to get some opposing DBA armies and nice matching terrain finished for a game with my wife.

While I respect the desire for painted figures on the tabletop, and will not play unpainted armies myself, it does necessarily exclude me from my hobby that I love.

In the 80's I was stationed in the UK and played frequently with 2 Air Force buddies. Between military duties and night college classes, painting was not the #1 priority. Further, it was not their forte anyway. It didn't prevent them showing up at my place for a game, and due to cirucumstances, unpainted units did frequently show up.

There was plenty of coffee,beer in the fridge, a pub within walking distance, and my kitchen close by. Plenty of laughs. Beautifully painted, poorly painted, unpainted… it was good companionship with my military buddies.

Yeah, I'd prefer to see it all painted, but in the end, its the company and good time that mattered. I could give a rat's a.. Just glad my buddies showed up.

I play the games I want to play, with the figures how I want them to be, with the people I want to play with.

I don't think someone is entitled to a game with me (just because their figures are painted/even if their figures are unpainted), nor do I think I am entitled to a game with anyone (just because my figures are painted/even if my figures are unpainted).

Can anyone tell me where the line is to qualify as "painted"?
Clearly figures with no paint at all is deemed "unpainted" but at what point do you accept that they qualify as "painted"?
- based and undercoated?
- based, undercoated and three main colors; flesh, uniforms?
- based, undercoated and all main colors but not flocked?
- based, fully painted but base not flocked?
- based, no more painting required, base flocked but not highlighted/varnsihed and not clocked?
- based, highlights, varnish and flocked with standards finished?

I know and play with a LOT of people who sit in the middle to the end of the list with at least some units not "completely" finished used in games. They are not lazy but live real lives with many demands and enjoy gaming among friendly people who don't apply extremist views.

It is a game after all.

Greetings

I generally play at home or at friends' homes and we play only with painted figures. However, I'll test out scenarios etc with unpainted/undercoated figures before prioritising what to paint. Often having a forthcoming game motivates me to paint :-)

To Grey Ronin's point we have played with some elements based, undercoated and main colours only – indeed I have plenty of armour where I haven't added the markings to yet.

In my view everyone has to reach their own conclusion on how they are prepared to game. It's a hobby and everyone will have different expectations. However in a public venue e.g. show I would expect everything to be painted as it's pretty pointless otherwise.

Regards

Edward

These figures are unfinished…

Will you let me play?

Not a chance, the guy in the fifth row, 11th file from left hasn't had his belt done!!

Shame on you!

and now we have entered on the phase "ehy is not a simulation you can never do that so everything else it is irrelevant". I know several academics and army officers who will be quite upset at this assumption. Then "the kid will be upset at people complaining about paintjobs, history and rules".

Never understood why certain people always has to end up with such argument, argument that have no real support except them (to have a simulation you do not need to be killed sadly).

I think it is not the question of elitism, it is the question of people getting different hobbies and labeling them in the same way. and sadly is people who are taking the "it is a game, we do not need to bother" that is becoming more intolerant and elitist attacking everyone else. I, myself, have no problem if them "quit the hobby" whatever the hobby is.

Arrigo, ok you were not being ironic then.

While I agree that one can simulate the effects of different command decisions, strategies, tactics and logistical models etc on situations relating to warfare, I would argue strongly that wargaming with toy soldiers is not a "combat simulation" in any meaningful way. Only someone who has never been in combat could argue that pushing toy soldiers around a table while chatting with your mates, drinking, eating and rolling dice is any form of a simulation of combat.

As to your comment "I, myself, have no problem if them "quit the hobby" whatever the hobby is.", I think that says it all:).

Colin,

sadly you missed half of the point. I can quote at least one Brigadier and one Major (both working in the professional militry simluation field) with combat experience who think that wargaming is a Combat Simluation. Peter Perla's "The Art of Wargaming" and Phil Sabin's "Simulating War" are again supporting my contention.

To be quite honest you miss the meaning of simulation. This idea that you cannot simulate combat if you are not shot at is quite stale and just groundless. You are not simulating the psychological effect of combat but this is not "simulating combat". To use a real life example Dwight Eisenhower has never been in combat, but was still able to make combat decisions in a setting that was quite close to a wargame with toy soldier. Again Combat has a lot of meaning and levels. Kutuzov "directed" the battle of Borodino while chatting, drinking and eating with his staff.

I am so annoyed by those kind of comment that I will not even bother to answer a simple "do a bit of research before talking"… it is completely useless with the snobbish people esconced in their "playing with toy soldier" hobby. Probably General Von Muffling and the von Reiswitz due would have a bit to object…

As the second point, you clearly missed the irony and the context. Re-read and think… "whatever the hobby is…"…

I wonder if the whole thread might be boiled down to simply observing:

A: Certain practices and/or people who's hobby proclivities one may disagree with may,for some, make the hobby less fun when they have to see/rub shoulders with them.

