PDA

View Full Version : Not impressed by the way armies look on the table top



magnificent*
15-11-2005, 05:53
My problem is that a like very few minatures and armies just don't look that impressive at all, if a minature looks good it generally only does so up close.
Is anyone else like this?
I like converting though.

Slappy
15-11-2005, 06:02
I think it's because the scale is so small. From a standing point, the models all look the same.

starlight
15-11-2005, 06:29
Unless you play all vehicles, Ogryn heavy, Oblit/Daemon heavy or the like.

Personally, I like both looks. From a distance it looks like an *army*, but close up the details really come out. Neither is better, just the way it is.:D

sulla
15-11-2005, 12:05
My problem is that a like very few minatures and armies just don't look that impressive at all, if a minature looks good it generally only does so up close.
Is anyone else like this?
I like converting though.

Get your eyes tested?:evilgrin:

Personally, I think 20 ork stormboys look good on the table even if painted to a fairly basic, one highlight stage...same goes for most horde units.

Grimshawl
15-11-2005, 13:46
I've seen a few armies that you might have liked then, they were modeled and painted to apeal from a distance more than up close, I saw one army of orks I think it was modeled after Mars attacks style martians with big brains outside their heads and huge eyes, it was easy to see from acrosst the room his models glaring at you, I liked it, I think he even had big brains modeled on his kans/dreads as well.
I saw another army done up as smurfs at one point, they might qualify as well.

Chaos and Evil
15-11-2005, 15:10
I've seen a few armies that you might have liked then, they were modeled and painted to apeal from a distance more than up close, I saw one army of orks I think it was modeled after Mars attacks style martians with big brains outside their heads and huge eyes, it was easy to see from acrosst the room his models glaring at you, I liked it, I think he even had big brains modeled on his kans/dreads as well.
I saw another army done up as smurfs at one point, they might qualify as well.

I think they'd look funny rather than like an army.

I tend to see WFB armies as better looking en masse than 40k ones.

sigur
15-11-2005, 15:30
I agree with you C&E. WHFB armies definitly look better as a whole.

Another problem I see nowadays is that people don't make use of bright colors. Tabletop armies desperately need strong, contrasting colors to look good on the tabletop. That's a fact.

Hlokk
15-11-2005, 15:40
I tend to see WFB armies as better looking en masse than 40k ones.
I completely disagree. I like 40k armies more simply because you can convert individual models more without worrying about them ranking up. I mean, you can't have models swinging their swords out to a side that much. In WHFB the majority of models seem to beholding their weapons up over their heads or down by their sides, which lacks a bit of the dynamisism of 40k models. (THis is the exact reason I did all skirmishing clan eshin)

@Sigur. I suspect the reason people use dark colours is that their easier to paint. From a personal point of view, I'd love to do an imperial fists army, but there is no way in hell I am wasting my time painting 3/4 coats of yellow when I can do a darker marine colour scheme in a 1/4 of the time.

I agree with you though, bright colours do look nice in 40k. I've painted my tau camo green and enchanted blue (It does work quite well as well)

cerealkiller195
15-11-2005, 16:14
thats a good point, but in fantasyi dig the whole ranked up feel. Sure there are a few armies that even ignore that with plenty of skirmishers and what not. But i like seeing ranked infantry.

Starchild
15-11-2005, 16:59
My problem is that a like very few minatures and armies just don't look that impressive at all, if a minature looks good it generally only does so up close.How long have you been playing the game?

During the better part of the 90's, Mike McVey was GW's miniature painting poster boy. Every army featured in White Dwarf was painted to his ultra-high standards because he supervised the 'Eavy Metal team.

The painting standards for White Dwarf have been lowered because Mike McVey and his cronies were intimidating potential customers with their incredible paint jobs. Many would-be players just didn't feel that they could possibly match such talent, so they stayed out of the hobby.

So yes, the armies you're seeing don't look very impressive, but my point is that they can look impressive if enough time and effort is put into painting. Take a look at some old issues of White Dwarf (especially in the issues 180 to 200 range) and you'll see what I mean!

Snakebite
15-11-2005, 22:59
I felt that way for a long time. It's most of the reason that I've been involved in the hobby for nearly twenty years and still do not have an appreciable army!!

Insane Psychopath
16-11-2005, 08:21
Well I thing 99% of armies I see are really cool. Here some Photos from the UK GT heat 1 I took

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v473/ironwarriors/insane%20psycopath/24.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v473/ironwarriors/insane%20psycopath/25.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v473/ironwarriors/insane%20psycopath/9.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v473/ironwarriors/insane%20psycopath/DSC00128.jpg

This is mainly why I enter the UK GT as there are so many really nicely painted armies there. Unlike my old gaming club, man seeing armies that never been undercoated & they player use the same list for 3 year solid. I am happy the no longer around as it got very boring with only me & 2 other people out of 30 who ether change there list or armies.

