PDA

View Full Version : The devil is in the details...



EmperorNorton
10-01-2012, 09:48
I have been pondering about something lately.
Despite all the things you can criticize about them, I doubt many people will dispute that GW have been releasing a lot of impressive miniatures in recent years. Especially their plastic kits seem to have taken a huge step forward and Finecast is supposed to offer the potential to hold better detail than metal.
On the one hand that is a positive development; miniatures today are probably better than they have ever been before (singular examples notwithstanding).
On the other hand I keep wondering if this development is going in a direction that benefits your average gamer.
Seeing the new releases (not only by GW, but many other manufacturers, too) presented with a professional paintjob often triggers the so-called shiny new model syndrome (with me at least), only for disillusion to settle in once I have the miniature in hand. I'm not a great painter, but I consider my painting to be decent after years of practicing. Yet I find myself thinking "How am I supposed to paint that adequately?" with an increasing frequency.
We all know that a lot of miniatures never see any paint at all, or an undercoat at the most. Many people don't even try to get their armies painted, many more can't really do these high levels of detail justice. And still they are entrapped by it. On the news sites I frequent more simplistic miniatures are even regularly ridiculed, usually in no uncertain terms which the anonymity of the internet seems to encourage. And often I'm wondering if those who are so dismissive can back up their elitism with paintjobs to match.

I'd like to hear what others think about this.
Will this trend continue? Will miniatures get ever more detailed and delicate?
Do you feel like this is going in the right direction?
Does every guy in the fifth rank of your eighth unit have to have an embroidered handkerchief showing from his waistcoat pocket or would you feel better served with a little less detail?
What does look better, a simple mini with an adequate paintjob or a highly detailed mini painted by somebody whose skill does not match their ambition?

Hellebore
10-01-2012, 10:01
Sounds like a conflict of theory and practice. I've had things i think should make a game better only to discover that in practice they just slow it down.

Similarly in theory having a model with lots of extra detail etc is great, but in practice it's really fiddly.

I suppose it depends on how profitable fiddly is. If the allure of really good models outweighs the reality of actually painting them. It's interesting that miniatures are effectively bucking the 'user friendly' trend most industries are following. Perhaps it has something to do with the niche it's in, obssessiveness etc being a common trait.

I was thinking about a way to make pre painted plastics the other day with out actually prepainting them. the idea was to make highly modular plastic minis where different parts are cast in different coloured plastics. The pieces would be push fit so you didn't even need to glue them. I'm talking bandoliers cast in brown that peg into a hole in the chest, boots cast in black that plug into the legs and so on.

Basically the model comes in colour coded sprues and you put them together as is. Perhaps a devlan mud style wash over the top, but you could keep them as you buy them.

With the kind of sprue breakup GW uses, where the computer cuts the models into all sort of wierd shapes to eliminate undercuts and fit everything on the sprue, you could probably make a simple soldier in several different coloured parts fairly easily. the other advantage is that you can still paint them no problem if you want to, because they'd be cast in proper styrene and not that horribly bendy plastic they make prepaints in.

It's an interesting concept, user friendly models. GW have made paints that are even easier to use, foundations and washes that take a lot of the chore out of model painting so even mediocre painters can still produce a fairly good result. But they haven't really made the models easier to paint. No matter how easy it is to apply a wash, if you can't paint the tiny perfectly sculpted epulets on a model, then the wash will avail you nought.

Perhaps there should be some beginner painting tutorials that show how to paint a model well rather than in detail. They could recommend parts of the model you shouldn't bother painting, like the epulets. leave them the colour of the fatigues.

Perhaps if we were given a sense that you didn't HAVE to paint every single tiny feature on the model you'd see less models with paint splotches everywhere in an attempt to get everything.

Hellebore

snake-eyez
10-01-2012, 10:05
I'm content with my tabletop standard level of painting. I'm not going to follow any dellusion that I can paint something as it appears in a WD or codex, but I can do a neat, clean and simple paint job that looks fine. Everything is painted within the lines, theres no brush strokes to be seen, the paint job isn't thick, and many different colours are used.

I think the bigger problem is the rise in grey hordes about. That makes it more boring.

Matt at miniwargaming.com spoke about his new big necrons army he painted himself (quite nice too in my opinion) and said that less skilled painters (including himself) should just be content with tabletop standard, rather than stressing that its not good enough to go in a painting competition.

EDIT:

As Osbad said (next post down), more detail actually makes it easier to paint.

GW washes are great for instant shading and the extra detail on models makes highlighting and drybrushing easier too. Overall, its is just a colouring in task. I think my AOBR captain looks pretty good simply because its such a high quality model that if you paint it carefully and use a few washes and highlights, anyone with limited painting skill like me can produce a nice looking model (it took 4 hours though, but as a single HQ character, I actually enjoyed painting it).

