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.

Hello guys,

Recently started collecting 40k, haven't painted in a long time, so when I was doing the first set of Tac Marines I've ever painted, I sealed them with some satin varnish from my airbrush...

And I made the mistake of not shaking it, so they came our rather shiny.


At first, I was rather sad, but then I thought it actually looks a little better than how I did my other marines.

Please compare both and let me know which technique for doing the armor is better

I think this really comes down to your personal preference, there is certainly something about a gloss vanish that makes a model 'glow' a little.

I use the liquitex gloss vanish and it comes out nice.

I tend to go for a satin varnish on most of my minis. Depending on whether it's skin, cloth, armour whatever I'll increase or decrease the gloss as I mix Vallejo gloss and matte varnish for spraying with my airbrush. Armour like this gets a bit more gloss, I think it looks better that way. I'd say your new one is too glossy and your old one too matte, but that's just personal preference as Drachenfels says. I prefer too glossy over too matte in this case at least.