" The current trend to use unpainted miniatures " Topic

Ok I think I have to make some points.
The painting is a self gratification issue, you don't paint for the others to see but for you to enjoy.

The fact that you spend more money or effort than someone else doesn't give you any right for anything, its as meaningless as saying that on a cross road the guy that has the custom made car has the right to pass first because he just put more money and effort into it than you.

I don't see anything good in prohibiting unpainted armies and of course no actual right to enforce anyone to paint up their armies, spend money in paint workshops or say the to quit from the hobby (which is essentially what you say with that attitude, paint or walk away we have no place for the likes of you in the hobby).

Of course having unpainted armies on the field of battle makes the wargames appear less intimidating and encourage people in the hobby as contrasting this may sound, because it doesn't give them the intimidating feel that they have to paint all these models before they get to play their first battle.

And one thing that got drifted away, no mater how popular wargames are in your local area and the ambulance of players making these alienating rules seem having no impact this is not the same with the rest of the planet and in some places these rules do alienate the players prohibiting the hobby to spread.

What is better for the hobby painted armies or players?

"What is better for the hobby painted armies or players?"

painted players would lead to them asphyxiating like the girl in 'Goldfinger'….

This discussion starts from the position of 'is it acceptable?' to which the answer is that some say yes and some say no.

There really isn't much of a way forward from that is there? If I don't mind playing against unpainted armies and someone else does, what is the issue?

C

Ray, "you can't play with those unpainted minis" translates to me as "you can't play." Yes, it is possible that it just means that some of the player's minis can't be played with, but the impact may be such that it might as well be the same.

Sorry, I didn't mention it, but players who have a love of painting helping out those that don't DOES do good things for the hobby.

My issue is specifically with those people who have expressed the attitude "Nope, no way, no how." Or those that insist on inflicting penalties on those players. This is much different than people who express a preference or even take the approach that they'd like to see progress.

I think your metaphor is a bit extreme. I think of it more as joining a sports car club where people like to focus on tuning their cars and showing up with a completely stock Honda Civic.

I'm all for folks saying "why don't I loan you an army until you get your's painted," or "let me help you get your army painted." I have issues with people saying "then you shouldn't be playing." I think those people are losing sight of the fact that there are other reasons to play miniatures games other than showing off paint-jobs.

I'm pretty much in agreement with Mr. Ryan. I too, have little use for the extremes. And there are extremes. One side says no way are you ever going to play without and the other says that they have no intention of ever painting anything.

There are a lot of shades between.

I don't see how encouraging newbies, helping them to learn to play and paint and loaning them figures to establish the ground rules and get them playing immediately hurts the hobby. I don't see how setting the expectation by word and action that at some point a player should have painted troops of their own hurts the hobby.

I'd wager that the vast majority of miniature wargamers have never even considered NOT fielding painted troops. In my experience the subject just never comes up because everyone seems to know what's expected.

Expecting to play miniatures without the intention of painting them is akin to showing up at a model building contest expecting to enter a kit still in the box.

However, I disagree completely with your equation of "not with unpainted" with "you can't play". There is just no connection there at all. Furthermore, if someone were to take the "no unpainted" expectation in that manner then they have more problems than can be solved by the members of a gaming group unless one of their number happens to be a therapist.

It is also, BTW, my experience that those with thin skins don't tread water very long in the sea of testosterone in a typical gaming group. I don't mean to seem cold or uncaring, but if a newbie shows up with unpainted troops and is offered some painted loaners 'til his are done and takes that a such an affront that he quits the hobby forever…well, I think there's more going on there than I would care to deal with.

It really depends on what you mean by "hurt the hobby", because the hobby is different things to different people (as stated).

From practical experience, I know that when they lifted the very strict painting rules at my local gaming store, the attendence more then doubled. Its much easier to get a pickup game, or to meet new people. The store makes more money and can afford to have more events and keep the tables open to play on.

