Lead Adventure Forum
Other Stuff => General Wargames and Hobby Discussion => Topic started by: Antonio J Carrasco on September 01, 2019, 06:48:13 PM
-
I read in a debate in another forum a guy that defended the idea that any gaming, even with unpainted models or models which have received a mere basecoat but not detailing (not even an inkwash) was better than not gaming at all.
It is not the first time that I have heard/see people gaming with unpainted models. I remember walking into a wargaming shop where two lads were playing a game of Flames of War, both with unpainted, bare metal/plastic/resin models. None of them was concerned by the lack of painting in their figures. They couldn't care less. I tried to ask one of them, and he answered that he wouldn't bother because what if the next campaign book "nerfed" his units and made them superfluous, gaming-wise? Then the effort of painting those models would have been wasted, wouldn't it?
It has always struck me as odd. I understand that painting hundred of models might be a chore. I am a slow painter, and it takes me ages to finish a unit, so imagine a playable army! In top of that, my wargaming interests span from the Bronze Age to the Ultramodern (albeit with stronger focus in 18th Century). You can imagine how chaotic can be. But the most beautiful part of this hobby, what actually appeals to me, is the sense of beauty and accomplishment that comes from having an interesting, challenging game using painted and based miniatures. Maybe my Spanish Militiamen are the crappiest units in a Napoleonic game, but they look nice in the battleline... at least as long as they survive the French onslaught!
If the goal is just gaming, why not use whatever you fancy? Why waste a dime in models? Use rice grains in a base of the appropriate size and just play with them.
To be totally open, I have tried rulesets using proxies, to learn mechanics and see if the game fit my expectations. Recently, I tried Twilight of the Sun King with my French and Spanish Napoleonics proxying as their late 17th Century counterparts. But I rather prefer to skip a game and wait until I have enough figures painted, than using unpainted models. What is the point of using miniatures if you don't bother with what makes them special?
I wonder what are the thoughts of the LAF community regarding this issue.
-
I would say it is up to the individual what they want out of the hobby.
I would disagree with you on "why not just use rice." Even if you use
unpainted figures you can still tell the different tanks ect apart and can make
out infantry vs cavalry ect. So I can see using unpainted figures verses something
else for that reason. To me, if they were enjoying their game and didn't care
if they were playing with unpainted figures then good for them. The idea, at least
for me, is to have fun. Would I play with unpainted figures? Probably not, but
if I really wanted to play and didn't have time to paint them...maybe.
-
The sentiment resonates with me, even if I am not completely in agreement.
I would not play using unpainted figures myself, period, but I don't have that much of an issue if playing with others whom I know to paint the miniatures eventually but just didn't come around to painting them yet (similar to using basic or half-finished terrain, as it is a work-in-progress). It's also part of why I am not too fond of boardgames, even if I find the mechanics intriguing or with cross-applicability (e.g. Zombicide).
I'm more on the modelling/painting side of the hobby, though, and thus am not too bothered by waiting a bit longer to play if it means that all aspects of the game are finished.
Back in ye olden days, however, when I used to game 40k and did the occasional tournament, I found that there was a very strong correlation between unpainted minis and the likelihood of their user being a WAAC powergamer, making for most unpleasant games. Got so bad I got out of that part of the hobby and haven't really looked back, although I cannot bring myself to sell off my 40k armies just in case.
-
I am in agreement with Antonio, total agreement! But I also know plenty of people who are on the other side.
At the end of the day, it is all about having fun. But each of us has his or her fun. I have made clear in several occasions here and in other places that I prefer traditional map and counters games to miniatures as far game engines are concerned (and size and scope, there is something in leading the whole Soviet forces from Kiev to Warsaw, rather than just some companies of the Konarmyia). The redeeming quality of miniatures is the visual pageant. It is also the satisfaction of seeing your boys on the table.
I perfectly understand the feeling about the Spanish Militia, they can be the worst rated unit, but you like them for plenty of reasons. Uunpainted miniatures, with thrown together terrain (and square hills!) are not my thing. Eons ago at the Italian game convention Dadi.com there was a... FOW!... table with not even a cloth, and boxes for hills. It was basically awful. I remember Lorenzo Sartori (the event organizer and also mister Dadi and Piombo) being quite disappointed.
On the other hand there are plenty of people who do not care. I have once read that having to paint and build (or source from something beside the game box) your miniatures is unacceptable and it means it is a shoddy or incomplete product. There also people who care only about the list 'dominators' rather than anything else. Or that dump an entire collection because the game is out of fashion... and so on.
but there are plenty of compromises. Some map games have counters that are extremely attractive, Heroes of Normandie for example (the graphic is impressive and certainly combine a great all in one approach with a good game system). Or Compass Games Company Scale System. The artist is very talented (and named Antonio too!):
(https://cf.geekdo-images.com/imagepagezoom/img/pV-SfXQu2ePxvZ_HWtY8GuQq9q4=/fit-in/1200x900/filters:no_upscale()/pic4927667.jpg)
Yes some people will say it is not appropriate, but I think it is much much better than playing with unpainted stuff, especially if you do not care about the miniatures themselves.
-
Yes some people will say it is not appropriate, but I think it is much much better than playing with unpainted stuff, especially if you do not care about the miniatures themselves.
Exactly my feelings! I also prefer, when the goal is just gaming, using boardgames to get my fix. Lately, I got interested (again!) in the Yom Kippur War. I had the option of collecting two armies and gaming, maybe, in one year from now or getting a boardgame. In the end, I decided for the second option and bought Bar-Lev, published by Compass Games. Now I am playing in the Golan, trying to break through IDF's defences with my Syrians (and failing miserably, to the evil glee of my eldest who is enjoying making mincemeat of my poor tanks)
-
I really couldn't give a tinker's damn, because good minis are still good sculpturally, in their own right.
When I was a kid I'd play board games with unpainted figures which I still thought of as beautiful little statues, knowing nothing of minis painting. There's bad painting too - I know folks who think their painting is so poor that their minis suffer for it, and God knows prepainted minis have shown all of us how completely a perfectly good sculpt can be ruined by bad paintwork. In fact I'd go so far as to say I prefer unpainted minis to ones ruined by some poor local sod with absolutely zero artistic aptitude, yet who felt pressured to give it a go by the locals who turned up their noses at playing against an unpainted army.
We don't grouse when we see classical marble statues without the paint that we now know many of them once had so I honestly don't see the problem. Well I don't anyway. I'm sure there's some philhellene grognard out that that complains Athens really should be putting a lick of paint on the ruins of the Parthenon, but I digress... lol
Now, a lazy tabletop with a plain table and flat cutout paper silhouette templates for terrain, THAT'll send me round the bend. At least get some bloody cheap foam hills, and MDF buildings or something. UGH!
-
Incidentally, there was a fellow on LAF who did up the infantry stands for his extremely small scale armies (1:600 or such) using neatly painted groups rice grains. Ended up working reasonably well, given the scale.
So even rice grains have their place. :D
-
I decided for the second option and bought Bar-Lev
great choice! I have got that one too. I have also the 2nd, GDW edition (quite old, but a different and interesting game in its own right). Playing Syrians requires some training in the game.
I honestly don't see the problem.
As a former archaeologist I see the problem... lol and it is even worse when you realize several of them have been paint stripped on purpose just to satisfy a certain vision of antiquity... :o of course better that, than having them melted down to produce high grade wall glue...
But basically this is comparing apples and oranges.
-
There's a great many of the Spanish and French miniature-makers who've clearly been classically trained as traditional sculptors, and I really appreciate their work without paint coming into the equation at all. Beautiful figures full of movement and which are clearly well-designed to be looked at in the round.
Of course they look even better with a wonderful paintjob. But it's not necessary for me to love the figure.
-
FramFramson makes an excellent point - an unpainted mini can, if well sculpted, be as nice to look upon (and game with) as those classical-yet-unpainted statues we love so much. A friend of mine once commended that he would never paint his Talisman miniatures because he wouldn't want to ruin them as they were, which I suppose were to him lovely unpainted statues.
Some time ago I made the decision that online arguments/debates aren't really worth the time, and usually neither side will change their opinion. Oddly enough, this has led to me spending way more time painting, which has decreased the likelihood of my needing to "try out" a game with the unpainted stuff. :D
-
For almost all our family and friends wargames we have used painted figures almost always from my collections. Recently we played a game involving a novice friend whose own figures were unpainted. I thought it important that he used his own figures as he had bought and assembled them. It did not spoil the game and allowed him to get his first game with his own figures. Having enjoyed the game he is now painting them for their next outing.
