Are you a gaming snob?

[OSHIROmodels]

Are you a gaming snob?

Yes

 

[Silent Invader]

Yes

 

As you also said that in the second post does this mean that the conversation has now gone full circle and can end?  

[OSHIROmodels]

I can only hope 

cheers

James

[Silent Invader]

I can only hope 

cheers

James

Lock! Lock! Lock! 

[eilif]

The thread seems to have got hung up on painted versus unpainted minis and as I was introduced to wargaming by Mr Featherstone's first tome (1968 edition gifted to me in the mid 1970s) his then thoughts on the matter seem appropriate.

Looking through the book, except for perhaps the WW2 game which cannot be clearly discerned, the minis are painted.

On p19 he says: "..... Goes to endless trouble to ensure that his figures are correctly equipped and painted"

On p21: ".... Nearly everyone at least paints his own figures ....."

On p34: "...Finally, all soldiers have to be painted to resemble the armies of their period and this can be done crudely or to a highly professional standard. The satisfaction seems to be in strict ratio to the trouble that is taken in this sphere."

I wouldn't go as far to say that using unpainted minis isn't wargaming but I do think that those who insist upon them are aspiring to a different overall experience than those that don't.

I am also puzzled about when the "things don't need to be painted - painting is only a small part of the hobby" thing came in?  I am guessing with GW and the constantly changing army lists and new releases that people couldn't keep up with?

I started in 1974 and all the pictures of games I saw then had painted figures...

The "historical" argument is one of the best for why painting is part of the hobby.  Looking back through the history of commercial tabletop miniature wargaming it clear that it's nearly always done and been done with painted miniatures.   

If you showed a photo of one of your games to a non-gaming colleague at work, would they say, 'Bloody hell that is impressive?', my thoughts are that this is what I need to be aiming for.

This is what I aim for. Both because I'd like my players to think so and because I want to have the same feeling when I sit down for a game.   I want to impress myself and my friends (and bystanders if I'm at a FLGS or convention) everytime I layout a game.

I guess I just feel (and I think most wargamers feel at heart) that the painted minis and terrain are what give the "magic" to the hobby and I want to bring that magic to every game.

[Elbows]

I think my desire to paint figures etc. is very much ingrained from the early days.  Buying up a game and seeing beautifully painted figures on the box cover and the rulebook...and then seeing my plastic/pewter/lead.  As mentioned, presentation is definitely part of the hobby.  I'd be the kid who'd stand face-to-the-glass admiring big historical dioramas at museum almost to the exclusion of everything else.  Much like presenting a show (theatre etc.) I wanted to bring a story to life on the tabletop as much as possible.  I fully understand the people who solely play for competition, but I do think that the tournament gamer crowd puts themselves at a distance from general wargamers.  The meta-gaming and competition are the key there.  No problem with that, but I think there is a difference between a club game with encouraged painting and buying the best new unit and throwing it on the table to crush your opponent.

Luckily here on LAF, a lot of folks straddle that divide.

[Driscoles]

To me, gaming is like reading a book or watching a movie. I want to dive right into it and I want to be entertained.
 
Figures have to be painted and the scenery must be more than a roughly dipped cloth with some sand thrown on it. The miniatures and scenery are the written words and a good scenario is the director,  or the author. And we, the players, are the actors

I enjoy gaming with players who love the game and hobby and not the rules.

[Dr DeAth]

Can I just say this thread has an inappropriate ratio of text to pictures to meet the LAF Acceptable TTPR Policy    (not a real policy)

Which would you rather play with?

A



or B

[Dim_Reaper]

Biased example. Option B isn't properly based.

I would play with either with a slight preferance for option A in the correct circumstances.

Devil's in the details, and that's why discussion uses text.

[eilif]

Biased example. Option B isn't properly based.

I would play with either with a slight preferance for option A in the correct circumstances.

Devil's in the details, and that's why discussion uses text.