Does this 'hurt' the hobby? Some people here would say yes because their eyes are hurt by looking at unpainted models. I say the more the merrier. But if you do not wish to play a game with someone who has unpainted minis, its not skin off my back, and you are probably not someone I would get along with anyways.

Also, for the record, I would like to state that playing with unpainted minis is not at all equivilent to playing a video or board game. They are quite different beasts.

In the current age of PC'ness and tolerance, it is quite sad for me to see people so racist about the color of ones model ;)

I don't think I was so tragic extreme in my view, I am just against the notion of if you don't have painted miniatures don't get out of your house, as it has already being referred above.

I don't have problem with people that bring unpainted armies or that part of their armies are unpainted and don't think that they damage the hobby on the contrary their existence encourages (to some extend) the uninitiated showing him that the daunting (in his mind at least) task of painting an army isn't necessary to join the hobby.

We all know, that in the players evolution the paint will eventually come, sooner or later, because of the influence and stimulation the player will get by seeing painted armies around him, in magazines and on the web but, to enforce it to him is wrong. When the time is right for him and he feels confident he will start seeking out help, advise and start painting his army.

I say be tolerant and not extreme, most players are there to enjoy a game, if they field unpainted miniatures it is ok, if they field painted miniatures even better.

Simple math here folks. (and this is from years of watching it transpire at the local game shop)

If someone doesn't value the visual aspect of tabletop gaming, if they really enjoy min/maxing lists and crushing opponents with the latest 'whutsit' army, then easing the requirement of 'painted-to-play' will in no way encourage them to paint their armies. That is simply "soul-surfing".

They will never paint their armies, because they don't want to and they don't care. Meanwhile, those gamers who game wanting a visually pleasing 3D wargame must, endure with good grace, playing with powergamers, who get what they want out of the experience and give nothing back!

I do think that power gamers alienate themselves, by themselves.
I don't think that enforcing players to have painted armies as an excuse to protect them from power gamers is a good one.

Anyway we are talking about the extreme and the middle.
I don't think any of us supporting tolerance has actually supported the extreme of unpainted armies.
There are two extremes in the hobby, one is the mantra of only allowing painted armies and the other were the models aren't even glued and an extreme of proxies exist.

We have supported the middle way that is be tolerant to unpainted/ partially painted armies I don't find extreme for someone who has glued his army together to want to play a game or for people who don't have that much time to play with their partially painted army, we don't speak of unglued or proxy armies we talk about a wargamer that wants to play games.

So please don't say we support extremes we just show that there is a middle way that is better than any of the extremes.

I must respectfully disagree with the premise that "playing only with painted armies" is an _extreme_ position.

Here is the US, outside of conventions, most gaming is done in private homes (not big clubs like in the UK).

When I do tournaments at conventions, I always play in ones that have stated "painted armies only" in their FAQ.

For half a dozen years, I had a nice group that met weekly. We had similar aspirations for our games, worked very hard on colaborating to create visually enjoyable games. We invited other guests to play (usually new to the hobby). We provided models. Had someone said that they wanted to bring the unpainted army they just brought, we'd have politely said "don' worry about the minis, just make sure you bring beer and dip."

Yes, for many of us 'extremist' gamers, flocked tables and painted miniatures is an _elemental_ part of the game experience.

Sorry.

Of course we not all live in the US or UK that you continue to miss,
Anyway I can't see why painted miniatures only isn't an extreme.

You don't allow someone to play a game with his miniatures if he doesn't meet exact criteria.
The fact that you lend miniatures doesn't make it any better, what if someone wants to play with something you just don't have painted.

Anyway I do understand your lust for visual gaming experience but that's not the alpha and the omega in the hobby.

Anyway I do have painted armies, I do have floked gaming table and I usually paint a unit before I field it, but that is done for my viewing pleasure not anyone else, still I do not have the right to ask from anyone to do the same and it doesn't bother me if an opponent comes up with unpainted or partially painted army that is negligible in front of playing an enjoyable battle.