Osbad
10-01-2012, 10:08
To be honest, *more* detail makes a model easier to paint as far as I am concerned. Texture makes simple techniques such as washing and drybrushing very effective. The models I find hardest to paint are ones with large, flat surface areas (such as Space Marine armour), or simple clothing and skin.

EmperorNorton
10-01-2012, 10:22
Sounds like a conflict of theory and practice. I've had things i think should make a game better only to discover that in practice they just slow it down.

Similarly in theory having a model with lots of extra detail etc is great, but in practice it's really fiddly.

I suppose it depends on how profitable fiddly is. If the allure of really good models outweighs the reality of actually painting them. It's interesting that miniatures are effectively bucking the 'user friendly' trend most industries are following. Perhaps it has something to do with the niche it's in, obssessiveness etc being a common trait.
Thank you for once again saying very concisely what I was trying to convey.



To be honest, *more* detail makes a model easier to paint as far as I am concerned. Texture makes simple techniques such as washing and drybrushing very effective. The models I find hardest to paint are ones with large, flat surface areas (such as Space Marine armour), or simple clothing and skin.
To a degree I agree with that.
Some detail will help, but at a certain point detail seems to become an end in itself.

Brother Loki
10-01-2012, 10:24
I agree with Osbad, mini painting is essentially colouring in - the more detail has been sculpted the easier it is, as the more work has been done for you.

IJW
10-01-2012, 10:40
I used to feel much the same about 'Eavy Metal paint jobs back in the Eighties. :(

The amount and fineness of surface detail on models is something that goes in and out of fashion over the years anyway - look at the original Adeptus Mechanicus models:
http://www.solegends.com/citcat89/c894011impguard-h.htm

The bottom right AdMech was literally covered in detail all over.

lbecks
10-01-2012, 10:56
I'm a miniatures fan first and foremost so i love all the new models. If I was a tabletop player first i'd probably be annoyed by all the little tiny jutting out parts that could break.


I suppose it depends on how profitable fiddly is. If the allure of really good models outweighs the reality of actually painting them. It's interesting that miniatures are effectively bucking the 'user friendly' trend most industries are following. Perhaps it has something to do with the niche it's in, obssessiveness etc being a common trait.

I think the reason for crazy models is that the designers themselves are artists first and not gamers first. So artistically they want to push the limits of what they can do. Jes Goodwin loves tons of parts and having modelling options. I love Jes Goodwin for loving tons of parts but i've seen gamers go "i hate having all these parts, i wish it was simple."


I was thinking about a way to make pre painted plastics the other day with out actually prepainting them. the idea was to make highly modular plastic minis where different parts are cast in different coloured plastics. The pieces would be push fit so you didn't even need to glue them. I'm talking bandoliers cast in brown that peg into a hole in the chest, boots cast in black that plug into the legs and so on.

Basically the model comes in colour coded sprues and you put them together as is. Perhaps a devlan mud style wash over the top, but you could keep them as you buy them.

With the kind of sprue breakup GW uses, where the computer cuts the models into all sort of wierd shapes to eliminate undercuts and fit everything on the sprue, you could probably make a simple soldier in several different coloured parts fairly easily. the other advantage is that you can still paint them no problem if you want to, because they'd be cast in proper styrene and not that horribly bendy plastic they make prepaints in.


This is pretty much what a gundam kit is like.
Sprue Pic: http://www.escalemodels.com/forums/uploads/post-2-1125835501.jpg
There are different colored parts and clear parts all on one sprue.
If you have no model experience whatsoever and buy a 1/144 Real Grade kit or a 1/100 Master Grade kit, put it together, and black line it, it looks very impressive.

EmperorNorton
10-01-2012, 11:01
I agree with Osbad, mini painting is essentially colouring in - the more detail has been sculpted the easier it is, as the more work has been done for you.

Take a look at the Space Marines for example. Their character models are very similar to the standard Marines as they are wearing the same armour, but they are covered in heaps of additional bling. Do you mean to argue that they are easier to paint because of that?

As I said, some detail that is sculpted on will make painting easier, but I have quite a few minis on my painting table with details that are literally the width of a hair. Painting inside the lines becomes more and more difficult when faced with something like that.

Wil Grand
10-01-2012, 11:18
Take a look at the Space Marines for example. Their character models are very similar to the standard Marines as they are wearing the same armour, but they are covered in heaps of additional bling. Do you mean to argue that they are easier to paint because of that?

As I said, some detail that is sculpted on will make painting easier, but I have quite a few minis on my painting table with details that are literally the width of a hair. Painting inside the lines becomes more and more difficult when faced with something like that.

Obviously not but the extra pop can make your mediocre flat panel painting look good and a space marine is harder to paint well than, say and Empire Spearman. You're tripping up on the difference in meaning between detail and intricateness.