Would I do it again? Yes of course.
-
Some time ago I made the decision that online arguments/debates aren't really worth the time, and usually neither side will change their opinion. Oddly enough, this has led to me spending way more time painting, which has decreased the likelihood of my needing to "try out" a game with the unpainted stuff. :D
Actually, to me, it helps. Of course, I am not going all the sudden to have a change of heart because other people find gaming with unpainted minis a non-issue. Truth be told, I don't either. I just find odd that people reject half of the beauty of this hobby. I do game with painted figures, but if others don't, more power to them. That was not what I was trying to explain. What I really want to understand is why, voluntarily, renounce to what makes gaming with miniatures special. Is it the gaming part what has the appeal? The socializing? Where is the line between wargaming and modelling? Those are some of the questions that I am really interested to know other people's opinions. It is not about who is right and who is wrong, but about understanding how other gamers approach their hobby. I don't think that anybody need to change their opinions. Not everything needs to be a discussion; it can also be a conversation.
-
Fair enough, Antonio. You make a good point, and I do appreciate conversation as much as you do (hence I love this forum). I suppose I see the word debate and think about what that means in society these days. It's easy to forget that not everywhere online is the same in that regard!
In the spirit of conversation then, I will admit to having played with unpainted figures on some occasions. The context being to test a ruleset out or to "get going" to keep the inspiration up during a project. I'm not a good case study because until this year I really flatlined on painting for years, thus ended up almost exclusively playing with the painted figures belonging to friends I was gaming with. Now I'm really back into painting, I can see why so many much prefer (as I ultimately do) to play with painted figures. dadlamassu's story mimicks how I will, going forward, find myself gaming with unpainted figures. Ones that aren't quite ready yet, but will be, despite the keenness to get playing!
-
I don't like playing with my own unpainted figures, in fact, I never do. But I have friends who are much more into the gaming than painting side of things, and if they want to put on a game with unpainted figures, I don't complain (well, I do, but only in a jokey way). If my friends want to come over and game, I'm happy for them to do so, whatever we are playing with. Often they have some new game and are desperate to try it out, I'm fine with that.
Whoever runs the game makes the rules.
-
Play with what you want, none of my friends use unpainted lead, if they did they wouldn't be my friends anymore.
Why bother using unpainted figures just use greenstuff in its packet and say it's a squadron of cavalry yet to be made.
-
So I used to play Warmachine competetively, a game that gets very little attention on this forum. It's a game designed around the idea of competition, with regular rebalancing of rules and model statistics and that for a pretty long time had a very restrictive policy on what could be done to the official models if you wanted to field them in a competition. It is also a game where it is very common to see unpainted armies on the table. In response to redzed's questions above, people in the Warmachine/Horses community post battle reports with unpainted minis, they even live stream games with unpainted minis.
Why though? I think the comparison above to board games and the minis that come with those is apt. How many of you paint all your board gaming minis? Certainly not me, though if they are nice I will try to. Will definitely play the game even with unpainted minis and I won't be upset if a mate brings a game to game night without first painting the minis.
So yeah, I think that competitive games are more likely to see unpainted minis, games like FoW, Warmachine, tournament 40k or maybe even Infinity. If your enjoyment of the game comes from strategy or competition, maybe painting is tertiary or even optional. Not how I enjoy my wargaming, but I know plenty of people who think that way because I have shared a game community with them.
And if my regular opponents want to try out a list or faction that they haven't had time to finish, not a problem as long as I get my weekly game in.
-
I've been hearing these arguments and counter-arguments for 40+ years. Those who are primarily painters/collectors react in horror at the thought of unpainted minis. Those who are gamers first, last and always seem not to care if they paint their armies because "the game's the thing." There are, of course, many who fall between the two extremes who might lean one way or the other but seem less rooted in their opinions. To me it's the venue that determines the matter. I would say never, never ever, put on a game at a convention where the figures are left in their naked metal/resin/plastic but in the privacy of your own home you can do what you wish. At clubs, I think there needs to be a consensus of the members as to what they allow/expect. Urging members who own paintless minis to get more figs painted for the next game would appear to be a good way to go about getting progress to painted armies with only a little pushing. For me, I'd rather play smaller games with painted minis that resort to naked lead.
-
Our gaming group has always tried to field painted armies. Exception would be new members and kids. Some forces were mostly sprayed with additional colors but any effort at all was accepted.
-
This is a fairly common discussion/argument/debate.
I do not play with unpainted models personally, for a number of reasons. Having been in the wargaming hobby for 20+ years, I no longer have the inclination to "game at all costs", if the situation is sub-par. It's not about elitism, it's about spending my time in the most quality fashion possible. I was fortunate enough to cut my hobby teeth with a group older than me who instilled in me the enthusiasm and expectation of "do your part".
Tabletop wargaming is, without question, a cooperative experience. When you show up to a table you're bringing your half of the show. My goal is simple: never lower the level of the game. That's bad gaming etiquette in my opinion. I never want to show up and be the weak link in a tabletop game which looks good. I believe it's a measure of respect for my opponent that I take interest in their passion and time spent on painting miniatures/terrain.
Do I expect my opponent to do the same? No, but I reserve the right to not play a game if we start scraping the bottom of the barrel. I extend every courtesy to new gamers, but for adults with expendable income and time/ability, I'd rather put together a cohesive good looking game. If you're more interested in playing a game on an odd-shaped table with a table cloth, scraps of foam, and unpainted/unassembled miniatures - I'm likely to pass.
I don't get much enjoyment out of bargain-bin gaming. Even if you're thrifty about gaming you can make a good looking table, and still paint miniatures. When I see a really lazy table/army, etc. it just tells me that the person isn't terribly interested in the aesthetic element of the wargame - something I'm very interested in.
As a matter of respect I want to show up with a beautiful table, or fully painted miniatures (not a pro painter, but I'm not embarrassed by my stuff). I want to bring my best to the table to help make the event/game/experience as excellent as I can for my opponent. I expect a modicum of similar respect from my opponent.
In today's increasingly "supportive" culture, I find we continue to make endless excuses for people just not putting in effort, and I think we should do the opposite - encourage more activity/success/effort. It's never wrong to expect more from people and help them get there.
-
Elbows
Those are very interesting observations. I remember when I started with miniatures gaming. It was in 1989 when I joined a wargaming club where SYW in 15mm was all the rage! (imagine that!) We used Koenig Krieg ruleset. First few games I played with the armies of other club members, but it was expected from me to pull my weight too. I hadn't a lot of money back then (student, you know how it is) so I bought a small Hannoverian 4 battalion brigade, a couple of squadrons and an artillery battery from Freikorps 15. As soon as I had my first battalion painted, I used it in a game as part of a British brigade; then I continued painting and soon I had a little army. Nobody thought that waiting a few months to get the first units done was something unbecoming or that I was taking advantage of other's peoples work by using their armies in the meanwhile. It was a really nice experience (life then intervened and I lquit, but still it is one of my fondest memories)
I think that you are correct that the search for instant gratification plus, as Ogrob points, competitive gaming puts a premium in using unpainted miniatures and the barest, functional terrain. Aesthetics gives way to functionality. And it is understandable. Why a young lad would be willing to sink hundreds of euros and hours of work to be able to field a few dozen of units in a table if he can get inmediate satisfaction playing online with his buddies to, say, Company of Heroes? Maybe emphazising the added values of miniatures gaming (visual appealing; satisfaction of working with your hands; ecc) is the way for "analogic" wargaming to co-exist with its digital brethren.
-
I echo DoctorPete's comments. As a general rule I would never field unpainted minis at a club or convention, or use any in a game. To me they will always be 'naked' and lacking in character regardless of how well they are sculpted. I know modellers who say that the minis take on a persona once you invest time in painting them. Lacking a particular deadline or incentive, I tinker at my hobby. In the privacy of my own home (not belonging to a club) I consequently have a wide variety of armies and periods with unpainted minis in all of them. The greatest creative stimulus for me was collaborating in a fantasy demo game at Excel for Salute 2010. It gave me a much needed nudge to finish off units that would otherwise remain nekked, and complete terrain projects that had stalled. I tend to work best in bursts, with a goal in mind, but hey, that's just me.