I'm having a hard time taking this seriously.
"slight preference... in the correct circumstances"?!?!
What are the correct circumstances in which you'd only slightly prefer painted mins.?  My fertile imagination is thinking something like this...

"I'm sorry Jon, I only slightly prefer painted miniatures when gaming friends with names starting with M, F or Q and only when Mercury is in Retrograde.  If you don't mind I'd rather have the unpainted figures today if they're properly based."

[Dim_Reaper]

I have seen flat figures painted by painters who are way beyond my own skills, which looked even three-dimensional by their paintjobs. In that case I´d not shy away from saying that painting actually IS the whole thing.

This is, at least, illogical. For one thing, there is no logical connect between: "Some 2D paintings are good enough to look 3D" and "All there is to wargaming... is painting". Not in any universe does that remotely make sense. It's dismissing so many facets of the hobby in favour of the bit of polish at the end and thus puffing it up to being the most crucial element. At best, your above statement suggests that painting CAN BE the whole thing. That is a massive difference, and really, I would argue, little more than bias.

Likewise with the references to hobby magasines and so on, of the painting aspect always being there = it's the crucial element that defines it.

It's a bit like saying all Footballers have worn strips or clothing to display their affiliation to a team whilst everything else about the game has changed. Therefore, football strips are the most important aspect of football, and if you're not wearing a strip you aren't actually playing football. You're playing an inferior football-ish game, that is essentially a lazy and pathetic style of game that makes you a less valid contributor to the sport as a whole.

That might sound ridiculous, and it should. It's not far from some the assertions made in this thread. Just sayin'.

Also, I remember someone earlier saying that painting Board Gaming miniatures doesn't count because they're only board games. But my introduction to wargaming was through Board Games (kiddy ones, like MB's Dark Age trilogy) where models were depicted mostly fully painted, and even though it was stated as an option, surely that's just as prevalent. I mean, if you're going to be so elitist about an entire hobby that you've cornered off your version as being the most important variation, why waste time with minor differences? Be consistent!

Also, most people in this hobby paint to some degree. So this using the "never paint crowd" (who are an utter minority - if they even exist at all) to puff up painting as the apotheosis of gaming above everyone else, including the "do paint but slowly crowd" into a who's who of "true", "real" and "proper". Now tell me that isn't snobbery. It's definitely elitism.

First there is sculpting, that´s right.
A bad paintjob can obscure though not ruin a good sculpt.
Somebody who put a lot of effort to sculpt a nice miniature deserves my own effort of giving it the best paintjob I can.

And a bad ruleset can completely undermine all of that hard work. A bad collection of miniatures can lead to poor paintjobs, or the lack enthusiasm to paint them. The wrong group of hobbyists could lead to masses of arguments over what games are played, how they are played and under what conditions. The wrong venue leads to a lack of decent tables and storage, making setting up games a chore. There could be no agreement over what gaming system to use. Some gamers might be resistant to the idea of house rules. Someone may have made a slight historical error. There might a schism between Fictional and Historical Gamers. Someone's suggestion for a game might be more expensive than most members can afford. The person organising the campaign/scenario may not have turned up. A rules disagreement might have broken out into a metaphysical (or actually physical) knife fight.

But stop the presses. Someone hasn't painted 5 models! That's the ultimate problem right there.

By the way I'm not saying unpainted models are not as important as these. I'm saying they're as important as these. Thus, Painting is not, and never will be, the purest preserve of the wargamer. Because there is far, far more to wargaming than painted miniatures.

Incidentally, the idea of painting as the norm is meaningless. Using tape measures (and other measurement devices, and thus Imperial/Metric measurement systems) is the norm for playing wargames. Yet wargames exist that don't use tape measures. Are they not proper wargames then?

I'm having a hard time taking this seriously.
"slight preference... in the correct circumstances"?!?!
What are the correct circumstances in which you'd only slightly prefer painted mins.?  My fertile imagination is thinking something like this...