"I think those people are losing sight of the fact that there are other reasons to play miniatures games other than showing off paint-jobs." (mike ryan)

I not read all the post on this topic, so apologies if I repeat anything others have stated but I can't agree more with the above statement. People play wargames for different reasons. I would play with wooden blocks on the tabletop, with paper terrain with my 4 years old drawings on. The playing of the wargame is the fun part for me. GRANTED its always nice to play with proper painted figures etc, but why anyone should be anal enough to simply want to play with all the correct kit is beyond me. If 'they' wish too then fine, WHY people think it harms the hobby is also beyond me. Surely it expands the hobby of wargaming but maybe not painting hobby :-).

[Anyway I do understand your lust for visual gaming experience but that's not the alpha and the omega in the hobby.]

It is enough so for the hobby that I enjoy.

[The fact that you lend miniatures doesn't make it any better, what if someone wants to play with something you just don't have painted.]

My gaming opportunities are far more structured than that. I don't often come across the situations that you draw.

"If you get an invitation to a costume party, is it okay to go without one, arguing you're there just for the party and not the costumes?"

Bad example, that. You can still go to the party, and you (and everyone else) can still have a great time. Or is that what you meant? 8)=

Well for me miniature wargames are all about playing with miniatures in a 3D environment and have fun.
Rolling the dice moving the troops checking for LOS thinking about scenarios.
The painting part of the hobby is something completely different, I do enjoy my forces to be detailed, but I do that for me not for anyone else, I do paint my armies but I don't do that because I want to respect someone, I do it because I like it, the color research the conversions ectr.

Expecting someone to field against you a painted force just because you painted yours (hence if he doesn't field it he is disrespectful to you) sounds wrong to my ears, I don't think anyone paints his army for the fear of the others, we do such things because we like to se our little soldiers in color we do it for us not for anyone else.

I do understand that you enjoy the game like this but, ones personal preference shouldn't be the normal, I have a friend he likes to see only splatter movies, if he held the same way of thinking, then his mantra would be only splatter movies are allowed to exist all other types should be at best be seen with closed windows in soundproof rooms.
Does this sound right? No same goes with unpainted or partially painted miniatures, because one prefers only painted miniatures to be fielded doesn't mean that everyone sees it that way.

In the bottom line if we are to touch "respect" that I prefer to be left untouched, of the two players the one that doesn't respect the other most is the one that doesn't want to play a game because of…

I think it's funny that people talk about loving "the spectacle" of gaming with two beautifully painted forces, but I've seen many that were painted so badly as to completely bely the term. What's so spectacular about a horribly painted force? Is it actually better looking on the table than an unpainted one? I would say no, just to play devil's advocate… 8)=

Living in France i see same trouble, more people seems to put their minis fresh from their boxes. If i could understand this with your last bought troops and in hurry to try them on battlefield there is another point that i really find ugly : mainly with Confrontation players who tend to buy last minis on the market to have the "last killing combo" , those guys are really a shame for our hobby , playing miniatures games like a Magic card game. Myself i'm not a great painter but try my best on my minis and as i am always hurry to play them i make the 15mm choice (faster to paint than 28mm). Got some Rackham minis at home for small play but didn't wanted to paint them so here what i'd done : black enamel wash on them so they look like lead soldiers as you find for collection.

[I do understand that you enjoy the game like this but, ones personal preference shouldn't be the normal, I have a friend he likes to see only splatter movies, if he held the same way of thinking, then his mantra would be only splatter movies are allowed to exist all other types should be at best be seen with closed windows in soundproof]

Huh?

No, a proper analogy would be that your friend only likes splatter movies so don't ask him to go to the cineplex when you want to see a 'chick-flick'.

The analogy is correct considering the extremities used in previous posts.
If one that prefers only painted armies says that unpainted armies should only be used in ones house with shutters shut, then the above analogy is correct.

It's as extreme and irrational as the unpainted armies' comments above.

[If one that prefers only painted armies says that unpainted armies should only be used in ones house with shutters shut, then the above analogy is correct.]

