PDA

View Full Version : Worst studio painted army?



txamil
08-10-2009, 04:51
I think the new skaven might be the worst painted studio army I've ever seen. It like 'eavy Metal circa 1985.

Sergeant Uriel Ventris
08-10-2009, 04:59
I think the new skaven might be the worst painted studio army I've ever seen. It like 'eavy Metal circa 1985.

Well, that's strange.

jtw1n
08-10-2009, 05:15
I have to say the budget cuts as of late at GW have definitely hit the pay for studio painters. Looking through the Lotr line and many of the new wolves and other pieces the paint skill and detail are completely lacking.

Devil Tree
08-10-2009, 06:49
If things are so bad, then maybe GW could start displaying the armies of private players in White Dwarf and the new Army Books. I’m sure there'd be no lack of volunteers. Anyways, I don’t really care that much for the Heavy Metal Team's work. I’m not saying they aren’t any good, just that the official paint jobs seem so uninspiring.

Ward.
08-10-2009, 07:15
I think the more realistic paint jobs (realistic as in what little timmy can hope to achieve with his 5 colours and ghetto brush) are a smart move.

That being said, skaven are typically a crappier looking army, just because brown is a hard colour to inspire with.

StormCrow
08-10-2009, 07:38
I'd say lizardmen, only because i don't get the whole bright blue aesthetic. That said i think the 'eavy metal painters are amazing, as demonstrated by their masterclass articles in white dwarf (consistently the best article every month, bar none)

Waaagh Grignak
08-10-2009, 07:45
The chaos warriors army from the "shudders" Red Era... that was just crap

plantagenet
08-10-2009, 09:25
Where is a picture of the whole new Skaven army? The units I have seen look very good. Due to there background however they are always goign to be a darker colour scheme.

txamil
08-10-2009, 14:37
The skaven, of any army- needs to be way grittier and mean.

I like the models actually, so it will be fun to see what players do.

Midevil216
08-10-2009, 14:37
The chaos warriors army from the "shudders" Red Era... that was just crap

Yeah, I agree. Back in that era they painted everything red. I remember the red chaos warriors, and the red armoured orcs & goblins also. Man those were horrible.

The vintage "Glam Band" looking wood elves were pretty bad also. Modle wise and paint wise.

Lewis
08-10-2009, 14:44
Not WFB, but undoubtedly the Space Wolves are below par. There's even mould lines on one of the bikers. I find VC a bit unispiring if still very technically strong.

theloniouskrunk
08-10-2009, 14:59
I'd say VCs - Great models but somehow painted bland. I miss the more colourful era of WD, old school vivid green Orcs and Wood elves, loads of bright purple for the Undead.

Looks like they may have understated the new Skaven too, but they're still a hell of a lot better than I can paint!

Tokamak
08-10-2009, 15:38
Vampire counts.

brawnyman1989
08-10-2009, 15:45
The new Space Wolves don't do anything for me...

Bregalad
08-10-2009, 17:41
Vampire Counts.

Nephilim of Sin
09-10-2009, 03:45
I remember the trend starting around the time of Collector's Range Orcs, but I cannot pin-point it exactly. All I know is that when I pulled up the new Skaven character that is much hated, Mistress Sin commented on how cartoony the paint-job was (but, not the model).

The worst offender for me (which I raised in the Skaven Thread), is Azhag;

http://www.games-workshop.com/gws/catalog/productDetail.jsp?catId=cat50031&prodId=prod30012a

If you look at the close-up details magnified (or, well, close-up :p), the painting is nothing like it used to be. Whatever it is, it doesn't look 'Eavy Metal at all.

The paint jobs do remind me of the old Red Period, except during that time they did make more of an effort to make sure that there was enough blending. I am almost expecting Goblin Green bases and drybrushed flock to make a comeback at this point.

venus_redscar
09-10-2009, 04:37
I like the new Skaven paint job. It actually got me to look at the army. The old models and paint job really turned me off to them.

sulla
09-10-2009, 09:35
I would vote either lizards (turquiose? Bleurgh) or Ogres, just because the greenish hue, coming so soon after the shrek movies was really tacky to me.

Still, bad as they are, at least they are not like the 'red phase' citadel miniatures were going through when i first started collecting.

Grupax
09-10-2009, 09:47
you guys have to be kidding me... I think they're all top notch, not GD-quality but stunning nontheless, especially considering the tight scedual by wich they have to paint them... those guys must definatly have some perseverence to paint entire armies to that quality.

scarletsquig
09-10-2009, 10:22
Tyranids are pretty bad, the white and purple scheme makes them look like they're made out of some sort of spongey nougat.

The old bone/red scheme was much better.

mrtn
09-10-2009, 10:32
I'm adverse to the light blue lizardmen.
I also think that the current Empire army is boring, I'd like much more different colours, not a red/white monotone (well, duotone, then ;)) all across.

