Rant - playing with unglued models

[Iain]

I'm sure this can't just be my local GW store, but loads of gamers of all ages turn up with their models in pretty terrible states, e.g.

unpainted models

unpainted bases

No bases!

No arms!

I really just wanted to vent because I can't understand people taking so little pride in their models - I understand not everyone can be an amazing painter, but the game is so much more fun when you can suspend your disbelief.

[CoffeeGrunt]

Personally I've lost a few arms and heads when Skeleton Warriors have dropped and shattered into bitz, could never find all of them. That said, they're skeletons, just adds to the look IMO.

Unpainted models are fairly normal here because few people have the time to get an army fully-painted, based and ready to play, especially as they adapt lists. Efforts are made, but at the end of the day since everyone got onboard in the last month or two due to the GHB, it'd mean an effective moratorium on anyone playing until they had a fully-painted list, which would be a PitA.

Personallly I play a mix of fully-painted, unpainted and part-painted models. I do projects one at a time, and I finish them when I'm happy with the result. I'm not going to rush a terrible "tabletop ready" paint scheme just to keep someone else happy. When my army's finished it'll look fine, but I'm a busy guy, and I prefer to take time on things.

[wayniac]

Can't agree.  Sometimes models are in various stages of assembly/painting and someone still wants to play.  I could maybe see it as a problem if it's always unpainted or unassembled, but there's nothing wrong with someone buying things and rushing to get them partially assembled to play the game.

[MightyQwan]

I'm with @CoffeeGrunt  I have 3 kids, a wife and a full time job. I get as much painting time in as possible but between work, the children's activities and family time there is not much left over for my hobby  Most of my army is unpainted, primed or partially painted though I steadily work on completing units. As such the events I run do not have painting requirements though you will get bonus points for painted armies and in the league I run you get more points for completing models than winning games. At the end of the day we are playing a game and as long as I can have a good time and a laugh while playing you I am satisfied.

[Herald of Chaos]

I think most people will agree that 2 fully painted and based forces on the table together look great, however this does not happen as often as we might like.  In my area there are a lot of people who are entirely new to AoS, as well as some of us who had fantasy armies to bring over but are currently building new ones as well.  Understandably life gets in the way of painting and some people just don't particularly enjoy that aspect of the hobby so occasionally (sometimes often) unpainted models end up on the field. 

I am not sure of what the community is like where you are from but luckily for me my local community is pretty close and constantly communicating, which makes it easier to encourage each other to get hobby done.  I really don't mind unpainted models being used if the army is being worked on, its actually fun I find when you get to see someones army come along from black undercoats to a fully painted collection, its like being on a journey together with people.  Having said that I don't have a lot of appreciation for when someone has no intention to get colour on the models, I understand that not everyone is a great painter, but with minimal effort and skills an army can be made to look good together at the distance it will be seen on the table.

There is also the question, would you rather have a game with someone who has unpainted models, or no game at all?  If you are more of a hobbyist you might decide not to, but if you are more game orientated, well that makes the decision harder.

As for unassembled models, unless a part has been left off for ease of painting, for example a rider off a mount or a head with a mighty beard or something (and even then, at least sit the rider on or keep him close by so your opponent is aware of what it is and what it is equipped with) I am not very keen on having them on the table, its not a matter of lack or time or not being a good painter, I think its just lazy.

[Rogue Explorator]

I personaly very much prefer fully painted, non proxied games. I also concede how hard that can be to acomplish.

 

I feel that, apart from the omnipresent issue of to little time, there is also the factor of pointed, competitive gaming and shifting meta to account for. Even if you go and concentratedly build and paint an army according to a competitive list, it may be outdated by the time you are finished. And a lot of people don't build their collection that way.

 

By this I mean that a pointed, competitive game sets up a situation where only playing what you have painted may net you a serious handicap on the game board, unless you truly have a comprehensive collection. Hence a even greater proliferation of semi-assembled and proxied forces, a result of the slow moving painting element of the hobby seriously grinds against the quickly shifting competition element.

 

What I'd like to try, is suggestion a friendly narrative game, when I have a serious desire to see two fully painted armies clash. I suspect that might create an athmosphere where people are far more comfortable fielding their painted stuff only, even if it is suboptimal.

[Taketheskull]

I'm big on playing painted only but don't really mind (well, I do, but I'll tolerate it) if some one is throwing down greys as they build an army up.

What drives me particularly nuts, however, is the guy that has barely finished assembling (let alone paint) one grey army before moving on to the next one, usually chasing the meta or latest release! Boo him!

