Painting Standards in Tabletop Games and Gatekeeping

[Neil Arthur Hotep]

So I recently watched this youtube video about painting to a tabletop standard:

In it, the person who made it more or less argues that painting standards are dumb and only serve to keep people out of the hobby. That they are a form of elitist gatekeeping that we should get rid of, at least in the context of playing in semi-public spaces like game stores.

I agree with the message that as a community as a whole, we should try our best to be friendly to newcomers and lower possible barriers of entry. Gatekeeping in tabletop games is definitely a historic problem. I think most of us know tales of or even have first hand experience with grognards making people feel like they are having fun wrong or that they are not welcome in this hobby. But the question is: Is the requirement of a tabletop-ready army that some places have really so bad?

I personally believe that tabletop games have at least two fairly essential components: Gaming and crafting. While you can, of course, engage with both of those components exclusively, to get what is special about the tabletop games hobby out of it, you need to do both. The aesthetics of the hobby and the opportunities for self-expression through your army are, in my mind, unique to tabletop games and part of what sets them apart from other types of strategy games like board games or computer games. I know that, on a personal level, seeing pictures of painted, individualized armies in White Dwarf and old rule books was what got me interested in Warhammer when I was younger. They promised something I really wanted to experience for myself: A game with two armies that are unique to their players, in which both armies and the playing field really try to bring the fantasy of it to life.

Of course people get into the tabletop hobby for different reasons. If you just like painting models, that's not an issue. Nobody is going to come to your house, slap the Nuln Oil out of your hands and force you to play the game. But if you want to play the game and don't have the option to play entirely self-sufficiently (in your own house with friends or family), things are more tricky. At that point, it becomes difficult to balance the interests of someone who just wants to play with those of an opponent who wants to engage in the hobby as a whole.

As a player, you might think: "I already paid a lot of money for these models. I don't have any interest in painting/have tried to paint but didn't enjoy it. Are you really telling me that there is no place for me in this hobby about tabletop strategy games? Do you really want to stop people from playing unless they do their painting chores first?"

But, in my mind it is equally valid for an opponent to think: "I didn't get into this hobby to push grey plastic around. That's not what I was promised this game would be like. Is it really too much to ask that other players make the most basic effort to help achieve the type of experience that makes this game unique?"

Even then, when it's just at the person to person level it's not a huge problem. Nobody has an obligation to play with anyone else, after all. The hard question is what our expectations should be at a community level. We should want to keep barriers to entry low, sure, but barriers to entry to what exactly? Just playing the game of AoS under any description (in which case you don't even really need the models), or the barrier to entry to playing the game as it is presented in GW publications (fully painted and personalized armies squaring off against each other)?

What do you guys think? Should there be painting standards at all? And if so, in which cirumstances and which standards? Are people who want to enforce painted armies unreasonable gatekeepers or are people who don't want to paint disrespectful and unwilling to engage with the hobby properly? Or have I just set up this huge false dichotomy and there is actually a really simple way to make everyone happy?

[PJetski]

It's fun to be part of highly competitive gaming groups where each player is trying to optimize and make the best decisions, but it's also fun to play casual games where people are trying more fluffy lists. It's fun for some people to have high standards for painting quality because it pushes them to enhance their skills and makes the game more visually appealing, but it's also fun to allow people to play with bare plastic because it doesn't exclude people who have no interest in painting.

There is no objective answer. Personally I don't care if people use unpainted models or even cardboard cutout proxies, but I draw the line at models without bases. If I can't measure the space a model is occupying then we can't even play the game. 

My point is that you should enforce whatever standards you feel are appropriate. Be as inclusive or exclusive as you deem worthwhile - it's a personal decision you need to make based on your unique community circumstances. Demonizing people for enforcing the concept of standards is silly; "gatekeeping" is not an inherently immoral action because sometimes it is necessary to exclude people for their behavior.

[AaronWilson]

It's a interesting topic, I do not like painting, I don't enjoy sitting down & doing and most of the time I will pick a list to take to a event to force my self to paint it. That being said I appreciate the game looks better with painted models and do paint through my unpainted models at my own pace as I want the game to be as enjoyable as possible for both parties.

