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.

Looking on eBay, you see a lot of people saying they paint to high TT, excellent quality, etc. What is TT quality for you? What is excellent for you?

To me, TT quality is when someone has painted it with some effort, at least 3 paints (unless it's supposed to be few colours), and made it look good from a few inches back.

TT Quality for me is when I can look at the model from 2-3 feet away (i.e. on the table) and it still looks good.

I use significantly more than 3 colors, but my painting still is not the best.

Is it time for another TTQ thread?

TTQ is 100% subjective. but generally means does X look acceptable or good at Y distance.

I can't really say. Over the years, my experience of what people call TTQ and Pro-Painted blurs a little.

There is a five page thread from about two months ago which really failed to come to any sort of consensus:

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/120/642145.page

It's split between those that think there is an objective standard, such as three colors and basing; a viewer subjective standard, such as looking good from across a table; to a painter subjective standard, such as "an honest effort" to fully paint a mini.

There's plenty of people that want a very low bar for TTQ that matches the rules for tournament minimums, and there are also plenty of people that see TTQ as anything below their own display quality.

So... TTQ is variously defined as the full range of qualities from and including three colors and a base up to anything below Golden Demon entry quality.

I've seen some crappy models that people claim to be Pro-Painted, and I've seen some excellent work that people call merely TTQ.

Three colors minimum, a wash applied, based and some effort to keep the paint within the lines.

 kronk wrote:
I've seen some crappy models that people claim to be Pro-Painted, and I've seen some excellent work that people call merely TTQ.

I think it's somewhat like how terms like "casual" and "dressy" mean different things in different social/economic circles. For some, "dressy" means a collared shirt and khakis, while for others "casual" means a sport jacket and slacks.

The better a person paints, the higher their own standard for display worth rises. Which is why having only two categories, "display/pro-painted" and TTQ does a disservice to high end TT models.

On the other hand, there are people that dont feel a model needs a wash or highlight to be TTQ, when I think it's too easy to no be a part of the process.

Tabletop is and isn't debateable. Originally it had it's roots in the idea of figures that look good from about 3 feet away, about the distance from a standing person's eyes to a miniature on the tabletop. It stands against display quality which is designed to be viewed close up.

However, the long held view in the wargaming community (long before Warhammer), and the one that was adopted by GW for it's tournaments is that the MINIMUM for tabletop is 3 colors and based. 3 Colors and based is still about the minimum that most folks will recognize as tabletop, but many people's TT minis are much better.

Also, the overall elevation of painting techniques across the hobby and the prevalence of pre-mixed washes and dips means that many folks will now expect more from tabletop. Either from their own efforts or from the painted "tabletop" quality figures that they purchase.

For myself, my figs are neatly painted with 5-10 colors, sometimes a drybrush and then dipped and nicely based. It's a good look and beats the minimum for TT, but I still call it TT because the figures don't use advanced techniques and aren't really intended for display and close-observation.

The easiest way to look at TT quality for me is that it's a couple of grades below the same painter's best work if they put their mind to it. Since every painter's skill level varies greatly, you can't nail it down with specificity like, "3 colors", unless you're trying to make a rule for tourney purposes.

So, I'd say, TT means hat someone put THEIR definition of a reasonable effort into painting the model for gaming. Not their BEST effort, but enough of an effort that the models look good, and better than if they left them unpainted.

It could be a 10 minute paintjob -- just a spray, a little bit of basecoat, a dip, and some colored sand on the base.

Or it could be a 10 hour paintjob, if the painter's display quality models are 30-50 hour paintjobs, and all their tabletop models look really great, that's THAT person's tabletop quality (as opposed to their display quality).

On average, I think a good Tabletop Quality models has received an hour of work by a very experienced painter, and 2-3 hours by someone who isn't as practiced (because you do get a LOT faster with practice). And obviously, it depends highly on your playgroup. If you play with people who are exceptional painters, the bar can start being set pretty high.

Another thing worth mentioning is that some models require a lot more work than others to paint up nicely. For instance, Space Wolves take a LOT longer to paint than Eldar. So, a tabletop quality long fang represents significantly more effort than a dire avenger.

