The saddest table

[vodkafan]

OK , I have read the whole thread because I thought I had better do that before I commented...I started to form a comment after the first 2 pages. I thought that the point of the post was that the pic was EMPTY. Like DEVOID of players, and everyone was missing the point by talking about the simplistic terrain.  But then I thought what are we actually seeing? This may be a shot taken before they opened the doors. Maybe the punters didn't care, put their hugely expensive armies out and had a wonderful time .  So it's all relative. 

[pixelgeek]

Maybe the punters didn't care, put their hugely expensive armies out and had a wonderful time .  So it's all relative.

Based on the feedback online it seems like quite a lot of them did care 

[mcfonz]

As for the weary, sneery old accusation of ‘elitism and snobbery’ (which is made sooner or later every time we have one of these threads), well, if liking great looking figures and terrain is elitism, I can only say I’ve never yet met a wargamer who isn’t drawn to ‘eye candy’ like a moth to a flame. Ditto lavish display games and wargames rules books stuffed with gorgeous colour photos. So I guess there are a lot of elitists in this hobby 

Not sneery at all.

I was reflecting that if people are to only share models and terrain of a certain standard who decides? You very much described you longed for the days when LAF was smaller, but had more of a focus on brilliantly painted miniatures and terrain. And ideally would like it to return to such a place.

Who sets the 'bar' - who decides what is and what isn't good enough? By merely suggesting that you are placing yourself in a position where you believe your opinion and judgement is of a level that is in some way better than others.

I'll make it clear here - I like the idea that everyone can paint to Golden Demon level, hell, I'd love to be able to myself. But it's just not reality. I would rather a large and diverse community than a small and focused one. Many of my friends have unpainted armies, some of them prefer the process of model making and gaming to painting. Sometimes this is even because they see how people online respond to painting they deem to be of a poor standard.

So yes, I am happy to see pictures of games with unpainted terrain, books under cloths for hills, unpainted miniatures - because it is about sharing the experience of the hobby and welcoming all.

The original topic of this thread was rather different. It was about paying £40+ for a tournament to see terrain of a level most people could achieve in about five minutes with packing polystyrene from white goods.

At home that's fine. I've played games on large sheets of card with wooded areas and walls drawn onto it before now. Because spending time with a good friend is way more important to me than how well he has painted his miniatures, or how great his table looks. I extend that mentality to online as well.

[redzed]

Games Workshop ruins everything.

close the topic now 

[Captain Blood]

Thanks Shaun. I agree.
For the record though...

You very much described you longed for the days when LAF was smaller, but had more of a focus on brilliantly painted miniatures and terrain. And ideally would like it to return to such a place.

I didn't say that. What I said was: please understand that some of us remember that in its early days LAF had a strong emphasis on the visual aspects of the miniatures hobby. And that history colours our judgement of what looks good or not.
I didn't say I liked it better when it was smaller, nor did I say LAF should return to such a place.

Who sets the 'bar' - who decides what is and what isn't good enough? By merely suggesting that you are placing yourself in a position where you believe your opinion and judgement is of a level that is in some way better than others.

In saying which, you are doing precisely the same thing. By merely suggesting that you're right and I'm wrong, you're saying your opinion and judgement is better than mine. And you're entitled to express that, but somehow I'm not? It's a pointless and reductive argument.
The fact is nobody decides. We all set our own bar. If you think something looks great, you're free to say it looks great. Equally, if something looks terrible to you and you can explain why, why wouldn't you be free to say so? We're all entitled to our opinions. We all set the bar at different levels.

We find it very easy to say 'that looks great', but we rightly have a strong aversion to saying 'that looks terrible' - even when it does. That's because we don't like to offend, or belittle the efforts of others, or think we have any right to 'judge'. I'm the same, 99% of the time. But every now and then, you see something which is plainly poor, in which case I don't think we should be afraid to say so.
Most people who have contributed to this thread so far, agree that the level of presentation in the pic at the head of this thread is poor. Which it plainly is. It's refreshing that so many people have been willing to say so.

[mcfonz]

I didn't say that. What I said was: please understand that some of us remember that in its early days LAF had a strong emphasis on the visual aspects of the miniatures hobby. And that history colours our judgement of what looks good or not.
I didn't say I liked it better when it was smaller, nor did I say LAF should return to such a place.