The thing is, this trend is only an issue within the sci-fi/fantasy genre. In historical and modern 28mm things are getting better and better and remain just as easy if not easier to paint than older less detailed models. More realistic scaling and proportions, finer detailing and cast quality make the world of difference to how well you can pull something off.

Osbad
10-01-2012, 11:37
Regarding the "Bling on a Space Marine", in general terms I would say actually, to the standard/style I like to paint, yes it possibly would. Think: "wash". For the example cited I could possibly paint the cuff a contrasting base colour and fill the filigree with a dark wash.

I don't go for 'Eavy Metal standard mind. After wasted years chasing that sort of standard I realised it wasn't worth the effort, and for the last 7 or 8 years I have contended myself with "decent tabletop standard".

To illustrate the kind of thing I mean, look at this Zombie Wolfen I painted:

http://images.dakkadakka.com/gallery/2011/12/13/304563_sm-.jpg (http://www.dakkadakka.com/gallery/304563-.html)

Or these Zombie cavalry:

http://images.dakkadakka.com/gallery/2011/12/12/304314_sm-.jpg (http://www.dakkadakka.com/gallery/304314-.html)

You can get very good results simply by block painting neatly and washing and drybrushing: IF there is enough detail on the model. If there is less detail, then the model doesn't pop in the same way, and you have to do stuff like "layering" to get an interesting looking model and that *is* difficult! To get some idea of the difference compare the vampire lord's skirt with his filigreed armour in the first picture. Both were base coated, washed and drybrushed. The armour looks good (IMHO) but the skirt looks a bit "meh".

It is counterintuitive, I concur, and I have to admit that these (and other) Rackham models lanquished in my lead pile for years before I plucked up courage to paint them. But having done so, I was pleased I had.

Deadmanwade
10-01-2012, 13:48
I am not a great painter and I probably never will be. I dont have the patience for it to be honest. I do however, like assembling model kits and having lots of options on the sprue with lots of cool little details is great for me.
BUT.....
I recently got some of the new Necron models and I have to say that I am unimpressed to say the least. The new Ghost Ark, whilst not difficult to build, is rather tedious. Having to paint it subsection by subsection is not the way I would have preferred to do it. Likewise the new lychguard and immortals are a pain. Each part has to be put on a specific model and the separate hands and arms on the lychguard need pinning or they just snap off again.
The finished models do look great, but I dont want to spend twice as long on assembling them as I do on any other model.

Hellebore
10-01-2012, 14:03
Seems to me you guys are talking about texture vs detail. A textured surface is great for drybrushing which is a fairly simple way to add highlights to something and/or applying a wash that will sink into the cracks. A textureless surface requires more hand control to blend highlights.

A high detail model isn't necessarily easier to paint if that detail isn't also an extensive texture. You can't do coat trims, epulets, gems etc in that style because they aren't all of one piece.

Hellebore

The bearded one
10-01-2012, 14:12
I fancy myself a decent painter so I'm giddy with excitement for every new model.

spaint2k
10-01-2012, 14:17
Seems to me you guys are talking about texture vs detail. A textured surface is great for drybrushing which is a fairly simple way to add highlights to something and/or applying a wash that will sink into the cracks. A textureless surface requires more hand control to blend highlights.


What Hellebore said. Textured surfaces can be a real delight because they paint up so quickly and effortlessly. Fiddly little details like purity seals, scrolls, gems, swirly things placed at random and so on simply cause inconvenience and need a lot more effort to look good. Contrast Vanguard with regular assault marines for an example.

FWIW, I feel that the more random detail a model is festooned with, the harder it'll be to get it looking good with a basic paintjob. Most upsettingly, the same miniature will take MUCH more time just to get to an adequate stage, compared with his less-detailed counterparts that may even end up looking better.

Hellebore
10-01-2012, 14:20
One of the most difficult surfaces imo is a highly textured one that also has lots of detail on it as well, like a fur cloak with chains and talismans hanging across it. You have to try and dry brush the texture and pick out the detail separately, which can be difficult.

Hellebore

Mallo
10-01-2012, 15:19
I'm content with my tabletop standard level of painting. I'm not going to follow any dellusion that I can paint something as it appears in a WD or codex.....

....less skilled painters (including himself) should just be content with tabletop standard, rather than stressing that its not good enough to go in a painting competition.



I'd like to agree with you totally BUT it seems that a well painted army is almost necessary to enjoy GW wargaming to its full. I don't know whats its like now in stores(been out the hobby for many years, only returned a few months ago yet still not played any games) but back in the 90's my then local store was 'no greys on the table' and the club was greys allowed if they were a new unit but the next time you brought them they had to be painted.