Tabletop quality is something I'm always going to be vaguely disappointed with when I look at it (sadly)

it would be so much easier if I didn't feel this way

 Talys wrote:
The easiest way to look at TT quality for me is that it's a couple of grades below the same painter's best work if they put their mind to it. Since every painter's skill level varies greatly, you can't nail it down with specificity like, "3 colors", unless you're trying to make a rule for tourney purposes.

So, I'd say, TT means hat someone put THEIR definition of a reasonable effort into painting the model for gaming. Not their BEST effort, but enough of an effort that the models look good, and better than if they left them unpainted.

Spoiler:

It could be a 10 minute paintjob -- just a spray, a little bit of basecoat, a dip, and some colored sand on the base.

Or it could be a 10 hour paintjob, if the painter's display quality models are 30-50 hour paintjobs, and all their tabletop models look really great, that's THAT person's tabletop quality (as opposed to their display quality).

On average, I think a good Tabletop Quality models has received an hour of work by a very experienced painter, and 2-3 hours by someone who isn't as practiced (because you do get a LOT faster with practice). And obviously, it depends highly on your playgroup. If you play with people who are exceptional painters, the bar can start being set pretty high.

Another thing worth mentioning is that some models require a lot more work than others to paint up nicely. For instance, Space Wolves take a LOT longer to paint than Eldar. So, a tabletop quality long fang represents significantly more effort than a dire avenger

.

Tabletop Quality is a "standard" that reflects the quality of a miniature as viewed on the tabletop.

What you're describing isn't "Tabletop quality", it's simply "Not their best effort". That's not a standard or definition does absolutely nothing to help folks understand what TT might mean. I'm not against some relativity in many things, but a definition this broad isn't helpful at all.

For me, 'tabletop quality' is just 'basic colours in more or less the right place' so that the model is easily recognisable.

Anything more than that is a bonus.

 Eilif wrote:

 Talys wrote:
The easiest way to look at TT quality for me is that it's a couple of grades below the same painter's best work if they put their mind to it. Since every painter's skill level varies greatly, you can't nail it down with specificity like, "3 colors", unless you're trying to make a rule for tourney purposes.

So, I'd say, TT means hat someone put THEIR definition of a reasonable effort into painting the model for gaming. Not their BEST effort, but enough of an effort that the models look good, and better than if they left them unpainted.

Spoiler:

It could be a 10 minute paintjob -- just a spray, a little bit of basecoat, a dip, and some colored sand on the base.

Or it could be a 10 hour paintjob, if the painter's display quality models are 30-50 hour paintjobs, and all their tabletop models look really great, that's THAT person's tabletop quality (as opposed to their display quality).

On average, I think a good Tabletop Quality models has received an hour of work by a very experienced painter, and 2-3 hours by someone who isn't as practiced (because you do get a LOT faster with practice). And obviously, it depends highly on your playgroup. If you play with people who are exceptional painters, the bar can start being set pretty high.

Another thing worth mentioning is that some models require a lot more work than others to paint up nicely. For instance, Space Wolves take a LOT longer to paint than Eldar. So, a tabletop quality long fang represents significantly more effort than a dire avenger

.

Tabletop Quality is a "standard" that reflects the quality of a miniature as viewed on the tabletop.

What you're describing isn't "Tabletop quality", it's simply "Not their best effort". That's not a standard or definition does absolutely nothing to help folks understand what TT might mean. I'm not against some relativity in many things, but a definition this broad isn't helpful at all.

Eilif, so what should a commission painter call the standard he is painting a customer's army to, when it is intended to be used on the tabletop???
i personally think that "high-tabletop quality" is a pretty valid description...
what would you call it instead???

cheers
jah

Wait, just realised something. To me, TT quality is when I can look at a model, think 'meh, not bad.' and be proud of it.

Looks good at arms length.

Can be block colors, wash, drybrush, and based or block colors, drybrush, dip, and based.

No real attempt at blending or shading beyond that.

Basically just something that will look decent on the tabletop.

The Auld Grump

 Eilif wrote:
Tabletop Quality is a "standard" that reflects the quality of a miniature as viewed on the tabletop.