-
Seeing this come around again made me momentarily feel old.
But I stopped and read through the usual suggestions and points of view and the more detailed evaluations too, some introduced new thoughts actually.
Happily I can at least take something from this iteration of the subject, the thought of gaming with the miniatures to keep up interest, while working through them, its not something i had given much thought to previously.
Anything that helps keep interest in the slog towards completion.
Other than that, its a hobby, enjoy it.
-
I like to invite people who don't paint their models round for dinner and give them uncooked raw ingredients...
-
I like to invite people who don't paint their models round for dinner and give them uncooked raw ingredients...
Why?
I just don't understand some people's sentiments to gaming with unpainted miniatures. In the end we're all just a bunch of nerds who like to play silly games with small pieces of metal or plastic, odd dice and tape measures, while making it look grandiose in our heads. Is it that bad if people enjoy playing the games too with unpainted miniatures? Or is that where the term 'nerdrage' originated from :P?
I used to play mainly with unpainted miniatures as I just was very slow and set very high standards to my work (not the best combination to fill up your glass cabinet...). But did it detract from my gaming experience? Not at all. I have tons of fantastic memories of epic games that featured many unpainted miniatures.
By now I have sped up my painting speed and try to paint as much as possible because of course it looks cooler with painted miniatures. But that is what I want with -my- miniatures. I don't really care what my friends do. Sure it's cool if they paint their stuff, but if they don't I don't care at all. It's their miniatures, their time, their money. And it sure won't detract from the fun of our weekly games if stuff's unpainted.
-
Having seen my fair share of painted miniatures that look infinitely worse than they started out as raw metal, I say your toys, your table.
It’s a visual and tactile hobby but everyone has their own parameters for enjoying it and aesthetics differ. To each their own and frankly I see no point in being censorious about what some other bugger dies in their spare room/ basement/ attic or garage.
-
Play with what you want, none of my friends use unpainted lead, if they did they wouldn't be my friends anymore.
Why bother using unpainted figures just use greenstuff in its packet and say it's a squadron of cavalry yet to be made.
That should the be our miniature wargaming motto... lol but then some people will start using packets of greenstuff. :D
The comments on Warmachine is worth reading. Yes it is a competitive game and one that emphasized stats over miniatures. Once I saw a 'demo' of it organized by the then Italian official distributor (before Salvaderi took over...). I knew the chaps involved (I was working part time with their historical side of the business). The demo consisted in... lining up the people on chairs then the chap in charge started to read from the rulebook, that at a convention. Years later, when I ran my first seminar I had image of that... o_o
On the other hand, once in the same general time period, I was in the shop and a lady who was doing professional miniature painting took some warmachine miniatures for a client. Well, I did not like the genre, but sculpting was good, and painting was exceptional. Okay the game was based on stats, but some people took a lot of time to craft decent miniatures, that looked much better painted (even a bad paintjob is better than no painting at all). I realized I cannot really get on with people who think gameplay is the thing above graphics/scenics/immersion. I had the same problem with some of the people whom played DBx with me at the times. What was the point of playing with wrong miniatures, paper rectangels and so on, especialyl because games like GMT's SPQR were doing the same, much better, at lesser cost, and better graphic.
I reached the conclusion that form me that was not miniature gaming at all, so I prefer to not play rather than playing something I am not interested into. Of course that also means that I always try to have ready paired forces, just in case troops are needed. I do not care what people does in their hidden basements, but frankly it is not something related to what I intend as miniature wargaming.
At the end to each his or her own, but do not expect me to subscribe to the better awful than no game group. But on the other hand I am also someone who is growing tired by the sentiments expressed by Malebolgia. No personal attack, it is just that those blanket 'at the end we are all... <add the rest of the sentence> statements are stale. (again this is a broader statement, just Malebologia expressed something I have seen and disliked in other places).
Years ago, a decade maybe... on the miniature wargaming's evil pit of doom on the web... there was a chap who had a long post about what waterloo game was better, one with beautifully painted miniatures, realistic terrain, and where the French won the day, Blucher never arrived on time and so on... or one with not even a cloth over the table, boxy hills, unpainted miniatures but where the whole battle was a perfect recreation of history in every single move... I think the chap missed the whole boat, either on miniatures, and wargames. Or listening to Professor Philip Sabin on wargame graphics... and being forced to play is raw games... RN Commander comment on a game I was mastering: certainly some more care should have been taken in differentiating German from British counters. That was bargain bin gaming at its worst. Phil calls it cheap and cheerful, I call it cheap and awful.
Funnily enough, barring a bit of sarcasm, I found the I do not game with unpainted miniatures brigade much more forthcoming and accommodating than the evil ragtag fanatical opposition... plus it is well known that dice dislike unpainted miniatures ;)
-
Having seen my fair share of painted miniatures that look infinitely worse than they started out as raw metal, I say your toys, your table.
This. And added to that, 3 base colours on the model to make it tourney-legal isn't painted in my book :)
And besides, I feel everybody should field what he or she fancies, as long as it's clear what your model represents.
-
plus it is well known that dice dislike unpainted miniatures ;)
So true. Ditto for borrowed models or "count-as" proxies.
But I'd rather play with unpainted models than hastily dipped or very badly painted things, guess I'm too much the miniature addict for that.
-
Whatever floats your boat is fine by me.
Playing with unpainted minis is not for me. But to be honest. These days gaming is really a rare byproduct of my "buying miniatures and painting a percentage thereof" hobby...
I have done my fair share of gaming with unpainted miniatures and even with squares of cardboard with "Ork Boarboyz" written on it. But as one gets older ones tastes matures and now I would not get the same(read: any) enjoyment out of that type of game.
-
Why?
I just don't understand some people's sentiments to gaming with unpainted miniatures.
::)
-
An abomination.
-
Really people?? who gives a damn what others do with their miniatures as long as they're enjoying themselves. Stop wasting your time typing diatribes against others' choices and get on with your painting.
-
The aesthetics of the hobby are my main motivation so I personally wouldn't game with unpainted figures. That said some people are so enthusiastic to game they can't wait to get their figures painted. An attitude I also admire.
As a teenager having large 28mm Napoleonic games with my elder brother, he could paint so much faster than me so I was often forced to field my army with some units with jackets, trousers, shakos and flesh only having a hasty coat of paint. Something I hated but back then it was all about getting as many figures on the table as possible.
-
I never play a miniature game with unpainted minis and have often painted several armies so that when I invite others to play they can use my stuff. I think such games should look as nice as possible in fact that is one of the things I like most about miniature gaming.
Now board games with minis is different. While I hope to paint the minis eventually and have painted some I will play the board game with "naked" minis.
I understand those who don't paint but feel they are missing one of the most enjoyable sides of the hobby ie playing a game that looks as great as it plays.
-
I’m in the ‘it’s good to see people gaming’ camp.
I like to paint my stuff, but I am slow, so for new periods, I am happy to base up unpainted stuff with temporary glue, while I explore the best basing system, the best organisation, shopping lists and choosing rules. I might discover that I want to abandon the project and I would rather do that before painting hoards, so that my brush hours only go on deserving cases. I will then work on converting those bases over to painted ones.
It seems like the whole thing is a personal one, which is fine for solo playing, but may need the tolerance and understanding of others outside of that.
-
In a nod to Frod, I do generally have painted models ready for many factions too, so as to be able to provide everything necessary for a game myself. After all, if you want a table full of nicely painted minis, what better way to ensure that everything is up to your standard by doing it all yourself (note that this is rather easier for skirmish players like myself)?
Plus if you have friends who've never heard of the game you're playing, or who don't have the wherewithal, space, time, or ability to assemble their own armies, you've got them covered. This is not only being a good friend, but also helps ensure you can play with more of your friends than you otherwise might!
In any case, I can allow that there's a breadth of acceptable opinions on this. But I will say that "someone who doesn't paint my minis would no longer be a friend of mine" absolutely baffles me as a sentiment.
-
Objectively, this hobby of ours is a bit of a strange one. To paint miniatures and play games with them is the norm, but none would dispute that merely collecting and painting them is also an equally valid form of enjoying things. So why would only playing and not painting them be any different? Should anyone with an interest in the social and tactical aspects of the games naturally have an interest in the creative side of things too?
