2 hours ago, TauntaunScout said:

No. Being accepting wouldn't make them jerks, but they aren't BEING accepting, they're just TALKING about it. A lot. And flipping it around so they can claim moral virtue via not-painting. Not requiring painting is being talked about an awful lot considering no one around actually requires painting and hasn't for years to my knowledge, and there's no painted armies in sight to mislead someone into thinking it's required. But yet it gets brought up over and over: "Paintings not required. We don't require painting here." Now, if someone in most of my local stores paints their army, suddenly they aren't like the rest of their friends. Never underestimate the power of conformity. But that gnarly old chipped grey army? That "proves" to your friends that you aren't elitist! It "proves" to your local scene that you are a hard bitten competitor who doesn't have time to stop strategizing to paint!

BEING accepting would be doing things not just talking.

Umm it's not actually. I've seen people do that thing with discs (well, empty bases) with names written on them. That's a legit question.

It is reductio ad absurdum. Saying "hey maybe don't have such a stick up your butt about your opponent having everything painted" is not at all the same as insisting he agree to everything not that which he lists in his parade of horribles.

Example: Me: Hey, maybe don't fly off the handle at everyone who accidentally bumps into you a little on the bus. Other Person:"What, so I should also let people just punch me in the face with all of their might?" (that is a thing people actually do, really, you can look it up and everything) Me again: No....just don't be a jerk about someone's honest mistake.

As for your talk of "virtue signaling" ya know, I'd say that this very discussion right here is why we have to keep mentioning that it's okay to not have all of your stuff painted. It's because we have some incredibly vocal people who insist on all players having their stuff painted. You can see them right in this very thread.

We have to keep putting up signs that everyone is free to cross the bridge because the trolls insist that people cannot. When the trolls finally stop insisting it...and when those who remember them insisting it finally die off, we won't need the signs anymore.

33 minutes ago, TauntaunScout said:

BUT. He's trying! He's making an effort! Unlike the people who use space marines without arms or whatever, and just sell them off to buy whatever's rules are broken in the next edition.

Well, if you were AWSB this statement might have some weight, but he's the one who insists that his opponent's models must be painted and I'm going to assume that also means "all of them" until he says different.

11 minutes ago, Zrob314 said:

I'd say that this very discussion right here is why we have to keep mentioning that it's okay to not have all of your stuff painted. It's because we have some incredibly vocal people who insist on all players having their stuff painted.

Why are you so defensive? NO ONE has claimed that it's NOT OKAY to have unpainted stuff. My very first post I was very explicit that people should play the game however they best enjoy it. For some, that's meticulously ornate terrain on a flocked table with painted armies. For others, it's labeled discs battling amongst the kethcup bottles on the kitchen table. For most, it's somewhere between those two ends.

All ways to play and enjoy this game are completely fine, and players should collect and play as they themselves want to do. No group is "better" or "worse" than the other, and everyone is having fun how they want to have fun. What on earth is wrong with that????

Since a lot of the arguments are getting extreme and in some cases personal, I'm going to bow out with this final thought:

You can have a gated community and you're pretty safe from unpleasantness. You might occasionally let someone in but that person will never live there unless they meet the standards of the community. Your community may grow slowly but you'll find yourself more often talking to the same old people with the same ideas over and over again. You can go out and encourage your city friends to join your gated community but for whatever reason, they may never be able to join you there.

Or you can live in the city. Tons of new people, ideas, foods constantly entering and growing the population. Sure, sometimes bad things happen but you're never short of someone to interact with and have way more resources at your fingertips. People learn new things and try things they've never tried before. Some people don't but they always have the option. Everyone can move there because there are no standards keeping them out.

So for everyone, I hope you enjoy the games you want to play the way you want to play them. Just play kind. They're just toy soldiers after all.

14 minutes ago, AllWingsStandyingBy said:

Why are you so defensive? NO ONE has claimed that it's NOT OKAY to have unpainted stuff. My very first post I was very explicit that people should play the game however they best enjoy it. For some, that's meticulously ornate terrain on a flocked table with painted armies. For others, it's labeled discs battling amongst the kethcup bottles on the kitchen table. For most, it's somewhere between those two ends.

All ways to play and enjoy this game are completely fine, and players should collect and play as they themselves want to do. No group is "better" or "worse" than the other, and everyone is having fun how they want to have fun. What on earth is wrong with that????