I would like to take part in a tournament this year or next year as I have promised myself to start playing again asap. But I play goblins and the amount of minis I need to paint is astonishing but I dont get on with GW washes and Im not a fan of the foundation paints I have used so far (the greens are horrid)

I could paint up the gobbos to a very basic standard in a few weeks but they wouldn't look great (to my standards) and I would want to strip and repaint almost all them.

As a lot of tourneys seem to take painted minis into account for scores and I wouldn't want to show up to one with anything less then what I thought was a decent table top standard. I might not be playing to win, but I would give it my best after all the effort of getting to one! :D

So I keep finding myself stick the minis out the way once again as I agonize over the awful paint jobs! At this rate I may just have a single painted mini and an undercoated army by 2025!

I would love to crack thorough a nice pile of minis and get some confidence back so I could go back to painting the more fun stuff, but I dare not touch the fun minis as every RnF I have tried so far is either now in the dettol jar of doom or at the back of the shelf of shame (its too high up to see it from any part of the room!)

I love the details in the models now a days, but not all of it needs to be painted,sometimes less can be more, and Im much more a fan of unique, gritty, and well put together armies rather then the so called perfect 'eavy metal minis look. I see them as no more then what they are ment to be, 'adverts' for the minis. Give me a nice dark grimy dry brushed army over them anyday! Just wish I could get my paint to do what I wanted it too as well!

de Selby
10-01-2012, 16:36
I'm never going to start asking for less detail on my figs. Actually there are a number of things that a sculptor can do to make a figure more 'realistic' that don't make it harder to paint; better proportions and posing, textures and flowing robes... it's only when a model is festooned with repetitive skulls or blood drops or something that it can get tiring to paint.

I'm a fairly mediocre painter but I'm constantly looking for ways to improve the results/effort ratio on my figs, and so keep pace with the improving sculpts. I've noticed that some high level painters have been talking about the same idea recently (there was a Blanchitsu article about this).

grumabeth
10-01-2012, 16:50
I love painting models but i find cinstantly dishartened by the models i never feel im doing themjustoce it is a shame but i find as long as im proud of my work im happy. though it does put me off starting a new army as im worried i cant make a good looking army

Max Jet
10-01-2012, 17:54
Really?

Really? Like for real?

GW Miniatures are still years behind the detail on a mediocre historical kit and people are saying they are to difficult to build or paint?

Serious question here, REALLY?

http://www.missing-lynx.com/gallery/german/images/flak36wtc_1.jpg

Excuse my tone but this just enhances my believe, that any Wargamer shouldn't start as such but rather jump from the model kit hobby instead of other more gaming oriented hobbies.

snake-eyez
10-01-2012, 19:41
I'd like to agree with you totally BUT it seems that a well painted army is almost necessary to enjoy GW wargaming to its full.

I guess its both a matter of personal preference, and what you consider "tabletop standard".

While I know I'll never win any painting awards, I feel my minis are at a level where I'm not going to enjoy the game any more by painting them to a higher standard.

EmperorNorton
10-01-2012, 19:43
Really?

Really? Like for real?

GW Miniatures are still years behind the detail on a mediocre historical kit and people are saying they are to difficult to build or paint?

Serious question here, REALLY?

http://www.missing-lynx.com/gallery/german/images/flak36wtc_1.jpg

Excuse my tone but this just enhances my believe, that any Wargamer shouldn't start as such but rather jump from the model kit hobby instead of other more gaming oriented hobbies.


Unless that thing you linked to is of a ridiculously small scale it's not even overly impressive.
But model kits are more or less irrelevant to this discussion anyway.
Painting and modelling in the wargaming hobby is a means to an end whereas in the modelling hobby it's the end in itself.

And to clarify, this thread was posted not only with GW minis in mind. Similar tendencies can be seen in the ranges of many other manufacturers.

mephy77
10-01-2012, 20:19
@ 1st post. its a nice problem to have isn't it? having models with nice paint jobs is something to aspire too. perhaps its the difference between painting an army and a single mini. try and paint an army like the sanguinor and youre fighting a losing battle. try simple dip or whatever and the quality of the kit will make up for it

Max Jet
11-01-2012, 06:19
Unless that thing you linked to is of a ridiculously small scale it's not even overly impressive.
But model kits are more or less irrelevant to this discussion anyway.
Painting and modelling in the wargaming hobby is a means to an end whereas in the modelling hobby it's the end in itself.

And to clarify, this thread was posted not only with GW minis in mind. Similar tendencies can be seen in the ranges of many other manufacturers.

Well it consists of about 4 times as many parts as your average Wargaming vehicle kit, if not more. And this is the bottom of the norm rather than exception. Additionaly it contains details as sculpted bevel seams.