B: There is no need for any individual to do what is not fun for them, as it is a leisure pursuit, but while one may go his/her own way, live and let live as it pertains to the hobby, they may not like 'their' hobby social events to be impinged upon by situation 'A'.

C: Outside one's own castle, one has a choice make at any given time, as to the desireability of self-seperation, dismissal, and/or complaint; or the compromise of attendance, inclusion, and flexibility.

D: Neither of the above 'C' choices ought to be judged rightly or wrongly by another, unless a chosen action impinges upon others who have less choice or opportunity, in which case those who judge will have to start above, at 'A'.

Best to All

Just to be fair, and just for fun we would put a non painted figure on the table just to see Clay foam at the mouth. After he fainted then we would put the painted armies out

As a WW1/WW2 naval gamer I can have a ship ready for gaming within a very short time of the package dropping through the letterbox. A light spray of primer (grey), a light spray of basecoat (grey), then brush paint the decks and funnel tops and she's ready to meet the enemy.

I mainly play at home and often solo so a perfect exhibition finish is not required.

Wargaming is just that a game. Just as a kick about in the park with jumpers as goalposts is good fun, so is a wargame with unpainted or partially painted minatures. In both cases the participant aspires to do better. It is all a matter of degree. I would object to paying to attend a professional football match where a team didn't have full strip and played with a rugby ball, similarly I would not want to see a convention game with undercoated troops and books for terrain. At home and with friends this is quite acceptable, the enjoyment is in playing the game not putting on a display.

"the enjoyment is in playing the game not putting on a display."

And the end it is what the enjoyment (subjective) is. We will never have a consensus on what enjoyment is. Clay vented some disappointment to a certain practice he had been forced to observe. It is a subjective (even if not limited to a single person) statement. For me playing and displaying are coequal part of the miniature wargaming for example so I concur with Clay. If I play solo high standard of painting is required.

"I mainly play at home and often solo so a perfect exhibition finish is not required. "

Again in your view. Probably I will not play with your ships, mine tend to be more detailed. We have different purposes and different targets.

But then we have a vocal group that accuses everyone that is not agreeing with them to be elitists or snobs. Then start to yell at everyone this is just a game and we need to accept their own attitude as gospel.

I still argue that even if we use the same medium (miniatures) often we are not involved in the same hobby. What I really dislike is the tendency to simply flatten everything. and everyone talk of the "hobby" but we have never defined it…

I would define it in this context as "all divisions and subdivisions of the miniature gaming community"

Insisting that the "elitists" who set high standards accept your unpainted miniatures in a game is no less of an imposition on hobby enjoyment than having your miniatures rejected by someone whose standards they do not meet.

No one gets to define what someone else's hobby should include, or exclude.

War Artisan,
I do not think that anyone is insisting that people be allowed to join in a game if they have unpainted figures. What I think is being said is that some of us find the attitude of those who scorn unpainted figures somewhat high-handed and unpleasant.

I think the cancer is spreading because of points base gaming and tournament play. Just a few years ago you rarely if ever saw a points based historical game (with the exception of some campaign gaming and ancients.)

But FOW started it and Lasalle brought it to Napoleonics. Now it is all I hear about, how many points this and that.

So they spend points on figures but they are too impatient to paint them because they want to use them as soon as possible. When you take the history out of historical gaming it's just a points game. I for one refuse to take part.

I could care less if it does bring more players into the hobby. We have enough already. People moan about the so called "graying of the hobby" when in fact this is the golden age of miniature wargaming.

Rallynow,

You've made me do somethin I never considered possible, namely to stand up for points systems and tournaments.

Points systems are pretty 'Old School' read some Featherstone to see that he's considering the idea in the mid 60's.

The Society of Ancients got the whole comptetative gaming mind-set going with their Campionship ranking and tournaments were going by the mid-1970's.

Back in those day we didn't play with unpianted figures, true they would be considered poorly painted by today's standards but they were painted.

The fantasy gamers I know in the 1970's also painted their figures – usually mix in with Ancient units.

My expeirience is that the trend to unpainted figures seems to come from players in the "Games Workshop Hobby."

I do not think that anyone is insisting that people be allowed to join in a game if they have unpainted figures. What I think is being said is that some of us find the attitude of those who scorn unpainted figures somewhat high-handed and unpleasant.

Colin,

Jeff and I regularly game together and have every much the same view on gaming, one of those is that games should be aesthetically pleasing, not only in the troops but in the terrain and buildings as well. To us beautifully are all very well but if they are thrown down on felt roads and rivers the game looses some of it's appeal.

Neither of us insists that anyone follows our standards. When we put on our own gmaes we supply both sides and the scenario.

Again, neither of us attempts force our views on people, but we do set some standards. If others choose to follow those standard, that is their affair. If not, again their affair.

138,
Apart from the reference to gaming with Jeff, I can only agree with the part of your post that was addressed to me.