Oh?

And who said you need to shut the shutters? You must live in Europe. Real shutters no longer are really available in the States).

No, it means your unpainted armies are not welcome at _my_ table. It also means that I don't travel 650 miles and spend $500-$1000 to attend major conventions if the events I participate in allow unpainted armies.

[It's as extreme and irrational as the unpainted armies' comments above.]

Well its extreme and irrational. On that much we can agree.

Eventually it all goes down on what one expects from the hobby.
Some people want more to see painted models than play some people want to play more than to see paint.
Both opinions are valid, but none should overcome the other.

Seasoned veterans just had the time to have painted armies and they get accustomed to see painted armies, aspirants are new and maybe didn't have the time to paint seeing unpainted or semi finished stuff is the normal for them, how quick if ever they are going to finish painting depends on what they want from the hobby,

If the hobby gets a drastic enlargement then the aspirants will be playing with unpainted armies since they don't have the experience and time to field them painted, that's not bad Id wish we had growth in wargamers here, fielding unpainted armies would be the least thing we would care.

I partially understand that you pay money to get into the convention, but so do the players that field the unpainted armies, if the convention said only painted armies then the new players wouldn't come hence fewer players smaller community, in an extreme case scenario it could also be the cancellation of the convention.

I will remain firm in my position that the wargames are first about playing the game and second about painting it.

"Both opinions are valid, but none should overcome the other."

"I will remain firm in my position that the wargames are first about playing the game and second about painting it."

Mr. Storm,

Your psychosis seems to be schizophrenia. You can't have your cake and eat it too. In previous posts I have asked why you think that allowing unpainted miniatures is "right: and disallowing them is "wrong". In this last post you concede that niether position has the moral high ground, but in the very same post you reverse yourself. You really can't have it both ways.

At any rate, I will pose a different question (since you seem to be an authority gaming morals and what the purpose of miniatures war gaming). If someone repeatedly shows up to play but exhibits no desire to buy a rule book or buy miniatures of his own, would you, at some point tell them that they have to invest in the hobby to participate?

In my limited experience it seems to be quite difficult to get people to take the plunge and actually buy their own miniatures.

The first games (WFB) I played were with the armies of a friend's older brother. He was the only one that had the spare cash to pay for miniatures. Over time he got them all painted up and we had some great games, played on a ping-pong table with books for hills.

It left me with a love for the hobby, but it wasn't for another ten years that I was able to afford to buy minis myself. If my friend's brother had been a martinet, I would never have been able to play, and I wouldn't have bought my own armies ten years later.

I'm now in the situation of that friend's older brother. I have two armies painted up with units being added as I go. To motivate myself to paint, I told myself that I had to have them painted to put them on the table. Now I just need to convince my friends to join me in a few games.

As far as I'm concerned, if someone else bought some figures and decided to get into the hobby I wouldn't care if the miniatures were covered with peanut butter.

However, I'm not in an area where miniatures wargaming has an established following. There are no clubs or societies devoted to it. I can understand that those in a club or society would probably prefer to have painted-only games. That doesn't bother me at all, but then again I'm probably not really a club or society kind of guy.

I think it's a diverse hobby and there is plenty of room for all kinds of players and all kinds of policies, and this thread is a great example of that. Three cheers for the little guys.

I am no expert, I am just like anyone else.

Ill explain myself a bit, both opinions are valid, there is no moral high ground, I respect the players that want their armies painted and respect the players that just want to play.

The thin line is that the other players army is his problem and right if he wants to field him painted, or not, or partially, it is up to him not anyone else's.

Coming from an area were wargaming isn't developed I tend to see negative anything that is restricting, when you don't have the luxury of a plethora of players you cant have the luxuries of strict restrictions.

I had a lengthy conversation yesterday with a friend of mine that holds the opposite ideas, nothing really came out of it.