Allow me to quote your first post on this topic purely so we are all on the same page.

3 hours ago, AllWingsStandyingBy said:

Painted, only painted.

I don't play games against opponents with unpainted hordes.

This comment, taken out of whatever context you meant it, indicates that you will refuse to play an opponent who does not paint. It seems to imply that if you show up to an open gaming environment, agree to play an opponent, and then they reveal their models are unpainted, you will then refuse the game rather than play.

Having a PREFERENCE of playing against an opponent with painted models and EXCLUSIVELY accepting pick up games from people with painted models are very different things in my opinion. Your initial post seems to indicate the latter rather than the former.

I do agree that arguments are getting a bit heated on both sides, so I think in order to keep the mods from stepping in everyone needs to avoid ad hominem attacks. Good debate is against the ideas, not the person.

1 hour ago, AllWingsStandyingBy said:

Why are you so defensive?

How have I been defensive?

You, however, have equated playing against a non painted army with having an opponent who has a " bad reputation as a dice-blaming, angry, whining table-flipper who is a miserable NPE to play with" and equated having a non painted army as the exact same as insisting you be allowed to play with paper disc proxies.

You're also mixing people up:

"I find it funny that some people are like "GET OFF YOUR RUDE HIGH HORSE IF YOU ONLY PLAY WITH PAINTED ARMIES ON THE TABLE!" and in the same breath are like "GTFO WITH THESE PAPER PROXIES, NO ONE WOULD DO THAT AND IT'S REDUCTIO AD ABSURDUM TO THINK ANYONE SHOULD HAVE TO PLAY AGAINST PROXIES!"

I was the one who use the term reductio ad absurdum (which, by the way I agree that you shouldn't be expected to play against such, but brinigng it up in order to deflect from the more unreasonable opinion....which you stated without qualifier to begin this whole discussion....is an argument to absurdity, we can also call it a false equivalency or a slippery slope if you prefer).

WillKill was the one referencing the altitude of your equine mode of transportation. Hardly the same breath.

We also never once typed in all caps, but solid attempt in trying to make us look unreasonable.

3 hours ago, TauntaunScout said:

Interesting. I kinda do both, incorporating the process into each other due to the problems of drying time.

1. Attach mini to base.
2. Prime all.
3. Paint mini. At some point in the painting o' the mini I paint the edges of the base a coat of green or something.
4. Keep painting mini. When the parts that touch the base are all done, apply sand to base. Keep painting. Sand will be dry tomorrow.
5. Keep painting and ink the sand brown. Ink will be dry tomorrow. Better do this at the end of the painting session or it'll run on your hands.
6. Keep painting and drybursh sand light brown. Apply 2nd coat of green or something to base edges. When that's dry and the minis done, add patches of static grass.

Unless it's Legion in which case every base gets two coats of light yellow and that's that. The nature of the vehicle's bases have made me shy away from base textures.

Oh. If I may, definitely sand first. If you paint your mini before sanding the base, you really run the risk of getting glue on the mini, or primer on the mini.

ill be honest, with Legion I actually sand and paint the bases before the minis are even on them... the glue on the mini, then static grass.

I'm taking bets on how much longer this thread has until FFG shuts it down. Betting starts at 5 Galactic Standard Credits. Place your wagers.

4 hours ago, Zrob314 said:

again, ruductio ad absurdum.

Please stop.

If you ask people to stop, I will then please ask you ipso facto to stop your modus operandi, id est, using the same sentence ad nauseam.

By the way, cæteris paribus, reductio ad absurdum is a method that tries to show how false is a premise by showing the logical consequence of the premise as something absurd or contradictory.

What is NOT reductio ad absurdum?

To show ANOTHER analogue situation to demonstrate that KIND of situations are similar and therefore if you accept one you should accept both because they are similar. To use chits or card bases is not a logical consequence of using unpainted minis, is just an analogue situation, that you would not accept. So people here try to demonstrate with an analogy that there has to be logical limits to what you can or can not bring to a table. In fact, what they explain is not an absurd consequence of allowing grey units, but a real possibility that already exist... some people use proxies... would you allow them?