There is quite a difference between using tokens and unpainted models, as indeed there is between unpainted models and painted ones. In both cases, there are differences in immersion as well as in functionality. A square piece of cardboard reading "goblin" and another piece reading "giant" are not broadcasting the difference as clearly as a 2cm miniature of a goblin and a 20cm miniature of a giant would. People are not typically in a habit of painting there chess sets, and for some players this is just another game using differently formed playpieces denoting different troops (which it is). One of the reasons for X-Wing's popularity was the ability to play the kind of game normally reserved for those willing to build and paint their aeroplanes, without having to do that. You are free to repaint and perhaps modify the ships, but it was not compulsory.
I have played with unpainted miniatures. I have probably spent more time painting models in the dark hours the night before some game, to get them done in time, than I have spent time playing with unpainted figures however. Nonetheless, I'd rather have a good time playing some games with friends, than not to play at all. I have never played a game with unpainted miniatures that I would have preferred not to play - but each time, the experience would have been even better had everything been fully painted and based. If I attend a tournament, club night or other event where I might play against relative strangers, I would consider it discourteous to bring unpainted soldiers - for if they, like people in this thread, highly value fully painted armies, their experience would be diminished. Similarly, I would expect my opponents to do the same. Indeed, as said, the game is bound to be better with two resplendent forces. But if playing a game at my own or a friend's home, and we just want to try a new game/army/unit.. I'd rather play the game regardless, than not play it at all.
-
This thread is going to Erehwon.
-
As such topics inevitably do. lol
-
As such topics inevitably do. lol
Indeed ;)
-
I think most of those dripping scorn on using unpainted minaitures are not wargamers at all they are painters and collectors who might deign to put their beautiful creations on the table once in a while.
They often load the table with figures spend ages admiring them (and expecting others to faint in pleasure at the sight of them) and get 2 moves in before it is time to finish.
I on the other hand am a wargamer. I prefer painted figures but painting is a chore. I have never inkwashed or highlighted or whatever in 45 years gaming. I proxy like mad.
I don't know why some posters seem to think I am some sort of unclean abnormal being for this.
-
I think most of those dripping scorn on using unpainted minaitures are not wargamers at all they are painters and collectors who might deign to put their beautiful creations on the table once in a while.
They often load the table with figures spend ages admiring them (and expecting others to faint in pleasure at the sight of them) and get 2 moves in before it is time to finish.
I on the other hand am a wargamer. I prefer painted figures but painting is a chore. I have never inkwashed or highlighted or whatever in 45 years gaming. I proxy like mad.
I don't know why some posters seem to think I am some sort of unclean abnormal being for this.
Quite right! I too have incredibly low standards and therefore everyone else must have equally low standards or they're not a real wargamer! Fight the power, brother!
-
It is an interesting conversation. There is obviously a large element of visual spectacle in the mini gaming world. It is interesting though that some consider board games "better games" to the extent that the only appeal of mini games is the visual.
It is also interesting that painted figures are a must for some yet other weird visual elements don't bother them. eg a Napeoleonic infantry battalion of 1000 men is represented by 32 figures and the scale difference between ground scale and figure scale make the entire battle tableau totally unbelievable. I see many tables with beautifully painted figures and scenery but the scale difference is so jarring to me. Plus the formations - every unit is a roughly square block, even in line the unit has nowhere near the correct depth and width ratio. Not only does this impact the visual look but it also makes an attempt at history more difficult as the units interact in ways not possible for the units they represent.
In all this though I always think of the Batley Townswomens' Guild recreating the battle of Pearl Harbor.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6OO27A8xllA (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6OO27A8xllA)
-
I think the cruiser Wyoming is overacting.
-
(sort of ) On topic, nowadays many models come in parts on sprues. And, when talking about GW, are not cheap. And consist - in some cases - of 6, 8 and sometimes even more parts on a 32mm fig. That's a lot in my book. Those parts need carefully removing from the sprue, removing of mouldlines, afterwards soapwashed to remove the mould grease/release, glued together, filled out the gaps and only after that they are ready to prime. That's time consuming and I refuse to spend 25 euro's on a single model just to clip, glue, spray and paint it up in a very basic sort of way. Waste of my money and waste of my model imho. And I'm only tabletop with a very very small + level painter but my models deserve all the attention I can give them.
But, compared to the olden days when we bought single part unit troops ( and most characters were that aswell, monsters consisted of about 4 parts ) it's really, really time consuming and I still don't like the gluing part, sticking together models isn't the fun part of the hobby over here ( but I know for many people it is and they are getting amazingly good results out of it ).
Anyway, my last post in this topic is this: If the "I paint everything in 3 base colours and then climb on my soapbox shouting around how bad it is to play with unpainted models" -people are complaining about my unpainted mini's then they can stick it because that's not painting in my book, that's colouring any 6 year old could do and I'd tell them rightly so.
-
It is an interesting conversation. There is obviously a large element of visual spectacle in the mini gaming world. It is interesting though that some consider board games "better games" to the extent that the only appeal of mini games is the visual.
Not exactly "better". They allow for more granularity, for the same level of representation, than miniature games. Miniature games have the distinct advantage of visual impact, over boardgames. I've been gaming both since the 1980s and so far that has been my experience.
Note: Clash of Arms Combat at Sea/Harpoon series is a clear exception to this rule, though.
It is also interesting that painted figures are a must for some yet other weird visual elements don't bother them. eg a Napeoleonic infantry battalion of 1000 men is represented by 32 figures and the scale difference between ground scale and figure scale make the entire battle tableau totally unbelievable. I see many tables with beautifully painted figures and scenery but the scale difference is so jarring to me. Plus the formations - every unit is a roughly square block, even in line the unit has nowhere near the correct depth and width ratio. Not only does this impact the visual look but it also makes an attempt at history more difficult as the units interact in ways not possible for the units they represent.
...
Actually, it does bother me, but so far I have been unable to find a perfect answer to that connodrum. I am forced to compromise and accept the scale distortion. I console myself thinking that, at least, the models look nice on the tabletop even if unrealistic. It is not realism what I am looking for in wargames anyway, but rather the opportunity of recreating a narrative, a story, with visually impacting models. Let me explain it in other way; for me a game is kinda like a stage production: you re-create a fantasy, through visuals, sound (you should watch me playing!) and "words" (in a game, the actions of the units in the tabletop); naturally, you need to compromise; you can't, even with the best of intentions, to recreate Agincourt with any degree of realism in a Soho theater, but if done right, with a good cast and a consistent production, then, when King Harry gives his Band of Brothers speech you will feel the thrill of the moment, maybe even will travel in your mind to the day of St Crispin, 1415.
To me, playing with unpainted minis is like a rehearsal. Some moments can be nice, even interesting, but don't communicate the same feelings.
It occurs to me that part of the problem (if it is a problem, of course!) is that some very popular games have put all the emphasis in the competitive part of the gaming experience, relegating the other aspects of the hobby to the background. As I've already explained, when I started I was lucky to join a club, so I had time to start my own collection while, at the same time, I could game with the collections of other members of the club. I remember that when my eldest became interested in W40K, you couldn't participate with unpainted miniatures and that you earned "tournament points" (which affected to your final score) if you got the Best Painted Army award. It was a huge motivator to have your models painted. I think that it was in 2008 or 2009 when GW changed that policy and focused on the competitive part only. If memory doesn't fail me even in the White Dwarf painting articles, the lads at the Studio were asked to dumb down their painting, not to scare the kids out of the hobby. Together with the closing of big shops -and therefore, limiting playing space- it almost killed their side of the wargaming hobby.
I believe that encouraging people to experience the hobby in its totality, i.e. as a gaming and modelling experience, is, on the long term, more rewarding than focusing on just a part of it. Of course, it is just my (very) personal opinion.
-
I'm now currently experiencing one of the downsides of choosing to not play with unpainted miniatures - almost to the point where I've seriously considered giving up the hobby entirely as a consequence.
I used to paint armies with hundreds of figures to a very good standard (I've won a couple of Best Painted Army trophies in my time). Collecting and painting used to be the favourite part of the hobby for me. Nowadays that is no longer possible - age has seriously curtailed my eyesight to the point where painting has become very difficult (even with a magnifying visor). It now takes me so much longer to paint a single miniature. Armies are simply out of the question. If a game has more than a dozen figures - I'm out.