If I hit a nerve, good. I hope I stabbed you in the freakin' eye.

This affects me. When I pay $20 USD to play in a tournament, take a whole day, bring my camera, limit my 'list' to just the troops that I have painted….and see my opponent dump a bag of bare plastic Empire then hand me his Dwarf list saying he's proxying the figures….then I get ed.

If that happens in Napoleon at War, I'll laugh your ass out of the room.

If you think I'm rude, how do you think I feel when this happens? It's obnoxious to assume I'm the villian because I want to enjoy the visual part of the hobby.

Arrigo,

"sadly you missed half of the point. I can quote at least one Brigadier and one Major (both working in the professional militry simluation field) with combat experience who think that wargaming is a Combat Simluation."

I could introduce you to some perfectly nice officers (both serving and retired) who think some quite strange things. Putting up a couple as support to your argument without allowing us to hear exactly what they think on the subject is irrelevant as we have only your word for what they think.

"Peter Perla's "The Art of Wargaming" and Phil Sabin's "Simulating War" are again supporting my contention."

No, they are not because you are conflating simulating command decisions, strategies, tactics and logistical planning with simulating actual combat.

"To be quite honest you miss the meaning of simulation."

No, I know what simulation means; I spend quite a bit of my time developing and refining simulations and using them.

"This idea that you cannot simulate combat if you are not shot at is quite stale and just groundless. You are not simulating the psychological effect of combat but this is not "simulating combat"."

Attempting to simulate combat in a "combat simulation" is not the same as simulating command decisions, strategies, tactics and logistical planning, which is about all that wargames can ever aspire to simulate.

"To use a real life example Dwight Eisenhower has never been in combat, but was still able to make combat decisions in a setting that was quite close to a wargame with toy soldier."

Yes, he could make "combat decisions", in other words decisions about command, strategies, tactics, and logistics as those were the elements that were being simulated. Actual combat was not being simulated.

"Again Combat has a lot of meaning and levels. Kutuzov "directed" the battle of Borodino while chatting, drinking and eating with his staff."

Kutuzov was not involved in combat at Borodino; therefore any simulation of his activities is not a simulation of combat. It is, or should be, a simulation of command decisions, strategies, tactics and logistical planning.

"I am so annoyed by those kind of comment that I will not even bother to answer a simple "do a bit of research before talking"… it is completely useless with the snobbish people esconced in their "playing with toy soldier" hobby."

I suggest that you seek help for your anger issue:).

"Probably General Von Muffling and the von Reiswitz due would have a bit to object…"

Once again, I would have to point out that von Reiswitz's training tool was involved with the simulation of command decisions, strategies, tactics and logistical planning, not with simulating actual combat.

To conclude, you seem to be conflating two very different concepts, the first being the simulation of command decisions, strategies, tactics and logistical planning, and the second being the simulation of combat itself. Wargames can attempt to simulate the former but never (thankfully) the latter.

Clay the Elitist, I'm very surprised to hear that a reputable wargames tournament allows players to use unpainted miniatures, for me this is 'public' therefore some standards should apply. Very different from eg. a couple of mates trying out some new rules with half-painted armies. (Though as said before I think there's some scope for a beginner's league for the youngsters).

Were the organisers aware? If so and presumably approving of the situation, did they tell you of this policy beforehand? If not I think it's a rather rum do.

Maybe it wasn't a reputable tournament??

PS I'm surprised people pay 20 dollars to join a wargame tournament in the US! What do people pay in the UK? (Just out of curiosity as a non-tournament gamer myself)

I think the cancer is spreading because of points base gaming and tournament play. Just a few years ago you rarely if ever saw a points based historical game (with the exception of some campaign gaming and ancients.)

I've played ancients tournaments since 1995 and have only had one game without painted miniatures (the guy running the tourney) so I don't think that's it. I haven't seen unpainted in a fow tourney yet, but I'm guessing those run at the lgs are not going to object to keep customers There really is no excuse as there are too many gamers willing to loan figures, both for flames and ancients. For the new Orleans fog holiday tourney a few years ago around 4-5 biblical armies were lent out for people without armies in the period, and I contributed some Egyptians flying down from Dallas. 16 players, and not one unpainted army. One guy was ridiculed unmercifully when we found he was using some 2000 year out substitutions…..however he wouldn't dare show up with unpainted……..sometimes proxies happen, and I feel more forgiving in this case. Certainly while learning your army or getting into the game using unpainted may be a start……but not at an event.

Yes Rallynow, I have and am doing these things. I paint and display my models in our local store window.

Nice looking figures Khusrau. I had 6mm Romans and none of them ever looked that good.
Is there a trick with that scale?

I must be sheltered. I have never seen anyone even try to use unpainted figs. I guess it is an understood rule in my club. Hell, the guys that are 16 and play 40k would not dare use unpainted stuff!