Reductio ad absurdum would be:

"If you allow grey unpainted minis, people would begin to bring minis without arms and that would cause that some players would bring painted discs instead of minis"

But here people is saying:

"If you accept minis that are not completely finished you should allow minis even less finished, like plain bases or minis without arms, and therefore, one could argue that painted bases in different colors or proxies for minis or terrain should also be accepted".

This is NOT reductio ad absurdum, it is an analogy, an example, but we all know some people like to use grandiloquent sentences they have heard.

9 minutes ago, Crawfskeezen said:

I'm taking bets on how much longer this thread has until FFG shuts it down. Betting starts at 5 Galactic Standard Credits. Place your wagers.

Why would FFG shot it down. ?

Just now, LordBubba said:

Why would FFG shot it down. ?

It just seems that people are arguing with no real resolution. Some people calling others elitist, others questioning people's commitment to the hobby. There isn't much productivity coming out at this point.

26 minutes ago, Crawfskeezen said:

It just seems that people are arguing with no real resolution. Some people calling others elitist, others questioning people's commitment to the hobby. There isn't much productivity coming out at this point.

Oh I get it now. ?

1 hour ago, Tubb said:

If you ask people to stop, I will then please ask you ipso facto to stop your modus operandi, id est, using the same sentence ad nauseam.

By the way, cæteris paribus, reductio ad absurdum is a method that tries to show how false is a premise by showing the logical consequence of the premise as something absurd or contradictory.

What is NOT reductio ad absurdum?

To show ANOTHER analogue situation to demonstrate that KIND of situations are similar and therefore if you accept one you should accept both because they are similar. To use chits or card bases is not a logical consequence of using unpainted minis, is just an analogue situation, that you would not accept. So people here try to demonstrate with an analogy that there has to be logical limits to what you can or can not bring to a table. In fact, what they explain is not an absurd consequence of allowing grey units, but a real possibility that already exist... some people use proxies... would you allow them?

Reductio ad absurdum would be:

"If you allow grey unpainted minis, people would begin to bring minis without arms and that would cause that some players would bring painted discs instead of minis"

But here people is saying:

"If you accept minis that are not completely finished you should allow minis even less finished, like plain bases or minis without arms, and therefore, one could argue that painted bases in different colors or proxies for minis or terrain should also be accepted".

This is NOT reductio ad absurdum, it is an analogy, an example, but we all know some people like to use grandiloquent sentences they have heard.

You are correct. AWSB is making a Straw Man argument rather than reduction to absurdity. Rather than defending the position of refusing to play against a force that is not 100% painted he is arguing that he should not be expected to play against cheaters, table-flippers or generic proxy tokens and further should not be expected to change the game being played at the last minute (specifically playing X-wing rather than Legion was the provided example). All of those were examples that have been put forth solely by him. These could also be called a false equivalence as they can objectively be seen as orders of magnitude worse than having to play against an unpainted miniature.

My apologies.

21 minutes ago, Zrob314 said:

You are correct. AWSB is making a Straw Man argument rather than reduction to absurdity. Rather than defending the position of refusing to play against a force that is not 100% painted he is arguing that he should not be expected to play against cheaters, table-flippers, generic proxy otkens or should not be expected to change the game being played at the last minute (specifically playing X-wing rather than Legion was the provided example). All of those were examples that have been put forth solely by him. These could also be called a false equivalence as they can objectively be seen as orders of magnitude worse than having to play against an unpainted miniature. 

My apologies.

The Straw man argument seems really correct to me, he is , in my opinion, exaggerating the arguments comparing people that don't paint with cheaters. I agree here.

Some of the equivalencies may be false, but definitely the proxy example is sadly a reality. Lots of persons use proxies. Where is the red line?

And some wargames are designed to be played with discs, tokens, chits... whatever, if you just care for rules and tactics, one could think that you wouldn't mind to play such games that don't use minis instead of SW:legion, and so, if legion would have such material (disks instead of minis?) you would like it anyway. While we, painted models lovers, wouldn't play that kind of games over miniatures wargames simply because we value the painting and hobby part, and it would lack.

Between using a perfectly painted army and a proxy, there are lots of shades of grey, but what I think the problem is that people that actually love to play with painted minis believe that some people here consider that last sentence as:

"between a perfectly built grey army and a proxy..."

As if the painted version was just a bonus... we don't see it like this.

Apologies accepted Captain Needa. XD

2 hours ago, Tubb said:

The Straw man argument seems really correct to me, he is , in my opinion, exaggerating the arguments comparing people that don't paint with cheaters. I agree here.