I won't put a miniature on the gaming table unless it's painted to an acceptable level, so a lot of projects I would have jumped at a few years ago are no longer possible, no matter how much I'd love to. I also don't have the sort of income where I can get others to paint figures for me, so I'm left wondering whether it's still worth it at all.
It rankles me sometimes that this hobby always places such a high priority on having beautifully painted miniatures fighting over museum quality terrain. My mates probably wouldn't care if I used unpainted figures, but I do. I've been indoctrinated by the industry to never accept any less.
I sometimes wonder whether I was happier as a teenager in the 1970s playing with unpainted Airfix figures next to cardboard boxes than these days when I can spend almost two f...ing years trying to paint up enough figures and terrain pieces for even a small skirmish game.
So yes - I'd always prefer to play with painted miniatures, but it's looking (at least for me) that those days might finally be over.
-
To each his own, but I will not play on a gameboard which is not pretty. A gentleplayer has standards.
-
...
Actually, it does bother me, but so far I have been unable to find a perfect answer to that connodrum. I am forced to compromise and accept the scale distortion. I console myself thinking that, at least, the models look nice on the tabletop even if unrealistic. It is not realism what I am looking for in wargames anyway, but rather the opportunity of recreating a narrative, a story, with visually impacting models. Let me explain it in other way; for me a game is kinda like a stage production: you re-create a fantasy, through visuals, sound (you should watch me playing!) and "words" (in a game, the actions of the units in the tabletop); naturally, you need to compromise; you can't, even with the best of intentions, to recreate Agincourt with any degree of realism in a Soho theater, but if done right, with a good cast and a consistent production, then, when King Harry gives his Band of Brothers speech you will feel the thrill of the moment, maybe even will travel in your mind to the day of St Crispin, 1415.
To me, playing with unpainted minis is like a rehearsal. Some moments can be nice, even interesting, but don't communicate the same feelings.
...
I believe that encouraging people to experience the hobby in its totality, i.e. as a gaming and modelling experience, is, on the long term, more rewarding than focusing on just a part of it. Of course, it is just my (very) personal opinion.
I am all for encouraging people to experience every aspect of the hobby and certainly don't like playing with unpainted stuff but to my mind all the other abstractions involved negate the "must have painted figures" mantra. What is jarring to one may not effect the immersion or the story aspect for another. We had great fun as kids playing with army men - just because they weren't painted didn't take away our immersion. Even early days with Warhammer some epic tales still reverberate to this day from 30 years ago but - gasp - they weren't all painted either. Now the most jarring aspect for me is the scale dissonance rather than the colour of a models tunic. I would rather play Chain of Command with unpainted Airfix army men than Bolt Action with an outstandingly painted army. Kind of like the difference between watching an old B&W war movie such as In Which We Serve than a fabulous looking Pearl Harbor.
-
To each his own, but I will not play on a gameboard which is not pretty. A gentleplayer has standards.
I expect my opponents to have been showered and changed their clothes before playing me.
Needless to say, I don't play much ;D
-
I do my very best not to play with unpainted figures and try not to use a new army/force until they are painted (Which sadly means I often lose interest in said army for another shiny new force before even using it).
But I have no problems playing against unpainted stuff as I agree any game is better then no game as I don't buy my stuff to sit of shelves but to use when I can.
-
To me the most important consideration is who my opponent is going to be. I will try to avoid playing against meta-obsessed tournament types because frankly I am in it for a good laugh and hopefully a good narrative. If my opponent is turning their nose up at my less-than-award-winning painting/scenery then equally I would rather not bother.
-
To me the most important consideration is who my opponent is going to be. I will try to avoid playing against meta-obsessed tournament types because frankly I am in it for a good laugh and hopefully a good narrative. If my opponent is turning their nose up at my less-than-award-winning painting/scenery then equally I would rather not bother.
I must have missed the posts where people criticised the quality of someone's painting or scenery (as opposed to the complete lack of same).
[edited to reflect Gibby's edited comment]
-
There are many interesting viewpoints here, and no, despite some attempts, the thread is not slipping down...
Now in no particular order...
I do my very best not to play with unpainted figures and try not to use a new army/force until they are painted (Which sadly means I often lose interest in said army for another shiny new force before even using it).
I think this observation is cogent, possibly opening another thread but it highlights on of the issues involved (on both sides), personal pleasure vs advertising pressure. I admit I was like Chico, until few years ago I was hit by the realization I was massing and amassing lead/plastic/resin without any real purpose. I took a seat (because after moving part of said pile my back was aching...) and come to think about my own wargaming hobby. What is the point of that? Now I try to focus on a single project at time, I even pushed forward several big projects that were languishing. I also started to cut back new forces, what I can really play with? What really works well on the table? A bit of discipline, and less weakness in front of subtle and not so subtle advertising is extremely important. But then, you will lose interested to the next oh shiny even if they troops are unpainted.
Another element I saw is I play my own painted miniatures, but I do not complain about my opponents troops. I understand it but to me is anathema. Is not just my force, is the whole game that matters to me. So for me half half is a no go. Did a couple of time in tournaments and it spoiled the whole thing. I don't play in tournaments anymore for this reason (and other too).
Scale distortion. It is one of the issue in miniature games, except in skirmishes. Of course there are way to avoid this. Sometime it is a problem in the rules I tend to avoid rules were scale abstractions are too extreme. Another perfectly sensible answer would be... what about playing with smaller scale miniatures, for example. And it would start the usual scale war. Worth to note, that the scale wars seems to contradict the game at all cost crowds, because the model themselves become more important than the game... o_o But well this is the XXI century, it is internet, consistency is basically a very very optional rule...
What always leave me baffled, is the painter/modeler vs gamer approach of some people. Not so much here (It is lead adventure after all) but it is something I have seen in some discussion on BGG. There are people who appears to see a big, thick, divide between the two, as they are completely separated hobbies with no point of contact. I started building models and play 'simple' wargames (hex maps) when I was around eight. I saw miniature wargames being played at the same time. At that moment, and still now, to me miniature wargaming is the contact point between modelling and wargaming. Someone said...
Fighting battles on table tops, with miniature soldiers and model terrain features, is one of the oldest and most exciting of indoor sports. A good war game combines all the strategy of chess, all the fun of model railroading, and all the excitement and challenge of a game of baseball.
Possibly because I have built countless kits (including Revell 1/72 Flower Class...) I do not see the building part as a chore. Actually the building part as made me happier about the whole process. I also prefer working with plastic than metal. But when you finish something like this...
(https://cf.geekdo-images.com/imagepagezoom/img/v4Tztssg2O36WcqMozB-0P25H7g=/fit-in/1200x900/filters:no_upscale()/pic4930692.jpg)
(https://cf.geekdo-images.com/imagepagezoom/img/4I9pYWm-NHgweWgbXfOSboGybzM=/fit-in/1200x900/filters:no_upscale()/pic4930693.jpg)
(https://cf.geekdo-images.com/imagepagezoom/img/Pmja3XnbRPmjw-LO-g5i700de7Y=/fit-in/1200x900/filters:no_upscale()/pic4930694.jpg)
It make me proud.
As for the games themselves... I will not play bolt action with beautifully painted miniatures and awesome terrain, becase I am not interested in it. I am not playing COC with unpainted stuff either. What is the point? I can just take down The Last Hundred Yards, Lock n Load Tactical or maybe ATS, and have a good if not better game experience, with less hassle, and certainly even a better visual experience than bad terrain, and unpainted miniatures. I will not recommend The Last Hundred Yards enough.
-
Note: Clash of Arms Combat at Sea/Harpoon series is a clear exception to this rule, though.
This is an interesting observation. Because the Admiralty Trilogy is sitting straight in the middle. You can think of them of a map based game without a grid but with counters (it has them and the CoA ones were a treat), or a miniature game that can be played also with counter and on graph paper. It is worth to note that it is so granular that larger scenarios requires appropriate set-ups and not just an umpire, but a team. I have also found that Joe Balkoski Fleet series is much better at that level. Harpoon certainly excels at smaller engagements, and the two other groups (Fear God and Dread Naught and Command at Sea) are also better on specific tactical engagement.