Point is, as I see it the Wargaming hobbies on the 1/48 scale seem to get the most enjoyment out of the building and painting aspect. Why else would you play that unpractical scale? 1/144 or 1/300 seems much much more appropriate for actual wargaming. Yet you chose the 1/48 scale for a reason and that reason is the building and painting aspect. It is only understandable, that companies try to focus on that aspect rather than something else, is it not?

Wil Grand
11-01-2012, 12:48
28mm is 1:56 ;)

The difference is that, from experience, to paint an AFV to that level requires years of skill with an airbrush and about, what, 9 hours to complete assuming you build from the box?
A single 28mm miniature to the same level will cost the same in time but you have about 90 of his mates to go.

This the difference between the 'Eavy Metal team and someone who wins Best Painted Army.

Also speaking from experience, there's a lot more detail on an Immolator kit than on a Tamiya 1:48 AFV so to paint that in the same way with an airbrush, full weathering, etc, standard high end AFV treatment then the Immolator will take much, much longer.

Hellebore
11-01-2012, 12:53
Well it consists of about 4 times as many parts as your average Wargaming vehicle kit, if not more. And this is the bottom of the norm rather than exception. Additionaly it contains details as sculpted bevel seams.

Point is, as I see it the Wargaming hobbies on the 1/48 scale seem to get the most enjoyment out of the building and painting aspect. Why else would you play that unpractical scale? 1/144 or 1/300 seems much much more appropriate for actual wargaming. Yet you chose the 1/48 scale for a reason and that reason is the building and painting aspect. It is only understandable, that companies try to focus on that aspect rather than something else, is it not?

While I agree that most plastic kits have superior detail and texture to GW, it's a little misleading when talking about painting.

An historical war vehicle is not generally covered in individual details that require their own paint schemes they are by and large single blocks of colour and/or camo patterns. So although they may be highly detailed they aren't painted in a highly detailed way. This is probably why historical painters like to spend ages on superrealism with mud splashes, rust stains, soot etc. There isn't much else to paint on the model.

Even modern tanks etc although covered in gubbins are a single shade or perhaps two. Certainly the rivets aren't painted independently (if they even have any), there aren't little glowing lights and switches etc.

As beautiful as the models are, they look IMO quite boring from a painting perspective. A well weathered and modelled one is extremely lifelike, but there are only so many ways you can paint olive green.

Hellebore

Max Jet
11-01-2012, 15:28
As beautiful as the models are, they look IMO quite boring from a painting perspective. A well weathered and modelled one is extremely lifelike, but there are only so many ways you can paint olive green.


o.k. you have fully convinced me. However my point about th scale (is it really 1/56? It doesn't look quite right) still applies.

The reason for choosing 28mm is because you can put much more attention to details and paintings. Frankly it's THE strength of 28mm wargaming and the reason it is prefered by so many people. It surprises me that 10 or 6mm scales get often overlooked. From a primary gaming point of view they are vastly superior.

Wil Grand
11-01-2012, 16:28
o.k. you have fully convinced me. However my point about th scale (is it really 1/56? It doesn't look quite right) still applies.

The reason for choosing 28mm is because you can put much more attention to details and paintings. Frankly it's THE strength of 28mm wargaming and the reason it is prefered by so many people. It surprises me that 10 or 6mm scales get often overlooked. From a primary gaming point of view they are vastly superior.

Actually no. the reason for 28mm is because anything smaller is harder to paint, smaller details, poorer models and just general hard work. Obviously some people like this - in fact MOST people like this. 28mm, 1:56 is actually a sweet spot where the details are easy to see, paint and are not so small you get eyestrain painting them and not so big that you need to be brilliant to produce anything half decent looking.

And the obvious fact is that GW have popularised the scale, people are used to it and it's their games people want to play.

ted1138
11-01-2012, 17:16
I see miniatures as playing pieces, so as long as they are painted, and look like what they are meant to represent, knuff said.:(

mrtn
11-01-2012, 17:17
I'd like to hear what others think about this.
Will this trend continue? Will miniatures get ever more detailed and delicate?
Do you feel like this is going in the right direction?
Does every guy in the fifth rank of your eighth unit have to have an embroidered handkerchief showing from his waistcoat pocket or would you feel better served with a little less detail?
What does look better, a simple mini with an adequate paintjob or a highly detailed mini painted by somebody whose skill does not match their ambition?It seems to me that Mantic is partially shooting for the "simple" nich, with less details and cheaper models. I think there are room for both simple and complex models, I often enjoy painting very simple models, like Heroquest models for example.

Spectrar Ghost
11-01-2012, 17:34
Actually no. the reason for 28mm is because anything smaller is harder to paint, smaller details, poorer models and just general hard work.


This is a common misconception. Small scale models are actually far easier to paint than 35mm. They can be made to look good with nothing but washes and drybrushes.