Baggers
09-10-2009, 10:40
From chatting to the Eavy Metal team, I know for a fact that most of the units are painted to a decent standard. Better than gamers standard but not as good as Golden Deamon.
Generals and the like tend to get better attention. I am not however so keen on the Tomb Kings, just bone and blue. Boring.

Fjoergyn
09-10-2009, 12:10
Er... I remember, somewhere in time, a gnoblar army was shown in a WD. It hurt my eyes. Argh, I donīt know if it was a Studio army, but was horrible...

Warlord Ghazak Gazhkull
09-10-2009, 12:16
Er... I remember, somewhere in time, a gnoblar army was shown in a WD. It hurt my eyes. Argh, I donīt know if it was a Studio army, but was horrible...

if that is the army that was showed with the gnoblar list it wasn't from the studio.

Greetz

Daniel36
09-10-2009, 12:18
You mean the green ones? Yeah, those were pretty bad.

I agree with many here that the blue Lizardmen are pretty bad... I really dislike them... There's so much more you can do with lizards.

Someone here mentioned that, now that the standards seem to "drop", hopefully more "player" armies will be shown in the WD. Those articles were always my favourite, and I stopped buying WD's now, since they really have nothing interesting for me anymore. It's just month after month of recycling pictures of what is often the most uninspiring way of painting whatever army they are showing. Sigh.

It's time for more magazines like Firebase.

mweaver
09-10-2009, 12:44
I don't care for the gray/green skin tones of the ogres or the bright blue for the lizzards. So thise are my votes. It isn't the quality of the painting, just the choice of base colors.

Come to think of it, while I like the new wood elves a lot, the main studio army uses too bright a green for my taste.

Nephilim of Sin
09-10-2009, 13:20
From chatting to the Eavy Metal team, I know for a fact that most of the units are painted to a decent standard. Better than gamers standard but not as good as Golden Deamon.

I think that is why I actually dislike the paintjobs as much as I do. 'Decent Standard' is one thing, but I remember when 'Eavy Metal was the pinnacle of painting, and Golden Daemon painters could only wish they could paint that well. They are definitely a talented bunch, but it just seems that everything is done with more 'shortcuts' to give the illusion of a well painted piece. I don't blame the team itself for this, though, as I imagine it has to do with time constraints and the direction the higher-ups want to go with. It doesn't seem right to see armies better painted on the random Warseer log than you see with the 'Eavy Metal and Studio armies.



Someone here mentioned that, now that the standards seem to "drop", hopefully more "player" armies will be shown in the WD. Those articles were always my favourite, and I stopped buying WD's now, since they really have nothing interesting for me anymore. It's just month after month of recycling pictures of what is often the most uninspiring way of painting whatever army they are showing. Sigh.

It's time for more magazines like Firebase.

Player armies were always a great part of WD, especially when you got to seem them compared to the Studio armies. A lot of times they had some very unique and characterful conversions, which of course can't be had without paying a lot since they closed down the bitz service.

Jedi152
09-10-2009, 13:24
High Elves.

Take a look in the army book, specifically at the mages and nobles. The highlighting is chunky, obvious and really not up to 'Eavy Metal standards.

As for actual colours, turquoise Lizardmen look daft.

Baggers
09-10-2009, 13:26
They are definitely a talented bunch, but it just seems that everything is done with more 'shortcuts' to give the illusion of a well painted piece.

They guy who did the Ork army in the Tale of 40k Gamers, said as much about the studio army. Its all shortcuts.

Grimstonefire
09-10-2009, 14:58
5th ed Dwarfs... *shudders* I'm not a fan of the Ogre Kingdoms painting either.

Trigger36
09-10-2009, 20:16
I have no problem with the Lizardmen. It's pretty hard to find color schemes for them.

The High Elves are the worst. Look at the core units, somebody went a little too crazy with the shading.

Jedi152
09-10-2009, 20:19
http://www.games-workshop.com/gws/catalog/productDetail.jsp?catId=cat1300295&prodId=prod790848

Check out the blues on the noble. Very poor highlighting.

Possibly a newer 'Eavy Metal member. There's a new one that i'm not keen on who mainly relies on a spray gun and heavy washes.

CraftworldsRus
10-10-2009, 05:56
http://www.games-workshop.com/gws/catalog/productDetail.jsp?catId=cat1300295&prodId=prod790848

Check out the blues on the noble. Very poor highlighting.

Possibly a newer 'Eavy Metal member. There's a new one that i'm not keen on who mainly relies on a spray gun and heavy washes.

Oh, I don't think its that bad. As an aside, I never noticed the GW page has faded background images. I just spent five minutes trying to wipe said images off my laptop screen, I though it was a hand print.