What I don't like is people who make snarky comments at unpainted models, or who look down on those who don't paint all their models. I enjoy list building, playing the game & competing and I am happy to accept painting is a large part of the hobby, just not one I enjoy. If a "Hobby first" guy comes with a beautiful painted army but a terrible list I wouldn't dream of saying "Oh god your list is so bad, go build a better one, did you not have time to write a proper list" but I comments a lot of places about unpainted models, etc. 

Edited September 8, 2021 by AaronWilson

[schwabbele]

I really love playing when both armies are painted but would never exclude someone or turn a game down when the minis aren't painted ( probably would have 0 games then looking at my pile) but I also respect it when someone doesn't want to play against the grey tide.

 

[Dolomedes]

Perhaps it's the difficulty in categorising standards in this hobby that makes it attractive. It won't be long until people show up and say 'it's all subjective', 'play what you want', 'do what you and your friends happy' etc.

I think painting standards are usually group dependant. I used to live in Manchester, and I had 2 GW stores within 20 minutes of me (Stockport & Arndale). The Manchester city centre store was famously competitive. People who played there regularly would have exquisitely painted armies, and on games nights, I'd feel nervous showing up with my mostly primed army. On fantasy nights, there were definitely 2 tiers of player - the noobs and the veterans. I'd never play the guys with the fully painted armies. This was back in 8th too, when an army sometimes consisted of hundreds of models. If I was gaming in Manchester, I'd franticly get paint on my minis days in advance, aiming to just be 'table top ready'. I never won a game in that store, but I did enjoy playing there, and the high standards certainly made me the player/painter I am today.

The Stockport store could not be more different. It was very much a 'Timmy' store, and most people would show up on games nights with fluffy lists. People would regularly play unpainted minis just to see what they did. Loads of players in that store barely did any painting, but they were constantly hobbying away at the table, usually building or just chatting. I had just as much fun in Stockport as I did in Manchester, but the setting and the painting standards were miles apart. 

Element games was only 25 minutes away too, and on tournament days I'd sometimes go and check out some of the best painted armies in the country. My jaw routinely dropped to the floor when I saw what I thought were the nicest minis I'd ever seen in my life described as 'rushed' or 'barely table top ready.' What some guys were doing in a week I hadn't achieved in 2 to 3 years of hobby (that's when I found out what an airbrush is).

I was lucky to have multiple groups around me and live in such a good spot for hobby. Ultimately, I found the paint standards categorising pointless, as it would completely change depending on what day of the week/store I was in. This also applied to play standards. Manchester's store was about as elite as it gets, but I'd still enjoy myself and the challenge of getting myself up to high standards. Stockport became my regular store, and I'd have the most fun there playing the dumbest stuff I could come up with in bonkers narrative games.

'Gatekeeping' never existed. I thought it did at first, until I changed store. The group of people you hobby with sets your standards. Someone who's got 10 years practice at painting will be intimidating to someone just starting out, but the fact that there are people in the hobby that can set these high bars is what will keep people inspired day to day.

What I'd like to know is this:

Has anyone here ever seen anyone refuse to play against unpainted armies or ones that aren't some sort of 'table top ready'?

I've never come across a single instance of this in my life, even though I convinced myself that this existed at one point. 

 

 

[amysrevenge]

I strictly enforce a "no unpainted models on the table" rule.  For myself.

I have no requirements for my opponent, other than "please at least have mostly-assembled models on the vast majority of your bases".

I am happy with limited-scope events (such as a league or a tournament) enforcing whatever painting standard they wish. 

I'm unhappy with a public (or public-ish) play area enforcing the same.  Happily, I've never encountered this in the real world.

Edited September 8, 2021 by amysrevenge
Haha painted -> unpainted

[Liquidsteel]

It's subjective I guess. 

I personally dislike but have no issues playing with and against unpainted models, proxies etc when it's about practicing, or vs a new player.

I like that most events, at least those that I am aware of and will/would attend, require a minimum standard (painted and based, for example) to avoid the above.

[acr0ssth3p0nd]

Yeah, for me, it's a personal preference, but it all focuses around the social aspect of the hobby. Do I prefer playing against painted armies? Sure, but that's because it's a point of discussion and bonding, where we can compliment each other, learn about why we each chose the schemes we did, and swap hobby tips.