[RuneBrush]

I've mixed feelings on this.  I personally don't have an issue with unpainted/part assembled models providing some effort is being made to complete them.

As much as I'd love to say that I only have one part-painted unit and one part-assembled unit in my army, I'd be lying!  My 40k army is very much "work in progress" and has been for many years (easy to get distracted when painting slowly), however my AoS army is about two-thirds completely finished with the other thrid in grey plastic - including two units with blu-tacked arms and no heads because you'd never paint them if they were glued on.

I think that time pressures are a problem for everybody, but what I struggle to understand is people who don't make any attempt to even throw on some base colours.  20+ years ago painting an army could be a chore, with mediocre paints and little in the way of advice or tutorials, the paint systems and information available now means even a person who has no interest can achieve a decent result with very little effort.

[KhaosZand3r]

@Rogue Explorator In regards to proxy, I'm a huge believer in them when they 1) make sense for what they're replacing, 2) look as good or better than the thing they are proxying, and 3) are there to save money. 

For example, I have a number of Reaper models in my daemon army. Some are there to add variety to my daemon princes, some are there because I don't like the GW models (Beasts of Nurgle, Dragon Ogre Shaggoth, Great Unclean One), and some are because the GW models are obscenely expensive (Bloodthirsters and Skarbrand). All of them are much cheaper than the GW equivalent, but all are the correct size if not larger. 

 

Now, I will agree with you when it comes to someone saying "I'm using this unit of (non-converted) Chaos Warriors as Blightkings". A proxy should be distinguishable as the thing it is proxying, instead of what it is originally supposed to be 

[CoffeeGrunt]

I'm okay with proxies if they're testing a new unit and they let me know beforehand. E.g, "I'm trying out some Hexwraiths, are you okay with me using my Black Knights as proxy so I can see if they're worth getting?" That's fine so long as it's only a unit or two and they use something roughly-analogous.

It was around about the point I watched a local player buy a Tyranid Heirophant on their payday, then rushpaint it in an afternoon when it arrived for a tournament in the city the next day, that I decided not to bother with "tabletop ready." It looked awful, even he was really annoyed with it, and as someone who likes the hobby, I couldn't help but feel that the £250 is a bit wasted if you slap paint on in three hours without any care or ceremony. Didn't help that it was a bit rubbish, too.

Thankfully no-one has called me out for unpainted models in my army, (some of my Skeletons with Spears are still waiting on the spears and shields too. (Last month was tough financially, was still waiting on bitz.)

[DarkBlack]

What annoys me most is cheese with bad proxies. I don't hold players who only take models/armies "because it's good in this meta" in high regard, I never have fun against people who try to break the game (in the Warhammers at least). So I'll have to disagree with this:

9 hours ago, Rogue Explorator said:

I feel that, apart from the omnipresent issue of to little time, there is also the factor of pointed, competitive gaming and shifting meta to account for. Even if you go and concentratedly build and paint an army according to a competitive list, it may be outdated by the time you are finished. And a lot of people don't build their collection that way.

I agree with this though:

9 hours ago, Herald of Chaos said:

As for unassembled models, unless a part has been left off for ease of painting, for example a rider off a mount or a head with a mighty beard or something (and even then, at least sit the rider on or keep him close by so your opponent is aware of what it is and what it is equipped with) I am not very keen on having them on the table, its not a matter of lack or time or not being a good painter, I think its just lazy.

 

If it's not assembled it's not a model, it's little more than a plastic token representing something; you might as well write unit names on empty bases. Once you have it assembled them how good you make it look/effort you put in is up to you.

EDIT; Also this:

49 minutes ago, KhaosZand3r said:

@Rogue Explorator In regards to proxy, I'm a huge believer in them when they 1) make sense for what they're replacing, 2) look as good or better than the thing they are proxying, and 3) are there to save money. 

For example, I have a number of Reaper models in my daemon army. Some are there to add variety to my daemon princes, some are there because I don't like the GW models (Beasts of Nurgle, Dragon Ogre Shaggoth, Great Unclean One), and some are because the GW models are obscenely expensive (Bloodthirsters and Skarbrand). All of them are much cheaper than the GW equivalent, but all are the correct size if not larger.

10 minutes ago, CoffeeGrunt said:

I'm okay with proxies if they're testing a new unit and they let me know beforehand. E.g, "I'm trying out some Hexwraiths, are you okay with me using my Black Knights as proxy so I can see if they're worth getting?" That's fine so long as it's only a unit or two and they use something roughly-analogous.