What you're describing isn't "Tabletop quality", it's simply "Not their best effort". That's not a standard or definition does absolutely nothing to help folks understand what TT might mean. I'm not against some relativity in many things, but a definition this broad isn't helpful at all.

I appreciate what you're saying, but my point is that if someone's new to the hobby, their models on the table are not going to look as good as someone who's painted 100,000 points worth of models, given the same sort of effort and care. Therefore, it's really hard to define tabletop quality in specific terms of the finished product -- "this makes the cut, and that doesn't" -- because you allow a lower bar for those newer to the hobby, less interested in painting, or whose talents lie in other places but love modelling and painting just as much as anyone else.

If someone we didn't know joined us for a weekend, and they were all proud of their models with iffy paintjobs, I assure you we'd be very encouraging and positive. But if one of our regulars stuck three basecoat colors on a model, we'd laugh and ask wtf they're doing, because we know that's not the standard for their gaming models.

Incidentally, I often point to these as my "tabletop quality" models. It took a weekend to paint a fifteen or so Menoth models (at the time, my entire Menoth army), and each one took about an hour and a half from blister to varnish (keeping in mind they're metal, monopose PP models, so prep time is very low). They're primed with army painter tan, barely-thinned basecoats, sloppy wash, a little layering, a tiny bit of highlights (almost a precision/careful drybrush) where I get the most mileage, varnish, and then PVC some colored sand and tufts. No biggie. Yet, I'm sure that for some people, it would be considered much higher than tabletop quality.



Which is kind of my point to Matthew, the original poster, who was talking about E-Bay. On E-bay, it's not really meaningful in terms of what you're getting, because it means different things to different people, even if you take out the seller's positive spin. That is, they can be totally being honest that this is their tabletop quality army, and you can think that it's junk and needs to be stripped. Or you might think it's awesome and you're getting a deal and a half.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 jah-joshua wrote:
Eilif, so what should a commission painter call the standard he is painting a customer's army to, when it is intended to be used on the tabletop???
i personally think that "high-tabletop quality" is a pretty valid description...
what would you call it instead???

cheers
jah

I like "high tabletop quality"

I think Tabletop+ also works. The biggest problem with commission work is that some of the stuff (like the work in your gallery) looks pretty awesome. Other stuff I've seen looks just horrible.

When I can tell what it is from 2-3 FEET away.

I aim for adequate at arm's reach, not awesome at 6" - since I don't play at 6" range from my face.

For me, Tabletop Quality is a fully painted and based miniature I will feel pleased to put on a gaming table.

It doesn't have a thing to do with playing with painted/unpainted/half-painted models, proxies, even mere bases to pose as models you still don't have. I don't have any issues with all that.

When I finish up painting a model, I usually have a long look at it and ask myself if I would feel confortable with placing the guy on a table and calling it a "finished" miniature. If the answer is "yes", then that model qualifies as TT quality. If the answer is "no", I'll put more work into it. So that's what TT quality means for me.

Just to clarify, I'm not a great painter. I began collecting and painting models roughly 11 or 12 years ago, when I was a teenager. I acknowledge I've improved a lot over the years (specially after a three years or so hiatus), but I'm still far from what I consider to be "display quality". If I put my absolute best effort into a model, I may end up getting something that I could send to a (not very demanding) painting contest. With no hope of winning, but at least good enough to not feel embarrassed.

That said, people's abilities evolve over time, usually for the better. As do cosmetic tastes, perception, etc. My standards for "TT quality" have certainly grown over the years, as my painting skills improved. I however do not feel embarrassed by my earlier works, it's as simple as that's the best I could do at the time. Sometimes I will repaint some models, but simply because I sincerely believe my earlier paintjob does not do them justice, and they deserve better.

So in the end, I believe something like "Tabletop Quality" is also bound to subjective tastes and standards. Between the "three colors + base" most tournaments demand, to what the best painter in the planet may consider "tabletop quality" for his/her own models. I don't think there is really a definitive answer, and it will never be.

I'm very much of the same opinion as you, Korinov.

I also don't think that "tabletop quality" should always equate to "tournament requirements".