-
Well said Arrigo, but I think your ladybirds are out of scale... :D
I've never, ever seen anyone set up a game in a club with unpainted models and it's not something that my personal pride would ever let me consider. For me, the desire to play a particular period or scenario is what gives me the spur to paint a particular army or unit and it's the completion of that goal (being able to play a scenario with a fully-painted orbat and the associated visual spectacle) that gives me the buzz for the hobby. It's the complete whole - not one thing or the other.
-
...
As for the games themselves... I will not play bolt action with beautifully painted miniatures and awesome terrain, becase I am not interested in it. I am not playing COC with unpainted stuff either. What is the point? I can just take down The Last Hundred Yards, Lock n Load Tactical or maybe ATS, and have a good if not better game experience, with less hassle, and certainly even a better visual experience than bad terrain, and unpainted miniatures. I will not recommend The Last Hundred Yards enough.
The point is to make a start. Once you have played that Lock n Load then what? - it goes back on the shelf. After playing CoC you can go and paint some of the models, add some supports, build a tank, chop up some upholstery foam and make a wood, basically have hobby time outside of face to face games. It is the starting point. You guys seem to only play once you are at the end point of two completed sides with enough terrain to cover a 6 by 4 board. Well that would take me years to reach that point so I can either never play a new period/scale again or compromise on the aesthetic in the mean time.
-
I must have missed the posts where people criticised the quality of someone's painting or scenery (as opposed to the complete lack of same).
[edited to reflect Gibby's edited comment]
No, you're quite right. I edited the needlessly inflammatory part out, but would rather have deleted my entire post in hindsight. I was not trying to drag the thread down, but I wasn't exactly staying on topic. My apologies, all.
-
I try to play with fully painted armies (well, warbands - I play almost exclusively skirmish-sized games), but I can field unpainted or partially painted models along the finished ones, while I'm in the process of painting everything.
To keep up with the goal of playing painted I've also lowered my standards. While I would like to be able (and have time and motivation) to paint to higher standards, once my models look fine on the tabletop, I am happy with them.
-
The point is to make a start. Once you have played that Lock n Load then what- it goes back on the shelf. After playing CoC you can go and paint some of the models, add some supports, build a tank, chop up some upholstery foam and make a wood, basically have hobby time outside of face to face games. It is the starting point. You guys seem to only play once you are at the end point of two completed sides with enough terrain to cover a 6 by 4 board. Well that would take me years to reach that point so I can either never play a new period/scale again or compromise on the aesthetic in the mean time.
Well each box of LnL Tactical comes with plenty of scenarios, I designed some too... plus it comes down the shelf quite often (even if now will probably often be replaced by Last Hundred Yards). Said that, it would be quite unwise to assume what people one marginally know do and making assumptions, and then present them more or less like fact.
What I say is different. If game-play is the thing, there are plenty of off the shelf product that offer good if not better game play (and no dictatorship of the ruler, I found grids much better to regulate movement and less prone to... misunderstanding from competition games...) and certainly a comprehensive graphic package that requires zero effort. But well, before you ask... I have read post of people complaining about the need to remove the counters from their frames... oh well years ago there was a chap on the evil pit complaining that he did not like miniature gaming because of the need to set up and remove the board...
After playing CoC you can go and paint some of the models, add some supports, build a tank, chop up some upholstery foam and make a wood, basically have hobby time outside of face to face games. It is the starting point.
For you not for me. As I said I play Chain of Command for the visual aspect, so for me doing it as a work in progress does not hold any interest. Of course this not meant that I can 'at time' (euphemism as every wargamer knows) add some new elements to a specific force.
What me and other are trying to say is that there are many ways to approach the hobby, but we found some a tad baffling. You would be surprised that there are people who play Chain of Command on VASSAL. On the other hand Antonio started this thread with a very specific example, two player who were not even interested in painting their forces in case they got 'nerfed'. I would argue that they were not miniature wargamers, not even wargamer, but Flames of War competition players. They could have played with wooden bits with stats on it, if evil Battlefront would have allowed... and that led us back to point 1... why not play a map and counter game?
Actually one thing that always puzzled me is why there is so much hostility between these two categories of wargaming?
-
I try to play with fully painted armies (well, warbands - I play almost exclusively skirmish-sized games), but I can field unpainted or partially painted models along the finished ones, while I'm in the process of painting everything.
To keep up with the goal of playing painted I've also lowered my standards. While I would like to be able (and have time and motivation) to paint to higher standards, once my models look fine on the tabletop, I am happy with them.
I think that what look fine to us is the most important thing. I have also realized that, with times, while we think our standards lowers and we do faster jobs, actually it is us improving and the final products going up in quality. LAst week I repainted some 15mm Essex medieval knights... I painted them around 15 years ago possibly even 20... I paid them in Liras! They were horrid, but took me plenty of time. The new version is much better, and I painted them faster, or at least I perceived so... lol
-
No, you're quite right. I edited the needlessly inflammatory part out, but would rather have deleted my entire post in hindsight. I was not trying to drag the thread down, but I wasn't exactly staying on topic. My apologies, all.
Well said, sir.
-
I think that what look fine to us is the most important thing. I have also realized that, with times, while we think our standards lowers and we do faster jobs, actually it is us improving and the final products going up in quality. LAst week I repainted some 15mm Essex medieval knights... I painted them around 15 years ago possibly even 20... I paid them in Liras! They were horrid, but took me plenty of time. The new version is much better, and I painted them faster, or at least I perceived so... lol
As I once said to my wife: "You look like a million Lira!" ;)
-
do you want to have a laugh? In my third year undergrad I was helping a professor organizing a field trip. My role was to take reservations and collect the money. It was a department subsidized trip, so it was not a lot per person... but there were plenty of people (we got a two-decker bus full). So I ended up having to deliver more than 2 millions in cash (and because everyone paid with small notes it was a quite huge wallop...). lol
To give you an idea... 1,600 liras for a cup of coffee at the times. We have even 1,000 liras coins.
-
lol
Thankfully my wife never understood the joke, which is why I'm alive to tell the tale... ;)
-
Well each box of LnL Tactical comes with plenty of scenarios, I designed some too... plus it comes down the shelf quite often (even if now will probably often be replaced by Last Hundred Yards). Said that, it would be quite unwise to assume what people one marginally know do and making assumptions, and then present them more or less like fact.
This is obviously a language difference since I did no such thing. Outside of face to face games there is very little one can do with a board game (expect perhaps study it or make up scenarios like you say) but outside of a face to face miniature game there is a lot one can do with it - in fact more that one must do usually. That in fact makes up 95% of my hobby time (ie playing to building/painting is about 20:1).
What I say is different. If game-play is the thing, there are plenty of off the shelf product that offer good if not better game play (and no dictatorship of the ruler, I found grids much better to regulate movement and less prone to... misunderstanding from competition games...) and certainly a comprehensive graphic package that requires zero effort. But well, before you ask... I have read post of people complaining about the need to remove the counters from their frames... oh well years ago there was a chap on the evil pit complaining that he did not like miniature gaming because of the need to set up and remove the board...
For you not for me. As I said I play Chain of Command for the visual aspect, so for me doing it as a work in progress does not hold any interest. Of course this not meant that I can 'at time' (euphemism as every wargamer knows) add some new elements to a specific force.
What me and other are trying to say is that there are many ways to approach the hobby, but we found some a tad baffling. You would be surprised that there are people who play Chain of Command on VASSAL. On the other hand Antonio started this thread with a very specific example, two player who were not even interested in painting their forces in case they got 'nerfed'. I would argue that they were not miniature wargamers, not even wargamer, but Flames of War competition players. They could have played with wooden bits with stats on it, if evil Battlefront would have allowed... and that led us back to point 1... why not play a map and counter game?
Actually one thing that always puzzled me is why there is so much hostility between these two categories of wargaming?
Because one quite often looks down it's nose at the other or claims it is not real wargaming? Your assumption appears to be that hex and counter board games are objectively superior as games. I don't think that is an objective fact but your subjective preference.
Aside from that miniatures, even unpainted, have a different aesthetic to a piece of cardboard. A mini game with a ruler has a different feel to a hex and counter board game. Who are we to judge others or cock a snoot at them for not being good enough? As soon as we start applying a purity test to who is and isn't a wargamer we have gone too far. The fact is people like little army men - that some like them only when painted is fine but why such hostility to those that aren't bothered they are still naked plastic?
-
Indeed
-
why such hostility to those that aren't bothered they are still naked plastic?