I don't see why anyone should be forced to paint and find the excuses that anyone can put 3 colors on his miniatures even if they look horrible afterwards weak, also I find horrible the notion of saying to anyone if you cant paint your army go play pc games or board games, we play wargames so the essence of the wargames is all about playing if it was about the painted figures we wouldn't mind about rules we would just collect the best miniatures and paint them.

But that's just me.

It seems that this question is just about the sci-fi/fantasy wargamming community, because when you take a look at historical gamers they rarely put unpainted armies on their battlefield… (At least this is what happen in gaming clubs i saw here in France) they buy minis, paint them and once it's done they play with. And it seems that the painting process take much time with historical research and painting about uniforms.

I agree I wouldn't think of unpainted historicals.
They are a different subject, all based on the accuracy of depiction and research of that times (whatever time that was) military's structure.

Also they attract a certain dedicated audience, I don't think anyone playing historical wargames will ever think of fielding unpainted miniatures.

"Also they attract a certain dedicated audience, I don't think anyone playing historical wargames will ever think of fielding unpainted miniatures."

Now I'm confused. Up to this point, the type of miniatures gaming has not been stipulated. As it turns out most (really all for the last 5 years or so) of my gaming has been historical.

So are we in 2 different realities then? Do the goal posts move over such subjective criteria?

I play historicals a lot, and I have fielded unpainted stuff numerous times. So do many of the guys who play around town here in NC. I think that may be a rather rash generalization.

Or local idiosyncrasy,
You see as I have stated around here wargamers are not in ambulance and the new blood isn't attracted in historical wargames…
I can't remember when I have seen last time historical battle been played, but every single one of those who do play historical wargames, fields only painted armies and spends lots of his time in the research of the units, the colors and all that.
Judging my surroundings and from various discussions I have seen in the internet I came in the assumption that historical wargamers are more interested in depicting as originally as they can a recreation of a past battle and that includes the painted miniatures, I might be wrong though.

I also took the assumption that the new blood wouldn't be attracted initially into historical wargames judging from my local surroundings were fantasy or science fiction layers may eventually try the historical genre but none has started with historicals right away.
Anyway from my experience new players tend to field unpainted armies and many of them lack the confidence to paint their army, and some of them have short attention spawn, if you don't allow them to play with their unpainted army they tend to loose interest and sell it or just vanish, you might say they would never been true wargamers but that's not the point they might evolve into a proper wargamer given time but most importantly locally wargamers are few so any loss is noticeable.

Anyway I think the following things, this hobby is based on playing with miniatures, a miniature remains the same whether it is painted or not, if you paint your army you do it for yourself not for anyone else, the illusion of reality is far better when painted models and well made terrain is used and there is no deny in that but not all players share the same ideas, some people will be initially scared to paint their army, feel intimidated and they might feel unwelcome if they are denied to play games with their own armies, these people might leave the hobby and this is not good.
Also some players aren't playing to see the painted armies rolling but for the game itself so they might not be interested in painting or paint with lesser enthusiasm than others who want to see their painted army on the field, also there are these players that just cant find all the time to paint, if one with heavy schedule can find time to paint doesn't equate that another can find time, these players also want to play I don't see why their lack of painted armies should deny them the right to play a battle.

But that's just me, other people have other believes, these are just mine, I do play with painted armies but I do it for myself, what the other player will field is up to him not me.

Erm, nazrat, it's not much of a costume party if everyone comes in jeans and t-shirt, is it?

The very point of having a costume (or toga, or black tie or whatever) party instead of a regular one is wearing the costumes.

You don't wear it just for yourself. The atmosphere relies on _everyone_ adhering to the dress code. Thus, you wear it for everyone else just as much as for yourself.

Same for minis.

If you want to play with unpainted minis, or bottlecaps or whatever — go ahead. I'm not crashing your party.

Ray asked:
If someone repeatedly shows up to play but exhibits no desire to buy a rule book or buy miniatures of his own, would you, at some point tell them that they have to invest in the hobby to participate?