As for models:

http://www.ghqmodels.com/store/uk98.html

Max Jet
11-01-2012, 17:37
This is a common misconception. Small scale models are actually far easier to paint than 35mm. They can be made to look good with nothing but washes and drybrushes.

Exactly this. I urge everyone to try it out, most misconceptions comes from dragging your 28mm experience onto 6mm or 10mm

Wil Grand
11-01-2012, 17:49
This is a common misconception. Small scale models are actually far easier to paint than 35mm. They can be made to look good with nothing but washes and drybrushes.

As for models:

http://www.ghqmodels.com/store/uk98.html

Right, two things - I've been model painting for twenty years, and I know that 35mm is larger than 28mm. Larger models require more subtle layering, etc.

You're not saying anything that's groundbreaking to the thread 28mm is a sweet spot, smaller need steady brush strokes, larger require more skill, time and technique and are labour intensive. What I'm saying isn't an opinion, it's true.

Smaller scales might "easier" in the way that you can get away with a lot more but the sculpts do suffer so it's easier to give a paintjob that matches when your men look like a plasticine genetic accident.

Like I say, I've painted shedloads of every scale in y time and it's not "common misconception" that painting forty wee men glued to nails one at a time was tedious, hard work and no fun at all and I then had to do basing.

Sorry but 28mm is the sweet spot if you want to paint and not manufacture or do retro 15mm drybrush armies.

Wil Grand
11-01-2012, 17:52
Exactly this. I urge everyone to try it out, most misconceptions comes from dragging your 28mm experience onto 6mm or 10mm

Well in twenty years I've painted everything but apparently I'm a common misconception....

Spectrar Ghost
11-01-2012, 18:05
I'm curious, when was the last time you looked hard at small scale stuff? I ask because there are 6mm models out there that have been mistaken for 28mm. There are some really bad sculpts still available, but the best are CAD designed and are far better than anything GW has ever put out at that scale.

Exodus Wars Royal Infantry (http://www.exoduswars.com/image/B006LM4FN4)
EW Guild Exterminator Heavy Tank Squadron (http://www.exoduswars.com/Guild-Exterminator-Heavy-Tank-Squadron/dp/B006LM3EQ8?ie=UTF8&id=Guild%20Exterminator%20Heavy%20Tank%20Squadron&field_product_site_launch_date_utc=-1y&field_availability=-1&field_browse=1479862031&searchSize=12&searchNodeID=1479862031&searchPage=2&class=quickView&refinementHistory=subjectbin%2Cprice&searchRank=salesrank)

I've got very unsteady hands, and I manage at that scale. You need to remember that what you should expect from 6mm is not downsized versions of 28mm minis, just like switching from squad-platoon level wargames to company/army level does not just entail smaller men. What is neccessary (or even desirable) to pick out at smaller scales changes significantly.

Spectrar Ghost
11-01-2012, 18:07
Well in twenty years I've painted everything but apparently I'm a common misconception....

Just because you've painted for twenty years doesn't mean you can't have misconceptions. Look again at the current ranges, and give it another shot.

The bearded one
11-01-2012, 18:14
Looking at that royal infantry platoon I think small ornaments on some of GWs buildings and soforth look 'crispier'.

I find 28mm enjoyable because if the models are substantially larger the surface areas become larger as well, and you need better technique to adequately cover those areas without them looking flat. You need to blend a lot.

With smaller scales.. well.. they're just so darn tiny. The details may be nice and whatever but they're just too tiny for a noticable paintjob. From a distance all I'll see is 1 colour for each surface.

Spectrar Ghost
11-01-2012, 18:18
Epicomp 2011 Winners (http://www.tacticalwargames.net/taccmd/viewtopic.php?f=19&t=22246)

Wil Grand
11-01-2012, 18:21
Just because you've painted for twenty years doesn't mean you can't have misconceptions. Look again at the current ranges, and give it another shot.

Mate, you can't have misconceptions based on your own experience. I get it, you're a small scale person, the vast majority are 15mm+.



Epicomp 2011 Winners (http://www.tacticalwargames.net/taccmd/viewtopic.php?f=19&t=22246)


The irony of this post is that it backs me up, to paint like that isn't a matter of drybrush and a wash.


Looking at that royal infantry platoon I think small ornaments on some of GWs buildings and soforth look 'crispier'.

I find 28mm enjoyable because if the models are substantially larger the surface areas become larger as well, and you need better technique to adequately cover those areas without them looking flat. You need to blend a lot.

With smaller scales.. well.. they're just so darn tiny. The details may be nice and whatever but they're just too tiny for a noticable paintjob. From a distance all I'll see is 1 colour for each surface.

Exactly what he said.