I guess I shouldn't speak for Arrigo, but I don't think that he is hostile to. I think that what he meant is if competitive gaming is your thing, why bother with spending time and resources in miniatures gaming when you have off the shelf games that would cover that part of the hobby? I would add on-line gaming, but that's because my eldest is big on on-line games such as Europa Universalis (the online version, not the boardgame) or Company of Heroes or some of the MMOs that lurk in the Web. While his old dad wastes his time and bucks in collecting and painting little army men (I like how you call them!), he enjoys hundreds of gaming hours with his Internet buddies. And I must say that if the Total War engine would work well for online gaming, I would be sorely tempted too!
-
I guess I shouldn't speak for Arrigo, but I don't think that he is hostile to. I think that what he meant is if competitive gaming is your thing, why bother with spending time and resources in miniatures gaming when you have off the shelf games that would cover that part of the hobby? I would add on-line gaming, but that's because my eldest is big on on-line games such as Europa Universalis (the online version, not the boardgame) or Company of Heroes or some of the MMOs that lurk in the Web. While his old dad wastes his time and bucks in collecting and painting little army men (I like how you call them!), he enjoys hundreds of gaming hours with his Internet buddies. And I must say that if the Total War engine would work well for online gaming, I would be sorely tempted too!
As Antonio said, I am not hostile, I do not find any interest in it. I just mention that if gaming at all cost is all that important, there are alternative. On top of that there are plenty of excellent solitaire games, some of them are extremely realistic too, plenty of people, me included, plays map and counters game solo (an extremely enjoyable endeavor), and there are also computer games. Yesterday I had an excellent scenario with Combat Mission Schock Force 2 leading a company of Canadian PPLI in a less than successful action... Europa Universalis is also great solo.
<peripheral discussion mode on>
It is worth to note that Europa Universalis started as a quite complex Map and Counter game. It was relatively successful, but some mechanics were clunky. It was adapted (by the original designer) to a computer version. Because the computer was taking charge of the paperwork (EU had a quite big amount of paperwork!) the game enjoyed more success, even if the switch from turn based to real time was debatable. Then after 4 iterations on the PC... they want to do a new board version... I am not that sure of it, look overproduced (miniatures that does not look really useful to the game, but a KS game has to have minis...) and much less historically accurate than the original. Also, considering we are talking of a 1993 game, the original had a real graphic charm. If you are interest in that sort of things... they have Crusader Kings (that should be probably the most interesting of the Crop), and Hearts of Iron. The latter is a mess, it will rely on expansion kits to allow you to play small countries like US... and basically is competing with World in Flames, World at War, and Totaler Krieg in scope and size...and the latter three are much better (probably my best pick is World in Flames, but Totaler Krieg+ Dai Senso have interesting mechanics and are definitely less bothered by lowere level decision, World at War is the most mechanically accurate, but the designers have no idea about ship naming conventions of any belligerent, their named counters for potential ships, including some actually ordered or started are rubbish).
<end peripheral discussion mode>
-
We started playing with Airfix HO-OO scale 8th Army and Afrika Korps back in the 60s. The tanks were Airfix made from soft plastic, pretty much the same type as the figures. We had Shermans for Monty's Desert Rats and Patton tanks for Jerry, perfectly accurate as every war film had M48s for the baddies! When we were safe enough to be let loose with model paints, without re-decorating the kitchen sink and cooker, they all got painted.
We did this because toy sowjers look better coloured in.
Like many round this way I went on to produce figures, models and terrain that's won a few pots at both local wargame and IPMS shows. The Dice Gods loaned me great painting skills, which as old fartdom beckons, they have decreed I return to them. I've done this happily as now I can concentrate on playing with said toy sowjers as opposed to faffing about with 'em.
The Dice Gods for their part, have kindly left me just enough 'mince-pie power', to to block paint and strong tone!
;)
-
do you want to have a laugh? In my third year undergrad I was helping a professor organizing a field trip. My role was to take reservations and collect the money. It was a department subsidized trip, so it was not a lot per person... but there were plenty of people (we got a two-decker bus full). So I ended up having to deliver more than 2 millions in cash (and because everyone paid with small notes it was a quite huge wallop...). lol
To give you an idea... 1,600 liras for a cup of coffee at the times. We have even 1,000 liras coins.
Reminds me of the old bank robbery song, "18,000 lira"
"Sounds like a lot of money!"
-
I don’t see a problem, if all you want to do is to play a game… when I first started playing 15mm ACW, we (my opponent/friend and me) could field all the figures we want as long as they were painted. That means that each player wasn’t 100% of what he would be facing during the "next Sunday battle"
As a side not, I’ve seen quite a few Warhammer or W40K games played with unpainted figures, but just once with historical figures... in which only one unit in the two facing armies was unpainted...
-
The younger crowd games (40K, Warmachine) etc. are definitely at the lowest end of the hobby spectrum when it comes to wargaming genres. Mostly to do with the age bracket so many of their players fall into, and the more casual approach a lot of the players take.
-
I had a shock when a student who'd ferried me around Hanoi on her motorbike charged me a million dongs for the service. The shock was much reduced when I translated the sum into the Thai baht I'm used to.
-
Yes, I suppose certain systems tend to view it as more permissible given the weight of gamers who have unpainted armies. The more competitive systems focusing more on the figures as playing pieces than aesthetics. Of course the models are important, though from personal experience whilst you may spend a lot of time working on a figure - you wind up just wanting it on the board for a night's game and quickly find it falling by the wayside as more important playing pieces go onto the do list.
Nowadays I'm more in the hobby for the visual spectacle than the nitty gritty of writing competitive army lists. I was never into tournaments or that sort of thing. I'd rather a board look interesting and realistic than follow any of these "25% terrain" rules. And find myself spending most of my time making figures which may never be used in a game but look cool. My armies are just whatever is thrown together from the collection I have rather than working towards some pre-conceived competitive list (at this point though there's enough figures to field whatever I feel like of course).
So I weight heavily towards the visual side of things, and tend to play with those who have a similar opinion. At my club I look at the games of 40K and see all the unpainted figures fighting over a board with barely any terrain - where there's far too many models and dozens are removed a turn to some weapon or other. Those to me could be played with chess pieces for how many of those little grey figures are on the board. The same goes for other mass battle systems - which I suppose is why I focus more on the platoon or skirmish level (making the number of figures more manageable to paint too, instead of overstretching with hundreds).
Nowadays I'll never paint with a model till its finished. It would just look weird. I won't play a force or game till the minimum number of figures are done - and if not then I'll just play something which I have enough for. With the amount of work I put into just building the figures in the first place having them unpainted to me makes them look naked (i.e. playing with a mess of plasticard, clay and bits in the shape of a tank isn't the same as a model which looks like a tank).
And I suppose I may live in a different position than others. I'll often provide both sides when playing a game - so know the other figures will be painted. I don't go outside of my regular gaming group enough to encounter unpainted forces, so take it for granted that everything will be painted.
...Which is to say (after this whole spiel) that with the amount of effort I put into the tables and figures, I kind of expect whatever my opponent brings along to match that. If not then I have tonnes of figures for them to use. That could perhaps be seen as non-inclusive to certain players with unpainted figures, but call it selfish to say that I don't really care. With whatever new player who wants to wants to get involved just having to accept that.
-
I'll often provide both sides when playing a game - so know the other figures will be painted.
I've done the same for the last thirty years, building and painting both sides for any project. That way you don't get Bob calling at the last minute to cry off, Bob, the bloke who was bringing all the artillery. it's paid great dividends in the fact I've never had the misfortune of having to attend a club!
:o
-
I've done the same for the last thirty years, building and painting both sides for any project. That way you don't get Bob calling at the last minute to cry off, Bob, the bloke who was bringing all the artillery. it's paid great dividends in the fact I've never had the misfortune of having to attend a club!
:o
Always done this since 1971 when my "Napoleonic" opponent moved away and I was left with one side and nobody to play. Also allows me to play solo and try out rules and scenarios. Saves time too, both sides set or laid out ready to go thus we get started quicker.