Nope. Sure, I migh suggest that they pick up the rules or buy some minis, but I wouldn't tell them they have to. They're already investing in the hobby by taking time to learn the game and to play.

In my club, there are several people that I play Seekrieg with. Many are casual wargamers, others are more hardcore. One of those hardcore wargamers has picked up the rules. He picked it up because he loved the game. I suggested it to him, but I didn't require it. We've coordinated some minis purchases: I've focused on Britain and Germany so far, so he's going to concentrate on US and Japan. I wouldn't think of requiring any of my other paticipants to pay for minis or rules.

What I do expect out of the players that I play with is for them to make a reasonable effort to learn the game. Whether that's by listening attentively to my explanations or purchasing a copy of the rules and reading it on their own time, I don't care. What's important is that I not have to explain how to figure out their primary battery's base chance to hit each turn.

Now, this is a club environment. My current deal is Seekrieg, so I make sure that when I say "Let's play Seekrieg," we have what we need. When another one of our other members, who's a Ground Zero Games fan, says "Let's play Stargrunt," he takes up the burden of having what we need. We even have people that just play the games that we arrange. That's fine, too. We need people to play, as well. Without that, there's just no point in doing the work.

<re. costume parties>

"You don't wear it just for yourself. The atmosphere relies on _everyone_ adhering to the dress code. Thus, you wear it for everyone else just as much as for yourself.

Same for minis."

Here here!

There are oodles of lists in the book…..308 in fact! The DBM army lists are useful to the purist. They are more detailed and thus are helpful when deciding which kind of figures to use for elements in your DBA version of the army! For instance, in the Low Countries DBA lists you have some blade elements…You might think they are dismounted knights or billmen….but if you read the DBM list, it becomes clear that your blades are Plancon wielding infantry.

Ok that wasn't me…. Anyway I wrote:

Of course it could be said that, a wargame is a party and a painted wargame is a costume party.

I play WW2 and I can't paint at all, but they are not hard as opposed to samurai or something intricate. Paint your armies guys I will loan paints out if needed and I will pitch in for free in needed. I would not play baseball in slippers, although I could.

"Of course it could be said that, a wargame is a party and a painted wargame is a costume party."

One _could_.

I _wouldn't_.

Indeed.
The question remains unanswered form the other side though.
If it did harm the hobby how it does harm it?
On all things there are good and bad merged together, the good things in allowing unpainted miniatures so far are that it allows more players to join the wargames hobby quicker and that it makes it look less intimidating to start it, so far the counter of it is that it looks visually unappealing and that it gives power players an excuse. I find both weak there musty be a better reason.

No there doesn't have to be a better reason. I find many long time gamers to be very accomodating (providing terrain, painted troops etc…)

There is no overriding _need_ to use unfinised models. It is merely to indulge the desire for immediate gratification of the impatient and the lazy, and power gamers.

Again we're talking about public open games, here.

Sorry you think that terrain and painted models are a superfluous element to tabletop games. I feel they're essential.

IMHO, game mechanics alone, are not a strong enough element to be a hobby unto itself.

When I think that the founders of wargaming played with far less than what we do, I think the rules are the core of wargaming.
Besides I have herd lots of complains about a weak game system and how the nice figures it was don't justify the players to buy it, so I guess the game system is sentential to play a wargame.

Don't get confused with me, I have painted armies and I do model my own terrain that is at least descent if not better, I am not trying to defend myself what I do defend is my believe that extreme behaviors are not good.
Some people will, for various reasons, not have a full painted army and will not accept to play with others miniatures (again for various reasons), further more most of them will probably be beginners that might be put off from such behavior.
It's more logical from veteran players (since most people who have painted armies are such) to be tolerant than to kill aspirants with such extreme behavior.

Besides that one of my core believes is that its human is different from the other, so what I look from a wargame might be completely different from what another is looking from it.

If I like to see my army fully painted (which I do) I paint him what the opponent will do with his army is his time/ money and decision I have no right on what he will do with it.