But as far as actually choosing opponents go, "having a painted army" is so far down my list of priorities that it might as well not exist. Again, I play for the social aspect, and I don't play against people I wouldn't enjoy hanging out with in the first place. If someone is a lovely human being, I will actively go out of my way to play with them, all other standards be darned.

[ArkanautDadmiral]

I’ve no interest in playing against an army with no paint on it. The sight of grey plastic really spoils the vibe for me.

No problem with them actually playing with unpainted minis in stores etc, it just wouldn’t be against me 🤷‍♂️. If I miss out on more games because of that, it’s my problem not theirs.

[Gaz Taylor]

3 hours ago, Neil Arthur Hotep said:

What do you guys think? Should there be painting standards at all? And if so, in which cirumstances and which standards? Are people who want to enforce painted armies unreasonable gatekeepers or are people who don't want to paint disrespectful and unwilling to engage with the hobby properly? Or have I just set up this huge false dichotomy and there is actually a really simple way to make everyone happy?

It’s what you and your gaming group want. Want to just use grey plastic, do that. Only want to use painted models do that. It’s all how you and your fellow players want your experience to be. 
 

Im not a fan of painting because I struggle keeping the project going after I have started (I’m really thinking I have ADHD now which explains a lot) but I love to see painted models on the table. That’s the experience I enjoy. I wouldn’t refuse to play anybody who hasn’t painted their models as I enjoy playing but it’s not the same as seeing two armies on the table. I also think with many of the tools and teaching aids people have access to, most people can paint something they are proud of. 
 

But it’s all what you and your group want to use 😉

[readercolin]

Personally, all I ask is that your models are (mostly) assembled and on appropriate sized bases, and you are consistent with what a model is.  For example, I'm not going to be happy if you are proxying some Chaos Warriors as Blood Warriors, but also running another unit of Chaos Warriors as Chaos Warriors.  I would much rather play against people testing units out before they decide if they like it enough to make it a core part of their army than someone who is grumpy because they can't play with their newest toy.

All this being said, that is my feelings for if we are just casually playing at the store.  I am 100% ok with a Tournament requiring everything to be "tabletop ready".  I'm 100% ok with a league requiring models be painted to play, as long as players also have a chance to play with their unpainted models outside of that league.  If I am going to a tournament that I am paying money to enter, I am ok with their being higher standards.

[annarborhawk]

I view the time it takes me to paint an army (in my twisted head) as roughly like the time spent by the fictional general mustering, equipping, and training his troops. When I paint - it is as if that is an intrigal part of preparing my army for battle. That is a big part of the sweat equity I am putting into my army. It adds quite a bit to my emotional investment in the army. 

That said, I will play anyone. I do not impose my subjective values on my opponent.  But, truth be told, *in my head* I will bristle when I see my opponent setup unpainted grey plastic of the latest hotness. 

It irks me when a block of brand-new unpainted sentinels mortal wound to death from range my block of chaos chosen which I invested hours into painting, as if they were a bunch of wound counters. 

Certainly with players new to the hobby, I expect and accept totally playing unpainted armies - or proxies even. More than happy to do that.

But you all know the WAAC guy that'll drop hundreds upon hundreds on the latest top-tier army, with no intention of ever putting the time in. That's the one that I probably decline. 

[The Red King]

I'm sorry but I have to strongly disagree with you. 

Paraphrasing you so I apologize if I misrepresent something. 

"To get what's really special out of tabletop you have to do both." Well good news. YOU have! Your opponent not painting their minis doesnt keep you from getting that something special. 

 

"I didnt get into this hobby to push grey plastic around." More good news, you arent obligated to play with your opponents models, in fact most people would reccomend you not push around their grey plastic without permission. 

 

I prefer seeing painted armies fighting painted armies but every person who gets driven from the game by that kind of "standard" will never paint their army and they'll never play any games so the standards at a casual level should really be "whatever allows you and your opponent to have the most fun* *must make REASONABLE accommodations" clear proxies and the like being reasonable. Not being allowed to deny someone access to the hobby based on your personal preference is NOT an accommodation.

 

I should add I'm fine with tournaments having paint requirements. Nobody is being kept out of the hobby by not being able to go to tournaments and by the time you've reached that level you could probably paint them or use some hobby budget for commissioning a tabletop level paintjob. 

Edited September 8, 2021 by The Red King

[Unit1126PLL]

I have a complex view of painting I think.