"I'm sorry Jon, I only slightly prefer painted miniatures when gaming friends with names starting with M, F or Q and only when Mercury is in Retrograde.  If you don't mind I'd rather have the unpainted figures today if they're properly based."

Well correct circumstances as in, having had the time and means to paint them...? Having a reasonable amount to paint within a certain time? Actually enjoying painting those figures? Actually wanting to play said game. Getting the miniatures in time for the game. etc. These are all pretty reasonable, and nothing like the strawman example you posted up. EDIT: I was just trying to make the point that the straight A or B example is meaningless out of context. Because everybody's contexts are different. Oh and I should have clarified slight preference, I have no desire to own or play a 28mm Roman-based wargame again. Not after all those sodding Celts I had to paint...

The properly based bit was a joke (can't use the models in the same way, can you), but I mean come on. It's not as if posting up two ludicrous extremes makes any kind of valid point. There is nothing about the A or B option to take seriously in the first place.

[Dr DeAth]

It's not as if posting up two ludicrous extremes makes any kind of valid point. There is nothing about the A or B option to take seriously in the first place.

An interesting response.  Firstly, I wasn't trying to make a point, I was asking a question. Secondly, 'ludicrous extremes'? one lot is painted, the other lot is unpainted, they are hardly ludicrous extremes,  I was just using an illustrated example to see what people prefer.  There's been a lot of discussion about using painted or unpainted figures on the 11 pages of this wall of text thread and I was curious to see what people think. It appears that was a mistake.

Having considered your reply (and the rest of this thread) I've come to a few personal conclusions:

• It doesn't really matter what other people prefer, it's my hobby and I'll do it my way.  If that makes me a wargaming snob I don't care, it's irrelevant
• Personally, I come to the LAF to look at other people's work, learn from what others do and 'up my game' as a result. I share my efforts too.
• I believe the LAF is about well painted figures, eye-candy terrain and interesting AARs, all of which hopefully inspire others and encourage them in the hobby - that's why I joined and remain
• I don't think the LAF is about endless circular arguments that produce lengthy pontifications and uninspiring walls of text - there are other forums for that
• Everyone has a right to be here so I should be more selective in the threads and members that I follow, for me that doesn't include members who in 67 posts have failed to post a single picture of any of their own efforts
• I should have listened to my Grandmother when she told me "don't argue with idiots on the internet, they drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience"
• My hobby is playing with toy soldiers, not blogging.  I should spend more time painting/making/playing and less time reading irrelevant internet articles

Finally, I'll leave you with a few threads that I think sum up what the LAF (and wargaming in general) is all about . . .

Doomhippie's Middle Earth thread  http://leadadventureforum.com/index.php?topic=41188.0
Jimbibbly's Japanese on Mars thread   http://leadadventureforum.com/index.php?topic=21604.0
Thunderchicken's 'Build' threads   http://leadadventureforum.com/index.php?topic=80431.0
Captain Blood's Cave Wars thread   http://leadadventureforum.com/index.php?topic=76576.0
Andym's Ruined London thread   http://leadadventureforum.com/index.php?topic=44122.0
Matakishi's Anarchy Offline thread   http://leadadventureforum.com/index.php?topic=60622.0
Silent Invaders 1914 Belgium thread   http://leadadventureforum.com/index.php?topic=72573.0

There are lots of other talented contributors to the LAF and I'm not going to try and list them all, I don't have time, I've got figures to paint. 

[Dim_Reaper]

An interesting response.  Firstly, I wasn't trying to make a point, I was asking a question. Secondly, 'ludicrous extremes'? one lot is painted, the other lot is unpainted, they are hardly ludicrous extremes,  I was just using an illustrated example to see what people prefer.

It seemed pretty weighted to me. It's obviously A. For someone who labels me as an idiot to somehow assume anyone wouldn't pick A just strikes me as odd, seeing how well you tell me you understand this forum and what it's about.