The bearded one
11-01-2012, 18:22
Epicomp 2011 Winners (http://www.tacticalwargames.net/taccmd/viewtopic.php?f=19&t=22246)

golden demon winners (http://demonwinner.free.fr/)


:p


some of the vehicles like the thunderhawk look quite nice from that link, but when talking vehicles it's already quite a bit larger than those infantry models, most of which I still was not impressed by.

Spectrar Ghost
11-01-2012, 18:29
Touche.

I do happen to agree that a large part of the popularity of 28mm has to do with GW.

I'm not too worried about changing minds, but I recommend that if you've not looked at small scale stuff in the last two years or so, look again. The amount of progress in that time has been unbelievable.

Mallo
11-01-2012, 19:02
Hope he doesn't mind me linking his army here, but this is the plog that made me return to the hobby a while back, both to be able to paint 6mm again but that in turn re-sparked my love of gobbos in WFB (just because it sparked my interest, not cause they are green!)

This is an absolutely brilliant epic army. Heavily converted from the original plastic and painted in several colours, all of which are clear and stand out, not just like blobs of men drybrushed!

http://www.warseer.com/forums/showthread.php?t=249039

Disclaimer: I'm well aware that the chaos terminators weigh in a little more to a 8mm scale, and that some of the daemons are actually the 10mm warmaster ones. :D


Im sorry this post is a little OT from the OP but I wanted to share such a stunning army that is not part of the 28mm 'norm'. Plus anything that hopefully gives Epic a little more attention is good in my book ;)

Spectrar Ghost
11-01-2012, 19:24
Yeah, Ratty's army is sick, in several ways.

Max Jet
11-01-2012, 20:47
I am confused now...

Weren't we talking about 28mm being exactly the scale for modelling and painting and 6mm being the scale for actual wargaming (hence the harder to paint and build kits that come out recently)

I am very unsure on who is trying to argue what in this thread now.

Caiphas Cain
11-01-2012, 21:03
I personally think it's funny that people are willing to pay extra for GWs detailed miniatures, when they often slap paint on and make it look like crap anyways.

The bearded one
11-01-2012, 21:22
@ Caiphas Cain: a shame, aint that?

however some people are willing to turn it into a great army on the table. I'm a 'click-click'-o-holic with my camera so I'll undoubtedly have some pictures lying about.. * searches *

aha!

125335
and details of the imperial fists;

http://i26.photobucket.com/albums/c140/edgarschippers/1DSC00787.jpg
http://i26.photobucket.com/albums/c140/edgarschippers/1DSC00792.jpg
http://i26.photobucket.com/albums/c140/edgarschippers/1DSC00805.jpg
http://i26.photobucket.com/albums/c140/edgarschippers/1DSC00788.jpg
http://i26.photobucket.com/albums/c140/edgarschippers/1DSC00785.jpg

presented with this virtually anecdotal evidence, what do you say now?


* it's not even my army but I just wanna show it off because I was responsible for the taking of pictures :p




@ Max Jet; I believe that Spectrar Ghost was making the point that 6mm was also good/better for painting.

Spectrar Ghost
11-01-2012, 21:31
Both, at least IMO. There's no question it's a better gaming scale. I personally find it to be easier to paint. Note this is not quite the same as being better for painting.

Caiphas Cain
11-01-2012, 21:31
Well yes, o bearded one, those do look very nice. That's about the same level of painting I do, and out of the 20 or so gamers I've met, I'm the best painter. I'm not trying to brag or anything, I mean, I'm not a painting god like Georc, but I'm alright. What I'm trying to say is that seeing an army painted to the standard in person happens very rarely. So people are not getting the value out of games workshops products that they could. It just baffles me, when someone says that Mantic models look terrible, when the paint jobs on the models in their log are pretty poor.

TheMav80
11-01-2012, 22:36
If we are assuming that the details on Warhammer models are what are causing them to be such a high price, I can do without them.

I would rather the models be simpler and cheaper if I need to have 100+ of them in my army. Does it really matter how much detail is on every Skaven model when you have 30 of them in a block?

The bearded one
11-01-2012, 23:08
Well yes, o bearded one, those do look very nice. That's about the same level of painting I do, and out of the 20 or so gamers I've met, I'm the best painter.

I wonder about that, as it won 'best painted army' at the Dutch GT this year :) (at the cost of performance in the games, I might add :p but that can be attributed to stuff like a bloodthrister with 1 wound remaining raking up 4 KPs) the pictures don't do it justice in comparison to seeing it for real.

got a painting log floating about by any chance?


If we are assuming that the details on Warhammer models are what are causing them to be such a high price, I can do without them.

I would rather the models be simpler and cheaper if I need to have 100+ of them in my army. Does it really matter how much detail is on every Skaven model when you have 30 of them in a block?

Yes. Details for the detail-god! Fiddly stuff for the fiddly throne!

