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.

Just finishing this up with a few touch ups to go now that I look at the pics. I tried to make him battle worn, damaged, worn armor. Dont know if I pulled it off. Let me know what you all think. Same pics, different backgrounds. Trying to see which one looks better. Thanks for looking

looks awsome!

I like.

That's a nice paintjob on him. I'm not entirely sure his armor looks too beaten up though. I suggest chipping up the edges of the armor, washing the legs so they look dirtier, then drybrushing the legs with a light sand color will help his armor look more worn and used.

You could even try the sponge-dabbing method of adding chipping to armor. It works great with a fine foam like those found in blister packs, and the patterns and textures they make feel pretty realistic.

Nice paint job even though it don't look to battle worn. More dirty than beat up.

I agree. Adding some chipping and 'dirtying' would make it look more beaten and battle-worn. As for the background, I'd say the darker one. Keep up the good work.

Lovely work there mate.

I think the level of wear and tear is good. It looks like he's been in the field for a good while. I think I prefer the picture with the white background. less glare.