1) I will play against unpainted armies.

2) I still expect some progress on said unpainted armies (if it's been 2 weeks since our last game, Mr. Opponent, and you haven't even spray-primed a single model?)

3) I disapprove of eternally unpainted armies where no effort towards being painted is evident.

This I think is a good compromise given what the OP suggests. I won't hold it against new players for not having things painted - I won't even hold it against them a year later if they're still not painted. What I will hold against them is a lack of progress - i.e. if they're making exactly zero effort to have the army eventually fully painted. The whole point of playing a miniatures game vs. cardboard chit game vs. meeple game is to have the beautiful, on-table spectacle. Showing interest in eventually achieving that spectacle (however long it may take!) is an "A+ welcome to the hobby" from me. Showing no interest in the spectacle whatsoever gets a "why are you doing this again?" from me.

And yes, by definition, that's gatekeeping. People who don't want to paint their miniatures (or, more precisely, people who don't care enough to play with painted miniatures; I'm not too concerned with whether THEY THEMSELVES painted them) are probably in the wrong segment of gaming. The whole point of games like Chain of Command, Fistfull of TOWs, SAGA, (and yes, AOS) is to play out a movie-like spectacle on the tabletop. Other games exist that care less about spectacle (but are otherwise identical to miniatures wargaming, a'la some of the boardgame offerings from Academy Games) which are probably a better fit for gamers who don't care about spectacle.

So I guess what I'm really questioning I guess is what is the nature of miniature tabletop wargaming? And is that nature changing such that the expectation of spectacle is no longer valid?

Edited September 8, 2021 by Unit1126PLL

[Kasper]

I think its perfectly fine that there are higher expectations at tournaments etc. At a local gaming group however, I dont care if people bring grey plastic to the table to play, unless its the same grey army week in week out. If theres some progress, even if just a model or two each week, then its fine. Not everyone enjoys painting or is good at it and obviously it will take a long time for those to get a finished army. I also realize that people like "ohhh new shinies!" so most people dont have the same army for years but rather buy new stuff every few months and they want to throw them on the table and play with the latest cool stuff.

[GrogTheGrognard]

Well seeing as how I have Grognard in the name I guess this is a topic I'll need to comment on.

 

Now would I play with someone who hasn't painted their army? The answer depends. If someone is obviously new and has just started playing the game or starting a new army they think is cool I have zero issue playing against the grey tide. That being said if time passes and they make zero effort to even try to turn the grey tide into something I find myself not wanting to play with them much anymore. And I'm not saying it has to be golden demon levels of good, heck even three slapped on coats of different colours is fine for me as long as I can see you put some measure of effort in painting something I'll continue to play. I have and will continue to play with people who have brought in the grey tide and seen over time it turn into the primed tide, then the partially painted tide, and finally the finished tide. It's a truly wonderful moment when two painted armies clash and war for objectives on a well crafted board. The aesthetics can be just as pleasing as the game itself if not more so.

[Kirby]

AOS is one of my main interests outside of my family and work.  However, i am self-employed with a very young family.  So, im busy.  

My regular gaming partners, meanwhile, have beautifully several large, beautifully painted armies and play at least 4 times more often than I.  They invest a lot of time and effort in their hobby and it shows.

As some people have said already, i always try to improve my army between games, but these are not always significant changes.  

So, i sometimes feel sorry for my opponents.  My army is still considerably unpainted.  Likewise, im a little slower during games as i have to remind myself of rules.   Thankfully, my opponents are good guys and have never actually mentioned any of this.   But the concern does stick with me.

There are an infinite number of factors that can influence hobby speed.  We all hobby at different rates.  Folks like me would love to invest more time, effort and cash, but its not always possible.

So, when you encounter a half painted army or a slow player, please don’t be too dismissive. Sometimes armies cannot fully reflect their owners enthusiasm for the hobby.

[papary]

4 hours ago, amysrevenge said:

I strictly enforce a "no unpainted models on the table" rule.  For myself.

I have no requirements for my opponent, other than "please at least have mostly-assembled models on the vast majority of your bases".

I am happy with limited-scope events (such as a league or a tournament) enforcing whatever painting standard they wish. 

I'm unhappy with a public (or public-ish) play area enforcing the same.  Happily, I've never encountered this in the real world.