-
Agree, I also like to paint both sides because this forces me to research both sides. I really dislike the chaps who tell you they will never game with Army X. I had a friend who refused to game eastern front with the Soviet, he only played Germans. Well, beside being an awfully annoying experience at times, it also allowed some interesting surprises... it is July 1941, you have your schutzen battalion and a supporting company of PzII to secure this important crossroad and its attending village... the Soviet are in retreat... and then from the village... a KV-2 sprang to action! lol
Actually I do not consider a project completed until I have at least two playable different sides. It also help plodding forward with larger things. WW2 for example, you build a reinforce platoon per side to start, and then add the rest of the company (talking 15mm). Saves you from repeating the same basic colors forever.
-
As a relatively recent returnee to the hobby who paints slowly and games primarily with a neighbour and our primary school age sons (we have a son each, just to be clear), I am willing to be flexible and non-judgemental! I will always aspire to play with fully painted figures, but as my painted collection is small and growing only slowly I am in no position to insist my opponent does the same.
For example earlier this year I was invited to play a game of 40k at my friend's house, as his son wanted to try out the big box set he had received for his birthday. My son has a few new Space Marines he had picked up here and there (including a free one given to him in a GW Store), but I had no painted sci-fi miniatures at all. I just had time to paint up a couple of old school metal Marines I had acquired from eBay (minus backpacks) as my contribution. When I turned up for the game it was clear that the vast majority of the considerable number of figures on the table were unpainted, and my two recruits were sent into action alongside their naked (but considerably larger) cousins:
(https://myalbum.com/photo/QQPdCLpuTX5u/360.jpg)
Despite this we all had a fun time and it was interesting to be involved in a larger game than I was used to. I think it also helped to spur on my friend's son to devote further painting time to his figures.
A further example of me lowering my standards was when I bought the What a Tanker rules. I remember reading one reviewer claiming that it was a very accessible game because everyone has a few tanks lying about. I didn't! This was remedied in the cheapest and quickest way possible courtesy of Armourfast and a local model shop and once we had an M10 and Panzer III more or less painted up my son and I tried out the rules. What we did not have was any suitable terrain (the terrain pieces I had for playing Frostgrave did not really pass for Normandy and anyway were the wrong scale). So we improvised and used a bit of imagination.
(https://myalbum.com/photo/kTbuMnyceDxG/360.jpg)
I have since started work on some proper bocage that does not involve tableware.
For me well painted armies and terrain will always be the goal, but while working towards that goal I will take a game where I can find one!
-
While I explained my position earlier, I thought I'd expand on one of the unforeseen benefits of my personal stance (i.e. play with painted models/terrain exclusively).
The first step was fully painted models. This led to fully painted/quality terrain. This led to gaming mats or a good surface. This led to good scatter terrain. This all culminated in my general passion for a project, and my "holistic" approach to wargaming. I want proper (often custom) dice, reference sheets, and fun little articles that engross people in the game.
All of this means one thing: a project is a time-intensive and often funds-intensive process.
This then limits my projects. It makes me far more immune to "new and shiny" purchases. If I see something that interests me I tend to have a decent conversation with myself: Is this worth $X00's, and is this worth hundreds of hours of painting/building/prepping, etc. My buddies know that if I do a game...I do a frikkin' game. This means I actually have a rather firm control over my lead pile. I have almost zero side "projects" that I bought on a whim.
So this type of discipline has actually benefited me quite a bit in helping to curb random purchases. Now...random purchases which slot into one of my projects? Still a problem.
-
This then limits my projects. It makes me far more immune to "new and shiny" purchases. If I see something that interests me I tend to have a decent conversation with myself: Is this worth $X00's, and is this worth hundreds of hours of painting/building/prepping, etc. My buddies know that if I do a game...I do a frikkin' game. This means I actually have a rather firm control over my lead pile. I have almost zero side "projects" that I bought on a whim.
something worth to consider too... lol
Interesting bit about 'proper' dice. I am not that keen on 'custom dice' I have some but are more something vanity than anything else... but I tend to keep a dice tray away from the table and roll the dice there. Probably something we have in common as principle, but materialized in different ways...
Oh another thing... player aids, rosters, all the pharaphernalia do not belong to the game table too! And I really dislike pictures of awesome game tables covered with that clutter or, even worse, refreshments... o_o
-
Agree, I also like to paint both sides because this forces me to research both sides. I really dislike the chaps who tell you they will never game with Army X. I had a friend who refused to game eastern front with the Soviet, he only played Germans.
I feel like historical gaming mightn't have been the thing for that guy.
I will always aim to have figures with at least *some* paint on them before considering them "table ready". It's the hobby first for me so if figures aren't ready for a particularly then they aren't ready and I'll organise (or won't organise) games accordingly. The visual aspects of the hobby are the most important to me so I really have no choice.
I won't say anything, but I will (safe in my own head) judge the people who haven't painted their stuff. Even an undercoat will do to make me not notice. For my money it detracts from what we're here for (pretty stuff on table) and to me displays a certain lack of respect for the effort others might've put into their stuff that will now likely be photographed with their ugly unpainted things.
Tables and terrain I can give a bit more leeway to, terrain setups on top of figures are pretty expensive and timeconsuming to make look good, so long as its not a billiard table I'm happy.
I'm also of the preference to paint multiple armies. I like the idea of hosting and it gives a lot more flexibility in organising games - if I can roll up with both sides, then it can be the guy's first ever game and it won't matter.
-
I feel like historical gaming mightn't have been the thing for that guy.
Sincerely I do not known, he was a weird chap. For NWE and North Africa he had assorted sides (I know, I painted them for him). That was just eastern front... and the ACW... but we played ACW usually with The Gamers Brigade Series so both armies were included in each box. Oh, I gave me his entire collection of the Brigade series in exchange for painting WW2 troops, then he rebought it (not from me, I prize them). It is worth to note that, while he never painted anything he never gamed with unpainted miniatures, because at start, even when he got the troops painted he had no terrain, he was coming at my home where terrain was available. We had some enjoyable matches. Then I moved, he got married (I think), and he once was also a bit disrespectful with a Korean friends of mine so we drifted apart... oh he had also a bad opinion on Brian Holden Reid ACW research... once we had a chat on that... ended with 'you know I have to meet him next week when I am back in school' (it was Xmas break, Brian at the time was my supervisor).
-
Both the hobby and the internet are global, so we have a huge audience that all sit in different places in terms of money, resources and gaming space.
The lowest common denominator then is probably ‘the game’s the thing’. Everything else is dependent upon individual circumstances. To pontificate that only painted figures, followed by good terrain etc, should ever grace a gaming table, is a narrow view.
I was reading a post recently in which a gamer was asking a lot of questions about a boardgame. it became apparent that financially, the purchase of a single game was so significant that they could not afford to make a mistake of buying a game that they might regret buying, hence all of the questions.
To walk in another’s shoes as they say!
-
I am primarily a gamer not a painter. When I was in my early teens and starting out I did use unpainted models when playing with my friends who had similar unpainted models.
Once I started painting them I realised that I liked the game to look good aesthetically as it made the game so much more enjoyable. I am not a fast painter but paint to a reasonable standard, plus I find painting relaxing. So much so my partner can tyell when I have not painted for a while - and tells me to go and spend an evening painting.
Having had many years to build up a collection of figures and terrain. I would never use unpainted models - what's the point of having several hundred pounds worth of good looking terrain spoiled by unpainted miniatures
Personally I would never play with unpainted miniatures, I would rather use proxies. There is also no place for unpainted miniatures at a demonstration or participation game at a show.
However where someone is just starting out at club that is acceptable. They should be encouraged to paint their models and given help and advice to achieve that.
At home you can do what you like, but if I was invited to a game to find it was mainly unpainted miniatures, I would not accept another invitation.
-
(https://i.postimg.cc/mD2YgK2H/53533133-10218421339790496-3915126650404077568-n.jpg)
-
Fuck me. I remember a kid at my LGS that had his collection in zip-loc bags makes me laugh lol lol
-
You should have included a warning: The following pictures may be disturbing to some viewers. Viewer discretion is advised!
-
Orks in Plastic bags :o :o :o :o You have to be kidding. lol lol lol lol
-
I am the only one wondering why the orks did not tore the plastic bags from the inside, and then proceed to eat that chap? I am not a fantasy/silly sci-fi gamer, but I have been told that bagging whole armies of orks could be dangeorus... lol
I am also curious about the date... was 'yesterday' April 1st? :D
-
I am the only one wondering why the orks did not tore the plastic bags from the inside, and then proceed to eat that chap?
They must have suffocated, even orks need air holes in their storage.