It'd probably be cheaper to have 1 single sculpt for all rank&file of each type in a simple pose like the snap-fit starterset models, but that'd be boring, wouldn't it?
I certainly love me some detail on larger models to break up gigantic surfaces.

to me it boils down to this; if you're not a great painter or don't want to spend endless hours to every mini's, you skip the smaller details and just take them in with your basecoat. For those that can/want more, the detail is there. I like that even (sometimes especially) without paint the miniatures still look great. At times an assembled unpainted unit looks better than one partially painted one (but I still prefer the look of a painted one).

lanrak
12-01-2012, 10:04
Hi folks.
If you buy minatures for collecting and displaying them, more detail on them = more value for money.

However , if you only use them as 'in game markers' to represent units on an imaginary battle field.After the detail allows clear identification of what the minature represents , NO extra value is added.

Basicaly YMMV.

Omniassiah
12-01-2012, 12:42
Right, two things - I've been model painting for twenty years, and I know that 35mm is larger than 28mm. Larger models require more subtle layering, etc.

You're not saying anything that's groundbreaking to the thread 28mm is a sweet spot, smaller need steady brush strokes, larger require more skill, time and technique and are labour intensive. What I'm saying isn't an opinion, it's true.

Smaller scales might "easier" in the way that you can get away with a lot more but the sculpts do suffer so it's easier to give a paintjob that matches when your men look like a plasticine genetic accident.

Like I say, I've painted shedloads of every scale in y time and it's not "common misconception" that painting forty wee men glued to nails one at a time was tedious, hard work and no fun at all and I then had to do basing.

Sorry but 28mm is the sweet spot if you want to paint and not manufacture or do retro 15mm drybrush armies.

Here's the thing. and from what you posted I'm thinking that you agree with it. 15mm and smaller is Significantly easier and quicker to get a "good" (not award winning) looking army then 28mm especially when it comes down to the amount of random crap they want to through on the models now. I can paint a SM Epic army to table top standard with all the details picked out in the time it takes you to paint 1-2 squads to table top standard. And when done the small scale army will look better.

Now there is a semi-famous FoW player who lives in my area named Tom Wise. He puts more detail on his 15mm models then I can do on my 28mm models, I'm talking eyes, painted ranks, the works. I'm sure he does it with models on nails/pins and I have no clue how much time he spends on it. But at that high end you also get the people who put months into a single 28mm model. And for the purposes of this discussion people like that are well, pointless, they'll make anything look good regardless of it level of detail.

15mm and smaller prevents a lot of the excess detail, that IMO GW has too much of now, that requires extra steps to make the model look OK from an Average to below average painters standpoint. The new VC "Monster" is a prime example of this, Getting that to look half decent will be an absolute nightmare and be probably about as time consuming to paint as my Titan. That is not really a good thing. GW has passed the point were the newer models are going to take forever to paint no matter what skill level you are at and I'm just talking about to a table top standard.

Wil Grand
12-01-2012, 13:09
I've seen his work. Not sure I'd waste such skill on FoW Americans, though....

TheMav80
12-01-2012, 16:30
Yes. Details for the detail-god! Fiddly stuff for the fiddly throne!

It'd probably be cheaper to have 1 single sculpt for all rank&file of each type in a simple pose like the snap-fit starterset models, but that'd be boring, wouldn't it?
I certainly love me some detail on larger models to break up gigantic surfaces.

to me it boils down to this; if you're not a great painter or don't want to spend endless hours to every mini's, you skip the smaller details and just take them in with your basecoat. For those that can/want more, the detail is there. I like that even (sometimes especially) without paint the miniatures still look great. At times an assembled unpainted unit looks better than one partially painted one (but I still prefer the look of a painted one).

Well there would certainly be a lower limit. Take any of the recent plastic kits though. Take 30 Skaven Stormvermin (which I think are awesome models), put them in a big block and look at them on a table from two feet away. You won't see most of the detail.

Single character stlye models, units with small numbers, large beasties, all made better with lots of details. Your rank and file, not so much.

The bearded one
12-01-2012, 21:03
I'm looking at 40 stormvermin right next to me. They're awesome, but actually all fairly similar (same clothes, armour, cloth around shoulders) so there's not a lot of different detail below the shoulders anyway :p

now clanrats would've been a better example.

Even so I prefer lots of detail that might be lost by massive numbers, than less detail alltogether. I want all my models to be good quality, not just the front rank. Hence why for me speedpaint means 10 models in a month. I'd rather have lots of detail even if it is not noticed.


The new VC "Monster" is a prime example of this, Getting that to look half decent will be an absolute nightmare and be probably about as time consuming to paint as my Titan.


* sprays the model with skull white *

* splashes boatloads of thraka green wash over it *

* drybrushes back some white with a big brush *

nearly done.

I did the same with the shadewraith (I just haven't done any highlights yet on these pics):
125410
125411