• Everyone has a right to be here so I should be more selective in the threads and members that I follow, for me that doesn't include members who in 67 posts have failed to post a single picture of any of their own efforts

Well I was working towards entries for the forum's painting league (which I can post for you if you like, as that would prevent me from using them). Given reactions to GW in this forum (not unwarranted either) I wasn't keen to post stuff like that, and I've only just got into the bit that interested me that attracted me to the forum in the first place, and thus I'm not sure that people would be that interested in pictures of 70 odd Infamy Welcome to the Big Smoke miniatures that are assembled (just) and awaiting priming. I didn't realise that I wasn't allowed to add to discussions until I'd posted some pictures. I must have missed that when I read the forum rules.

But as I'm not welcome, I'll post these completed pictures somewhere else, where they will be.

I should have listened to my Grandmother when she told me "don't argue with idiots on the internet, they drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience"

Thank you for sharing your experience, it means a lot.

P.S. The choice of "ludicrous" was poor, I'll admit. But I will happily admit that, without resorting to name-calling and elitism.

[eilif]

Well correct circumstances as in, having had the time and means to paint them...? Having a reasonable amount to paint within a certain time? Actually enjoying painting those figures? Actually wanting to play said game. Getting the miniatures in time for the game. etc. These are all pretty reasonable, and nothing like the strawman example you posted up. EDIT: I was just trying to make the point that the straight A or B example is meaningless out of context. Because everybody's contexts are different. Oh and I should have clarified slight preference, I have no desire to own or play a 28mm Roman-based wargame again. Not after all those sodding Celts I had to paint...

The properly based bit was a joke (can't use the models in the same way, can you), but I mean come on. It's not as if posting up two ludicrous extremes makes any kind of valid point. There is nothing about the A or B option to take seriously in the first place.

The gentleman posting the pictures didn't ask if you had time, or would enjoy painting those figures, or wanting to play a game with them.  You added all of that unrelated "context".  If you don't want to play with any of them, that's fine, but it does't invalidate the question.

It's a simple question of whether one would rather play with the figures painted or not and your attempts to cloud the issue do not help the matter.  Further, it's not "Ludicrous Extremes".  

Rather it's a perfectly fair example of the choices faced by many gamers today, whether to play with painted armies or unpainted armies.  I've not seen the specific Roman example in-person, but I've seen many examples of players at my FLGS where one player has painted and based and one has unpainted figures on bare bases.   Sometimes the players are fielding even nearly identical space marines.  I certainly prefer the look of the painted marines and it's no stretch at all to come to the same conclusion when viewing the roman pictures above.  

Whether or not I wanted to paint the figs, had time to paint the figs or had a desire play the game is immaterial to me being able to make a rational decision concerning which figures I liked the look of better and would hypothetically prefer playing with.

Yes, my example was a but of fun.  I'm not sure it was even a serious enough attempt to warrant the "straw man" label, but I won't fight it.  However, it had just as much connection to serious discourse as your attempt to muddy the waters and your labeling his picture comparison as "ludicrous extremes".

[Dim_Reaper]

I never said it invalidated the question. However, the question was pretty weighted. I'd be interested to meet the people who wouldn't pick A. I'd pick A. My concern was that this would therefore be asserted that that's all that mattered in the discussion, or that therefore playing with unpainted miniatures is somehow not the same hobby. Which is what I have issue with.

I'm totally fine with painted miniatures as something to aspire to, especially ones as well painted as the ones in option A. But aspiration doesn't mean that everything else is invalid. Perhaps it was a genuine inquiry, but to me, I just expected a dozen "A" responses, and then "aha!" suddenly we have our answer.

Which, frankly, we wouldn't do. Because as I said, there is more to the issue of painted and not painted than which ones you would choose to use, and in that sense, I see them as two extremes. The choice of "ludicrous" was a poor choice. But there's nothing I can do about that now. It's been said.