But yes I find there are many great 40k armies out there, people just got to look around.

IP

damz451
16-11-2005, 22:01
my bleached bone deathwing army looks pretty gd on the table, although in reality it wld be stupid to have bright colours ona uniform since it'd make u easy targets

GamesmasterZ
16-11-2005, 22:13
Wait...

Mike McVey is the reason the White Dwarf sucks now?

Man...

I used to love looking at the pictures of the beautiful armies in the WD...

sigur
16-11-2005, 22:17
my bleached bone deathwing army looks pretty gd on the table, although in reality it wld be stupid to have bright colours ona uniform since it'd make u easy targets

That's not a point if you look at 40k and tabletop wargaming in general.:)

Welcome to warseer. Please try to use proper english expressions and avoid "text speech" ("wld" unstead of "would", "u" instead of "you", ...) or how they call it. Just leave yourself some time while posting.

Frodo34x
16-11-2005, 22:26
Speaking of bright schemes, I'm planning an army featuring at least 50 guys and 2 tanks in bright green.

+_Void_Crusaders_+
17-11-2005, 01:08
I enjoy all styles of armies. I like a guard army in red/orange camo and then I like a real drab and dark green. The first is a bold cool scheme but the second gives you a despairing feel of how dark it would be to be a guardsmen and have to fight in the wars. I think everyone should take pride in their armies and paint them to their own standards. I love to see good conversions as well as do them myself (I have a militia IG army so there's plenty of room for conversions).

I find that armies look good on the table up to the 3000 point value. Then it's almost like each one is just a "unit" instead of individual models. I also find that these are the best games... I like my games large, and the amries small... if you get what I'm getting at getting... I know that you know that... Nevermind, I'll stop now

Inquisitor_Pink
17-11-2005, 15:17
In my Opinion the smaller the amount of miniatures you can deploy the cooler it looks. Infact me and a friend have competitions to see who can field the smallest amount of models in a two thousand point game. My deathwing army is winning. It starts with four models on the table 2 landraiders and 2 dreds and It looks as cool as Mr T. Plus you don't have to take hundreds of Guard out of your carry case only to have them killed..

High point armies the Lazy mans Choice
It's not quantity it's quality:D

hootier
17-11-2005, 15:57
The one step that makes the most difference to me in how I like an army on the table is the bases. For both my own models and those of an opponent, they never "come together" as a real army until their bases are done.

Commissar von Toussaint
18-11-2005, 03:51
Taste is obviously an individual thing.

I like the way fantasy units rank up and look ranked and disciplined. Whoever said they lacked dynamism is, well, just plain wrong.

There is something cool about a hedge of spears or a shield wall bristling with swords. People need to remember that the look of a ranked unit is different, but it doesn't have to be passive.

For 40k, I prefer a darker look. I don't mean whips, chains and black skulls, I agree that this is waaay overdone. I mean a more realistic tactical paint job.

My marines are painted field gray and have very subdued colors. Individually they look pretty dull, but when you field them in squads on terrain, they look pretty damn cool. They actually blend into the terrain so well we have a hard time seeing them to figure out LOS!

Now my chaos marines are different. They are hideously bright but very rough. My chaos tanks have graffitti all over them because, well, they're chaos.

Each army has a different look and that's what is great about the game.

Khaine's Messenger
18-11-2005, 04:01
Is anyone else like this?

Yeah. The best-looking massed forces are usually the ones stacked on their own carry-trays that have scenery that complements the army (like the "I've got your rending right here!" Ultras tray in a recent US WD) in addition to a backdrop that would make it look good in a photograph. On the tabletop...not so much. The only things that particularly stand out or look good are vehicles or troops in odd scales or who are painted in violently clashing colorschemes (I'm looking at you, Eldar), and even then, once you get everyone into btb or similar, the verisimilitude just breaks down (say, like bikers or "I'm shooting, I'm shooting!" Fire Warriors) and more in general, the differing colorschemes helps you pick out goofball painting mistakes (because an army all painted alike will encourage you to sorta fill in the gaps).

That, and I find that smaller armies don't look all that impressive on the tabletop (from a distance), no matter how awesomely they're modelled. Large forces, like Orks or Nids, are just cool....and simply more reminiscent of the art that usually accompanies codices! If you see a wall of chitin or a horde of green, you just feel the urge to scream "WAAAAAAAAGH!" or make a snide remark about Raid--and you can do it from several tables away. Of course, if you're playing a game with Escalation, the conflict looks even less impressive....

Just my thoughts.