Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

decided against P+M showcase as he's unfinished...

Table top quality varies wildly, so I thought I'd get your opinion on something.

Tabletop quality or not?

My standards (which may be incorrect) are based, and at least 1st, sometimes second level highlights.

I call assembled and painted tabletop quality. If that means you dip all your 'nids in red paint and call it good, so be it as long as they're all put together. I just hate playing against those torso-on-a-base armies over and over.

I call it "tabletop" quality if you can tell what it is meant to be when seen from 3' away, and it looks 'ok' to you.

We don't play at diorama ranges, we play at arms' length, after all. While in your face macro shots on CMON are nice and all, who plays that close-up?

probably a little better than tabletop, but tabletop is just someones opinion. Orks for example, what is tabletop standard when there is 100+ of them?

Id say thats the higher side of table top standard, especialy when tournamenyt standard is a min of 3 colours on the model.

Glad to see I'm not far off the mark. I'd rather surpass it than fall short. Got a few nasty emails over the weekend after I posted a few bits of work on a couple of forums.

Death to the naysayers!

dreadanant wrote:Id say thats the higher side of table top standard, especialy when tournamenyt standard is a min of 3 colours on the model.

I concur.

It's good tabletop with a variety of detailing and shading.

That model in the picture is at the higher end of Table top. Nice work.

I cannot believe people were negative on e-mails to you, constructive critcism or advice is great, but out and out negativity is pointless. Negative hate is just as bad as overly positive praise, as with all things in life the Middle ground is the best place.

I definitely agree - a good solid tabletop standard, maybe even a jot or two on higher tabletop standard.

Phayse wrote:Tabletop quality or not?

Definitely! This model is awesome! Most say that Tabletop Quality is a fully assembled / painted model (3+ colors). I believe people also consider basing the model to be part of the job, too.

If someone looks at your model and says, "It's finished!" you're ready for the tabletop. Otherwise, your army is clearly WIP.

Sol

That looks finished to me. I'd love to play you with that army with my Orks.

Thanks all

mwnciboo wrote:I cannot believe people were negative on e-mails to you, constructive critcism or advice is great, but out and out negativity is pointless. Negative hate is just as bad as overly positive praise, as with all things in life the Middle ground is the best place.

I see it all the time on CMON, but you kind of expect it there. There was an amazing piece put up about a week ago, and some clown had put something like

"TBH I don't even know why you bothered. Substandard at best"

Haters gonna hate.

I suppose I'm a little more susceptible to it at the moment seeing as I'm just starting up the business. I doubt confidence will come until i've logged my first web commission. That said, I'm glad of the comments from everyone!

Easily high-level tabletop, flirting with "Pro-painted" (imho - I certainly wouldn't bat an eye at that description if I saw it on E-bay with that tag).

I look at the model and see somebody who knows what they're doing and has taken care to show it. Color choices are good, lines are clean, and highlights are apparent.

I've noticed that the standards for TT quality seem a bit high on this forum and have only been increasing, since I've been here. Seems like other fora have a similar situation. I'd say the 3-color tourney minimum is perhaps a tad low, if it means "colored spray, blob on eyes, and splodge some metallic paint on the gun," but a paintjob doesn't need to be fantastic to look decent across the table.

If the painting is clean, very simple washes/highlights to get a bit of variation to the color are all it takes to nudge the minis from "acceptable" to "rather nice." An army painted to that standard (perhaps with a little extra love for the HQ) would have a decent shot at winning a painting comp at some FLGSs.

I think we get spoiled on the internet by seeing so many amazing paintjobs that the bar has been unduly raised. "Tabletop" has almost become an insult for moderately experienced painters. On the other hand, I've seen the term used for absolute garbage, as a way of saying "it looks like pants, but don't get too discouraged" to new painters.

So, yeah, I'd say that's above tabletop quality. It won't win you a GD, but if you stack an army of that against your average painter, you'll be looking good. Well, better than you already are.

That is much better than the things I play against... I'd say that's halfway to showcase (in my standards of course)

I would consider tabeltop quality to be anything assembled and painted accurately and at least moderately tidy.


The example at the top, definately tabletop. No question.