Yep. I won’t play with unpainted models, but I don’t mind if someone else does

[CommissarRotke]

2 hours ago, Unit1126PLL said:

This I think is a good compromise given what the OP suggests. I won't hold it against new players for not having things painted - I won't even hold it against them a year later if they're still not painted. What I will hold against them is a lack of progress - i.e. if they're making exactly zero effort to have the army eventually fully painted. The whole point of playing a miniatures game vs. cardboard chit game vs. meeple game is to have the beautiful, on-table spectacle. Showing interest in eventually achieving that spectacle (however long it may take!) is an "A+ welcome to the hobby" from me. Showing no interest in the spectacle whatsoever gets a "why are you doing this again?" from me.

 

 

1 hour ago, GrogTheGrognard said:

Now would I play with someone who hasn't painted their army? The answer depends. If someone is obviously new and has just started playing the game or starting a new army they think is cool I have zero issue playing against the grey tide. That being said if time passes and they make zero effort to even try to turn the grey tide into something I find myself not wanting to play with them much anymore. And I'm not saying it has to be golden demon levels of good, heck even three slapped on coats of different colours is fine for me as long as I can see you put some measure of effort in painting something I'll continue to play. I have and will continue to play with people who have brought in the grey tide and seen over time it turn into the primed tide, then the partially painted tide, and finally the finished tide. It's a truly wonderful moment when two painted armies clash and war for objectives on a well crafted board. The aesthetics can be just as pleasing as the game itself if not more so.

My question for you both (and anyone else thinking the same) is: do you engage with those players to see why progress isn't being made? Do you offer them tips on getting into the painting side? Show or direct them to quick-painting videos/techniques? If so, then I don't think this attitude is a problem since you're attempting to help opponents get their armies "tabletop ready."

I enjoy the hobby side more than the playing side, but can have trouble finding the energy to paint. I recently moved and while there's a little less space than I was expecting inside, my partner wants me to have my own hobby space so we'll make it work. The real problem is our "backyard" is near where trash gets dumped + has a mosquito problem. So I'm going to have trouble priming once I get more of my backlog painted, even when autumn finally gets rid of the heat and humidity here.

I think the Rule of Cool is how we should be directing new people in picking armies, because the new Stormcast models are hyping me up to actually get started painting my army even through the issues I described. Helping people pick the army they truly want, and find a background/purpose that they really vibe with will do wonders for stemming grey tides. I'd also like to mention the 2k point standard really doesn't help this friction of unpainted vs painted so I'm really hoping 1k/meeting engagements are run more.

[Elmir]

I have been playing for over 2 decades and not once have I ever heard anybody complaining about the quality of a paintjob or the fact that an army isn't finished. Maybe I'm lucky enough to live in an area where people are just extremely polite... or it's just a bit of an overblown issue? 

I pretty much only field painted armies, but I would never expect my opponent to have that level of patience before they field their troops. 

[Landohammer]

My two cents

1) I always play fully painted, even for the most casual of games. Its just a personal preference and helps me manage my hobby. 

2) I make no requests of my opponent. Its your army and you can field it how you please. 

3) I am ok with painting requirements for events, but they need to be appropriate. For example, I dont think leagues and single day tourneys should have strict paint requirements, because they are pretty popular for newer players. But GT's absolutely should have them. 

4) There is a culture in Warhammer where vets will rag on people who don't get their armies complete timely. In my experience its always good-natured and is never aimed toward new or young players. I am ok with this and a little bit of peer pressure is good in moderation. 

5) At the end of the day, the thursday night "regulars" and people who make the effort to attend tourneys/leagues are what keep the hobby going, regardless of painting level.

Give me a guy who a shows up weekly/monthly with a WIP army ANYDAY over a "pro painter" who does it just for the 'gram and never plays. 