[CoffeeGrunt]

Well personally my Death has been getting smashed after everyone else started tuning their lists for tournaments, so in my efforts to play catch-up I've had to play unpainted. (I had literally just gotten a nice 1500pt list together and painted as well!) That's me trying to survive cheese rather than being it.

[Ollie Grimwood]

Unbuilt is a step to far for me. A model that's been damaged on the trip in no problem with that but if someone hasn't made the model in the first place no. 

My preference in fully painted and based, but a game is a game so I don't get too hissy over it. 

For proxies/counts as it all comes down to the rule of cool  if it represents what it's supposed to I'm happy with that (or really happy if it's particularly good) 

[fartsocks]

I wouldn't necessarily expect someone to have a fully painted army, but at least to have made an effort, and if you play them regularly, to see an ongoing effort to get the army closer to being finished. If they just turn up with the same unpainted army every week, that's not really on. While you don't *need* to have painted models, it's part of the game. You also don't *need* to be a good sport, but it's part of not being that guy, and making it more fun for everyone. 

 

I have a couple of unpainted battleline units that I might need to use as is to satisfy requirements until I get time to finish them, but generally, I prefer not to use anything that isn't at least base coated.

[polarbear]

I don't care enough to police anyone on it, but for myself, I won't play with models that aren't at least tabletop ready (based and painted, though okay if I'm still touching up/adding details). I like the visual experience over the gameplay.

Partially assembled models is a big turnoff for me. It just becomes an ugly looking game, not the Warhammer experience I'm after.

[Rogue Explorator]

3 hours ago, KhaosZand3r said:

@Rogue Explorator In regards to proxy, I'm a huge believer in them when they 1) make sense for what they're replacing, 2) look as good or better than the thing they are proxying, and 3) are there to save money. 

For example, I have a number of Reaper models in my daemon army. Some are there to add variety to my daemon princes, some are there because I don't like the GW models (Beasts of Nurgle, Dragon Ogre Shaggoth, Great Unclean One), and some are because the GW models are obscenely expensive (Bloodthirsters and Skarbrand). All of them are much cheaper than the GW equivalent, but all are the correct size if not larger. 

 

Now, I will agree with you when it comes to someone saying "I'm using this unit of (non-converted) Chaos Warriors as Blightkings". A proxy should be distinguishable as the thing it is proxying, instead of what it is originally supposed to be 

We are definitely in agreement. I guess I should have been more precise in what I mean by "proxy".

To me a model that is not the "offical" representation, but clearly modeled to be a "counts-as", wether conversion, scratchbuild or non GW mini, is not a proxy.

 

I guess conversion and custom modelling is a to integral part of the hobby to see it that way and it is something I myself do heavily. For example I can't stand the minis for marauders, but have a lot of different fantasy bits, so I plan on building some (properly equiped) mutant rabble based on Flaggellants to count as marauders. Similarly I have plans for entirely custom Warshrine and Lord on demonic mount, solely because I feel those are pieces that should look unique.

 

So, when I was talking proxies, I meant either models that clearly represent something entirely else in the game or not miniatures at all.

 

Of course the occasional proxy game to try out a unit or army before commiting oneself is more than understandable, no one wants to spend all that money and time on a unit they end up not playing. But I have seen metas where "competitive proxiing" seriously spiraled out of control, ending with "these half build tacticals are vanguard vets, the rhino is a drop pot and Optimus Prime is an imperial knight" sort of scenarios.

 

So my point was, playing narrative, people might be far morecomfortable playing what they have and want to have, versous feeling forced to play "what they should have" in an effort not to get tabled without much of a game. And hence it might be the better mode for the purpose of having fully painted forces clash, particularly for those short on time or cash (being myself in the latter category).

[CoffeeGrunt]

To test the water: I'm aiming to use Tomb Kings units in my Deathrattle force, because by jingo half the army has Deathrattle and Death as keywords but was declared Exocommicate Traitoris and banished to the Compendium rather than rolled into Deathrattle.

So, for example, would people here be averse to me using Vampire Counts minis to represent them? E.g., "those Skeleton Warriors with bows are Skeleton Archers, those Blank Knights riding zombie werewolves are Necropolis Knights, that Lich on a chariot is Settra, etc, etc?" So long as it stays coherent as one army, each model is recognisable as being that unit once explained, and the effort is put into conversion?

Mainly because I prefer the Celtic/Nordic look of the VCs, and not the Egyptian look of the TKs.