"If I like to see my army fully painted (which I do) I paint him what the opponent will do with his army is his time/ money and decision I have no right on what he will do with it."

Clearly then, we do not participate in the same "hobby", therefore, this discussion is moot.

I beg to differ,
We participate both in the wargames hobby, I am just concerned on what I do, while you dictate what the others must do.

"We participate both in the wargames hobby, I am just concerned on what I do, while you dictate what the others must do."

No, we clearly enjoy different hobbies (though you're attempting to claim what I consider my hobby has no validity)

I played a couple WWII games where my army was not completely painted. A third of the figures only had a basecoat and the first pass at faces and hands. I felt dirty, but at least my friends were gracious enough to let me play. Is there anybody here that wouldn't play the game in this situation?

How would you all react to a beautifully painted black and white army? I like the idea of re-creating the old WWII black and white news reel look.

"No, we clearly enjoy different hobbies (though you're attempting to claim what I consider my hobby has no validity)"

So because Psychotic will play with his own painted miniatures but allow somebody else to field unpainted stuff his hobby is completely different from yours? That makes absolutely no sense, and is Draconian crap.

As to the Costume Party allegory… I have been to some costume parties where I did not wear a costume, and you know something? Everybody had no problem with it and they STILL had a great time. Kind of proves Psychotic Storm's side of this argument to me. And saying, "But if EVERYBODY doesn't wear a costume it ruins the party!" is no argument at all, because NONE of us on the more sensible side (IMO, obviously) of this discussion are advocating playing games with exclusively unpainted models. It's all about not excluding somebody because they don't have a fully painted army and yet still want to play with their own minis.

"That makes absolutely no sense, and is Draconian crap."

Not at all!

If tabletop gaming is a collaborative, voluntary, undertaking, each paticipant has something that they hope to take away from the experience.

If I accede to your demands upon _me_ and agree to game against armies of unpainted miniatures , the person presenting them gets exactly what they want. They get their game, they get to use the miniatures of _their_ choosing, and they get what they seek from gaming satisfied (with little actual contibution.)

I, on the other hand, seek a game that is a visual 3D experience, have prepared armies and terrain, have spent countless hours preparing this table (BTW, I seem always to be the one making the effing terrain, and have donated extra pieces to the local game shop over the years) do not get what I want from the experience and must sit across the table from someone who does not value the same things I see in the game ans has found little need to spend the time to make it possible. Now, I must spend a few more of my limited availible gaming hours endulging their gaming wants.

Sorry, life is too short to game with raw lead. I'm not a missionary and am not obliged to evangelize or give public service. If you cannot recognize what I look for in a game then, clearly, we _do_ enjoy different hobbies.

…. and I'll then reiterate that all this discussion is moot.

" A third of the figures only had a basecoat and the first pass at faces and hands. I felt dirty, but at least my friends were gracious enough to let me play. Is there anybody here that wouldn't play the game in this situation?"

Not to dismiss all the hard work that many have put into their modern armies, but it doesn't take a lot of OD to make the "illusion" of tabletop game stick in moderns. Besides, if you have the base colors and the flesh already on, I'll consider that painted. I'm not asking people to present art, just painted armies (atleast if I'm going to game)

"How would you all react to a beautifully painted black and white army? I like the idea of re-creating the old WWII black and white news reel look."

???

Seems a bit idiocyncratic for gaming pieces. Why not amber hues and call it sepia?

So, I walked into the club for a WW2 game.

The battlefield was laid out and my opponent had deployed some lovely miniatures, finely detailed models of Panzers and beautifully painted wehrmacht figures so good you could almost hear the bolts being drawn back on their machine pistols…

I opened my bag and produced a selection of poker chips. The twenties are shermans, the tens are artillery and the fives are paras, OK?

Well if you allowed non painted figures last week, why not non purchased figures…

That's so ridiculous that it doesn't even bear commenting on. But I did anyway. 8)=

Just exactly _where_ does the hyperbole begin?