Some of the equivalencies may be false, but definitely the proxy example is sadly a reality. Lots of persons use proxies. Where is the red line?

And some wargames are designed to be played with discs, tokens, chits... whatever, if you just care for rules and tactics, one could think that you wouldn't mind to play such games that don't use minis instead of SW:legion, and so, if legion would have such material (disks instead of minis?) you would like it anyway. While we, painted models lovers, wouldn't play that kind of games over miniatures wargames simply because we value the painting and hobby part, and it would lack.

Between using a perfectly painted army and a proxy, there are lots of shades of grey, but what I think the problem is that people that actually love to play with painted minis believe that some people here consider that last sentence as:

"between a perfectly built grey army and a proxy..."

As if the painted version was just a bonus... we don't see it like this.

Apologies accepted Captain Needa. XD

Respectfully, I'm not sure the proxy line is quite as muddled as you put forth, at least from my point of view.

I'd be looking at two things: Has the person invested in the game and is their proxying going to confuse things too much.

So, I played two games with the friend I mentioned earlier on Monday. Game one, I played rebels to try out the cannons. My list had three operatives (2 strike, 1 full). Because I only have 1 fully painted operative set my opponent and I agreed that I could sub in a scout trooper sniper team to use in place, that way I wasn't putting dry fitted models on the table. He was playing rebels too so this caused no confusion. Neither of us were going to see a scout trooper sniper strike team on the table and forget what it was or why it was there.

Conversely if neither he or I had the appropriate cards or models then I'd be reticent to let something proxy on the table. So if we aren't playing on Tabletop Simulator neither of us will be fielding Guards, wookiees, Chewie, Sheeve....there's just too much that gets forgotten or wonky on the table.

Now if I was playing someone and they wanted to bring a full proxy army I'd just say "look, here's my collection. Make a list off that and I'll play something else. Trust me, I have more than enough for you to make whatever you want" It's just not worth it to me to have that much abstract force on the table.

Also there is a pretty serious LOS issue. I mean I've almost lost a commander because my opponent could barely see the top of his helmet. It's important stuff.

This is, of course, all very personal. I remember when I started doing bigger board games in 1990. I really loved Axis and Allies, Fortress America and Shogun partially because they had the masses of figures to represent your forces. I didn't try Line in the Sand or anything that used the cardboard chits popular at the time because they didn't appeal to me visually.

As I'm writing this I think maybe the intent of the publisher is what is driving where I draw the line. GW is, of course, trying to push their painting and hobby supplies. They have a vested interest in getting you to be a full Citadel customer. FFG doesn't have the same goal. It's great that they are actively supporting the hobby aspect of the game but they've been clear that the game is not WYSIWYG and painted models aren't mandatory. I guess I just feel like it's a jerk move to refuse a game with someone when their list and models are tournament legal and their demeanor is otherwise non-offensive. Now, if we got into list preferences, that's a different story. If it's simply a matter of me not liking your list and it's a friendly (i. e. not Organized play) game I might try to negotiate with you. Current example would probably be an agreement that we won't do Key Positions, just have the blue player take it out of the battle deck or deal it out in the 4th position. If they can't agree to that I might pass on the game, but that's purely because I know I'm dealing with someone who is likely to be unreasonable in the confines of a friendly game, that much different than an aesthetic preference.

Actually, my only point has been to say that:

There are lots of situations where one player might decide they'd rather not play a particular game, and we wouldn't in these situations call that player a "rude elitist." We recognize that, outside of a tournament pairing, one player has no obligation to make a bunch of concessions to accommodate another player so that said player can play the game the particular way they want to. This is a voluntary, opt-in kind of hobby.

Ergo, I don't see folks who prefer to use their limited gaming time to play games on their completed boards with finished terrain and completed, painted miniatures as somehow depriving others, nor do I see them in any way negatively judging those who would prefer to play the game with partially painted, unpainted, or even proxy figures. To each their own, let everyone go off and enjoy their games of Legion as they see fit.