[Thostos]

 For regular game nights and general pick up games we pretty much dont care about painted,fully assembled and stuff like that.However when it comes to events locally,only fully painted armies qualify for prize support.This usually goes for 40k as well.

[Rogue Explorator]

@CoffeeGrunt sounds like cool army, I wouldn't see any problem.

[CoffeeGrunt]

44 minutes ago, Thostos said:

 For regular game nights and general pick up games we pretty much dont care about painted,fully assembled and stuff like that.However when it comes to events locally,only fully painted armies qualify for prize support.This usually goes for 40k as well.

I fully agree with rewarding those who do try, but it's the ostracising of those who don't that rankles me a little.

Obviously proxies don't fly in a tournament or event either. Counts-As or Conversions, sure, but not proxies.

[Oppenheimer]

I think we need to be open and welcoming to new people so we can continue to grow the community. That will mean that people who just bought a starter set won't necessarily have had time to paint it all. Granted, I would expect it to be in a shape that makes it playable such as needing a base if you're measuring from bases.

[Sleboda]

The easy one first - proxies.

I have a simple rule. If you can put your army on the table and, without you saying a word, I can tell you which army it is and what everything on the table is supposed to be, then I'm good with it. If I have to be distracted from the game by having to remember what something "really" is, then I'm not.  Even if you put a note next to the unit, it's still annoying.

I wrote a huge rant on the hobby years ago, for (I believe) 6th ed Warhammer.  Some of it no longer applies, but rather than post a wall of text in this forum, I'll share a link for those who are interested: http://www.muppin.com/joesleboda/manifesto/Section3_1.htm. It's several pages long. Enjoy.

 

Now, the less easy one - unpainted/unassembled.

Yes, of course we are all working on projects and we want to play with them as soon as possible.  The thing is, this is not chess, checkers, Monopoly, or even Zombicide. This is more than a game.  It's a hobby, and this hobby has several elements including collecting, modelling, painting, and gaming. If you are chucking most of the hobby aside and focusing on the gaming, you're probably not the sort I'm likely to enjoy playing with anyway (but I'll give it a shot). Why play GW games for just the game? It's not like their rules are amazing (like Zombicide: Black Plague  ). There are lots of better games out there (like Zom...). What makes GW stuff so special is the whole package.

This is one of the reasons why AoS was suuuuuuch a huge pile of awesome when it hit. As I've mentioned in other posts, it was the first time I can recall (and I've been playing since Blood Bowl 1st ed/Warhammer 3rd ed) that GW produced a rule set that matched their stated approach to the hobby - It's about the models above all else. Period. End of story.

You play with what you want to play with because the models you have are so amazing that you just have to use 'em!

In pre-GH AoS, there was simply no reason to ever use unpainted stuff because you had no "required" units, and there was nothing that was so powerful that you were compelled to purchase a specific counter to it.  You just put your favorite models on the table and played. 

The games I saw pre-GH pretty much never had unpainted stuff because the rules did not motivate you to do that.  You only have 10 skeleton archers and three Bloodcrushers painted?  That's fine!  We can still have a game.  Put them on the table and I'll put out a handful of Plague Monks and some rat ogres (or whatever seems fair) - we'll have a nice game and it will be visually awesome because it's all painted.

The rules for AoS also made scenery better.  In the past, many people played with two woods, two hills, two buildings, and maybe one 'special' small feature piece so that the armies could maneuver and the players could keep the rules simple.  Now we can play with super awesome complex stunning terrain because the rules are how they are.

AoS is a massive encouragement to put the hobby as a whole well ahead of just the game. When we play on boring tables with half-assembled models because they are "better" than other options, we are doing a disservice to the hobby and to each other.

 

[CoffeeGrunt]

In that case, I will demand at least 1000 words of fluff on my opponents' armies, because that is an essential factor of the universe and this hobby I can't play without.

[mmimzie]

I think it's not worth giving folks a hard time for not painting thier army. Some folks are new into the hobby and just bought the first army that looked cool. however, maybe they dont like how it plays or have jsut gotten jaded by the model. Then they move onto something else that is more inline with what they like. Then they gotta redo the whole paint scheme thing, and maybe want to do this army better than the army they had previously that didn't even get finished then.

Really as long  as my opponent has a drop or two of new paint some where every time i play them. than i dont personally care. 

This hobby already has alot of barriers to entry; we should add to the problem.

[Ollie Grimwood]

1 hour ago, CoffeeGrunt said:

In that case, I will demand at least 1000 words of fluff on my opponents' armies, because that is an essential factor of the universe and this hobby I can't play without.

I quite like this as an idea ?.