I do think it's worth pointing out that the history of LAF is rooted very firmly in the aesthetic 'adventure' end of the spectrum (hence the name), not at the competitive - sometimes including unpainted figures on vestigial scenery - end.

Perhaps newer members who aren't so fussed about the look of things, could overlook the occasional outburst from more longstanding members like me, who fondly remember when LAF was largely about great looking figures, models and terrain in games which were fun and cinematic in feel.

True, that was what Alex always said - but that wasn't actually reflected in the majority of what was shared on the forum. Unless my glasses have become excessively rose-tinted (I'm sure you think they have!) I think most projects / games / figures shown on the forum back then had a degree of care and attention spent on making, painting and presenting them, which is not the case with some of what we see on here these days. Just my impression.

In saying which, you are doing precisely the same thing. By merely suggesting that you're right and I'm wrong, you're saying your opinion and judgement is better than mine. And you're entitled to express that, but somehow I'm not? It's a pointless and reductive argument.
The fact is nobody decides. We all set our own bar. If you think something looks great, you're free to say it looks great. Equally, if something looks terrible to you and you can explain why, why wouldn't you be free to say so? We're all entitled to our opinions. We all set the bar at different levels.

I try to set my bar to "be as welcoming and inclusive as possible" - if someone comes here and enjoys converting things and makes good conversions, but doesn't enjoy painting so much so either doesn't paint them or spends little time on painting them - I respect that.

If people come here to show off their painted minis that they have spent hours slaving over - I respect that too.

If people want to share pictures and reports of their games too, including the above and various stages in between - I will totally welcome that as well.

Honestly, when it comes to ANY hobby - there quite simply is a right and a wrong. You either submit to the hobby and accept it in all of it's wonderful colours or you are really opting out of it.

We find it very easy to say 'that looks great', but we rightly have a strong aversion to saying 'that looks terrible' - even when it does. That's because we don't like to offend, or belittle the efforts of others, or think we have any right to 'judge'. I'm the same, 99% of the time. But every now and then, you see something which is plainly poor, in which case I don't think we should be afraid to say so.
Most people who have contributed to this thread so far, agree that the level of presentation in the pic at the head of this thread is poor. Which it plainly is. It's refreshing that so many people have been willing to say so.

No, people are not simply stating that table is poor. They are taking in the context, the fact that it was a tournament requiring purchasing of a place to attend. That the tables all had to have the same scenery. And have been looking elsewhere for more information to shed more light on it to see what reasons there were for them to look like this.

Several people have expressed they would be disappointed if this is what they had paid and seen as a result. In a different context - say a school club - people may comment differently because the context is different.

It may also be that the internet is saturated with sites, forums and social media where you get endless criticism and negativity and that there remain to be some places you can come to and feel safe about posting in without some high and mighty gamer telling you how crap your models are and how more people should feel free to tell you that as well. Perhaps these models represent some of the first 20 you have ever painted. That surely helps confidence doesn't it?

Wouldn't it be far better to say "You are not far off having a solid looking table/miniature there, am I ok to share some feedback and pointers with you?"

I mean, it is a forum, it is a community, and I thought for the most part LAF was quite inclusive. I am seeing another side to it more recently if I'm honest.

[waitwhat]

In saying which, you are doing precisely the same thing. By merely suggesting that you're right and I'm wrong, you're saying your opinion and judgement is better than mine.

He isn't and he didn't. This is false equivalence.

Mcfonz asserted that having a standard (the position you appear to be advocati g or at least casually rose-tintedly nostalgic for) for is problematic because defining a standard is subjective.

That's a simple and obvious statement that is entirely disconnected from right or wrong. Neither does that statement infringe on your right to criticise anything. What it does do is make it morally problematic to decide to exclude content which *is* your implication.

[JamesValentine]

I like trains

[FramFramson]

I like trains

Choo choo!

[Cubs]

I like trains

Train elitist.

[Hammers]

People may empty their rubbish bins upon their gaming tables as it pleases them but I hope LAF will remain a bastion of artful wargaming.

[Westfalia Chris]

Train elitist.

Before this thread is derailed even further - lockity lock!