1 hour ago, Zrob314 said:

As I'm writing this I think maybe the intent of the publisher is what is driving where I draw the line  . GW is, of course, trying to push their painting and hobby supplies. They have a vested interest in getting you to be a full Citadel customer. FFG doesn't have the same goal. It's great that they are actively supporting the hobby aspect of the game but they've been clear that the game is not WYSIWYG and painted models aren't mandatory. I guess I just feel like it's a jerk move to refuse a game with someone when their list and models are tournament legal and their demeanor is otherwise non-offensive. Now, if we got into list preferences, that's a different story. If it's simply a matter of me not liking your list and it's a friendly (i. e. not Organized play) game I might try to negotiate with you. Current example would probably be an agreement that we won't do Key Positions, just have the blue player take it out of the battle deck or deal it out in the 4th position. If they can't agree to that I might pass on the game, but that's purely because I know I'm dealing with someone who is likely to  be unreasonable in the confines of a friendly game, that much different than an aesthetic preference.

GW needs you to buy paint, brushes, hobby stuff, so they suport the hobby and of course require you to paint your minis when you attend their tournaments. But this doesn't mean that FFG are less interested in manipulating you, while GW wants you to paint, FFG wants you to buy, and they know that persons that paint minis and only play with painted minis CAN save some money because some of us don't buy nothing until you got painted what you bought before. That is a behaviour they don't like, because their sales policy is buy quickly because we're going to be sold out soon, hurry hurry hurry, buy now and quickly, or you will not have the possibility to buy tomorrow, don't think, just buy.

Opposite visions, I am an old time GW costumer that went away from them when they began to behave really badly with the costumer. Now I am back with a star wars game, and i still feel more seduced with the old times way of buying, playing, painting and enjoying.

So... sure I got better minis and terrain than you XDDDDDD

11 minutes ago, Tubb said:

So... sure I got better minis and terrain than you XDDDDDD

Maybe.

You post your stuff anywhere?

37 minutes ago, AllWingsStandyingBy said:

Ergo, I don't see folks who prefer to use their limited gaming time to play games on their completed boards with finished terrain and completed, painted miniatures as somehow depriving others, nor do I see them in any way negatively judging those who would prefer to play the game with partially painted, unpainted, or even proxy figures. To each their own, let everyone go off and enjoy their games of Legion as they see fit.

It's all in your approach man. There's not seeking out games that don't meet that, or simply avoiding games that don't reach that. Then there's

" I don't play games against opponents with unpainted hordes."

Are you (for example) hanging out at an FLGS Legion open gaming night but refusing anyone who isn't fully painted or are you just not engaging with your community to begin with?

One of those approaches is being a rude elitist. The other is not.

1 hour ago, Zrob314 said:

Maybe.

You post your stuff anywhere?

Nope, but here's my bolt action terrain, for example ?

This is the kind of level I am used to play. It is not perfect, but I really work a lot on it, there's a lot of effort here. When I see tables with unpainted terrain over a mat or grey minis, i can't help feeling proud of what I achieve

Agree. Dropping out of this before it gets locked. This whole paint-bomb is perfectly illustrating how strangers get along better in person than online or behind the wheel.

Well, if you want to compete at Worlds, apparently you'd better paint, because the Adepticon guidelines for the High Command Invitational require painted armies with at least 3 colors.

2 hours ago, Hawkstrike said:

Well, if you want to compete at Worlds, apparently you'd better paint, because the Adepticon guidelines for the High Command Invitational require painted armies with at least 3 colors.

Thank goodness, following in the common footsteps of most other tabletop skirmish/war games. Most hosts for GW games require tabletop standard paint, and I've played in several Blood Bowl leagues and tourneys that all required tabletop standard painted teams. The few Guildball events I've seen have also required painted teams. Warmahordes seems to vary a bit, with some events requiring painted stuff but some not.

Glad to see Adepticon is going the classy route and requiring painting. Now, maybe my forces can join in!

20 minutes ago, AllWingsStandyingBy said:

Thank goodness, following in the common footsteps of most other tabletop skirmish/war games. Most hosts for GW games require tabletop standard paint, and I've played in several Blood Bowl leagues and tourneys that all required tabletop standard painted teams. Warmahordes seems to very a bit too, with some events requiring painted stuff but some not.

Glad to see Adepticon is going the classy route and requiring painting. Now, maybe my forces can join in and not have to sully themselves against the unpainted masses. Hehe.

That is literally the opposite of classy in its classical meaning.

8 hours ago, Hawkstrike said:

painted armies with at least 3 colors.

How?