Paint between the lines, on a finished base is just about what I'd consider TTQ.

Bonus points for a wash. As a mediocre painter myself, I depend on the old Devlan Miracle wash to make my minis look better than they are.

 insaniak wrote:
For me, 'tabletop quality' is just 'basic colours in more or less the right place' so that the model is easily recognisable.

Anything more than that is a bonus.

Agreed. All the old GW painting guides said 'block on a few colours and paint the base and it's ready for the table. Details and extra techniques such as highlights and shading can be added later', so this is the standard I use for TT quality with my GW miniatures. To be honest I think a neatly blocked in army looks far better than a couple of technically painted models accompanied by a legion of grey...

I know some think it is heresy to put models on the table without basic highlights, etc so obviously there is no consensus. I'm just happy if each model on the table has at least some paint on them!

Of course an entire army of competition grade miniatures would probably be ideal .

nareik wrote:
To be honest I think a neatly blocked in army looks far better than a couple of technically painted models accompanied by a legion of grey...

Absolutely!!!

My TT quality would be a speed-painting job using a coloured primer. A bit like this fella from More Dakka's Speed Painting methoed for Bad Moonz. Something with several colours and some washes but no highlights.

Mine look clunky close up but pretty amazing with 100 on the table.

My TTQ is assembled and glued miniatures. Anything lucky enough to be primed is my equivalent of a Golden Demon winner.

TTQ is a 5 on the dakka rating scale to me.

Talys,
I think we agree that "Tabletop Quality" on Ebay means virtually nothing. But rather than telling an newbie that it represents something extremely vague like "less than best" , Just tell them that it's a term that's historically means at least "3 and a base", and that when they see the term they should take a close look to really see how it is used. If you're club's standard for painting is higher then that's fine, but just tell them so.

The really lovely minis you showed above are much better than what has ever been historically simply referred to as "Tabletop". You can say they are "my tabletop" but they are so far beyond Tabletop that it really needs an added qualifier such as "High", "Advanced", "Plus" etc.. Once you start adding "shading", "Highlights"(plural), etc, you really need to add a qualifier.

 jah-joshua wrote:

Tabletop Quality is a "standard" that reflects the quality of a miniature as viewed on the tabletop.

What you're describing isn't "Tabletop quality", it's simply "Not their best effort". That's not a standard or definition does absolutely nothing to help folks understand what TT might mean. I'm not against some relativity in many things, but a definition this broad isn't helpful at all.

Eilif, so what should a commission painter call the standard he is painting a customer's army to, when it is intended to be used on the tabletop???
i personally think that "high-tabletop quality" is a pretty valid description...
what would you call it instead???

cheers
jah

Do what every commission service seems to do. Use a series of grades to describe your work. If you're going to tack the qualifier "High" on to make "High Tabletop Quality" and use it as one of your grades then go ahead and use it but specify exactly what that means. My point is that terms matter and can actually be useful if used correctly. just saying that tabletop is "less than a painter's best" is about as useful as saying "It's painted pretty good" It means nothing.

If I were king folks would call 3-and-based "minimum Tabletop", but I'm not (and that's a very a good thing) but I do push back about making language even less precise. Better I think for folks to actually describe how a model is painted than to further dilute an increasingly mis-used term

-

TTQ is so subjective.

For me it's all base coats finished, some shading and some minor highlighting. The base has to be finished as well, nothing elaborate, but finished.

If you watch the GW painting videos staring Duncan Rhodes, he's painting to what I consider a good TTQ.

 Korinov wrote:
For me, Tabletop Quality is a fully painted and based miniature I will feel pleased to put on a gaming table.

This is the best way I've seen it put, for me.

Tabletop isn't some universal standard to me. It's when you've gotten a model to the point where you're happy to call it done and put it on the table. Some people are going to be happy with base and dip. I know some that aren't happy until they've done their absolute best on each model, and there's some seriously nice blending and NMM going on. Personally, I'm happy to slap this down:



But, again, I know people that will slap a base coat and paint the weapons and call it done, and know people who will do competition level as their standard. It's all subjective to the person painting.