[Joseph Mackay]

I care not what my opponent does with their models*. I would prefer painted but I don’t care.

public events, like tournaments however, I 100% agree with having painting standards. I don’t want to pay $50nz for a 2-day 5 game event and face all the top netlists unpainted. I’ll openly admit I have a huge bias against waac or hyper competitive players and people who only run netlists, so I support painting standards at events. You’re not going to ruin my fun with that kind of play while having unpainted models. (Note that I attend tournaments not to try and win, but just as an opportunity to play more games. Sadly, the hyper competitive players make the events less enjoyable. There used to be a time where if you lost your first game, you’d spend the rest of the tournament in the middle or bottom tables playing the fun armies like Gloomspite Gitz etc. but nowadays, it’s more common to bounce up and down the tables, so unless you purposely lose every game, you can’t avoid playing the hyper competitive players anymore 😥 )

*conversions are sometimes an issue. As long as I can tell what it is without having to ask every time I want to attack something what it is then it’s usually fine. One example of something I don’t like, someone had converted a dead syvaneth army as Legions Of Nagash and I couldn’t tell what anything was supposed to be. It looked great, but I couldn’t tell what anything was supposed to be and that is a problem 

Edited September 8, 2021 by Joseph Mackay

[chosen_of_khaine]

Having a fully painted army on both sides of the table absolutely effects the enjoyment of the game for both me and my opponent, and showing up with an unpainted army is willfully offering your opponent a lesser gaming experience.

Not one single person who plays this game would ever say "I would rather be playing with and against gray plastic". For myself and many others, a large part of the experience of tabletop wargaming is immersion, and few things affect that more than painted armies (list building and mission quality come to mind). A new player showing up with an unpainted army because they are eager to get into the game is one thing, but showing up with an unpainted army after months/years of playing - knowing full well that it is negatively affecting your opponents experience of the game - is lame and should be frowned upon.

I've never turned down a game due to my opponent's lack of painting, but I'm always disappointed. This is especially the case if it's a FOTM army or unit that all of a sudden is showing up everywhere in gray plastic / primer. I myself will not put a single unpainted model on the table, and while I realize this standard is unrealistic for a large number of people due to any number of reasons, it should absolutely be encouraged. And to be honest, I don't see a problem with lightly ragging on people for bringing gray plastic. If you can afford the hobby and have the time to be gaming every weekend, you have the means to slap on some primer and a few contrast paints.

Edited September 8, 2021 by chosen_of_khaine

[Neverchosen]

I often feel like I am equally terrible at the game and the hobby. 😰
Luckily my friends are very nice and enjoy my paintschemes and playing alongside me. 😁


I do prefer when armies are painted but I will not fault someone for having other priorities especially as I personally have very little time for the hobby myself. But I still talk to friends about how they plan on painting their armies and helping devise schemes for them if they ask. 

[yukishiro1]

My basic feeling is that the justification for the game's existence is on the hobby side. If you're just looking for a good competitive game, AOS is surely not what you're looking for. The rules are often unclear, frequently broken, and always unbalanced. The reason we all persist with it despite these flaws is because the models are cool and fun to play with, and painting is a large part of what makes the models look cool. I've yet to meet a single person who thinks grey plastic looks better than painted models.

So with all that mind...there is absolutely no need for everyone to have everything painted all the time. The amount of effort involved in painting an army is immense, and people absolutely shouldn't feel bad about fielding an army while they are in the process of painting it. But I do feel like if you're someone who just never plans to paint their army no matter what - or who has vague plans but in practice is never going to because there's always some reason why you couldn't make any progress - we're probably not looking for the same thing from this game (and I question if you're playing the right game at all, but tastes differ and if it works for you, more power to you). I don't mind playing a game against you now and again, but I doubt we're going to hit it off and become best buddies. And if I have the choice of a game with you or with someone who shares my priorities...I'll choose the latter. It's nothing personal. It's just that I'd rather have more fun than less fun. Just like if someone brings a list I hate playing against (hi2u 4 foxes!) I probably would opt against playing against that too if I had a better option.

One thing I can't personally understand and have little patience for is people who make a big deal out of everything in the army being nominally painted, even if it's to a terrible standard, because I think that actively undermines the ultimate objective of people creating good-looking armies they're proud of. For that reason I'm not a big fan of battle-ready painting requirements for tournaments. I'd much rather someone show up with an army that's half painted to the best of their ability (no matter what their ability is, that doesn't matter) and half still primed than have them show up with an army they did in an all-nighter to the bare minimum level. That just seems like such a waste to me. I get that it's hard to enforce a "make a good faith effort" requirement at tournaments so I understand why most TOs have settled on a battle-ready standard, but I personally dislike the kind of painting it ends up forcing people into. 

 

Edited September 9, 2021 by yukishiro1