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.

I was just at a local tourney, sitting across from one of the best painters at the FLGS. I've been doing this for a while, and I've been to a number of tourney's but this was probably one of his first. I looked across at him and remarked that to some extent all his beautiful work was going to waste, because winning Best Painted with marines is an uphill battle. (Not impossible, just harder than other races)

Am I wrong?

It just seems that most people consider marines to be boring and trite. That just doing a decent job with marines is about on par with doing a so-so job with a lot of other races. Some races also seem just loaded with potential for incredible conversions (orks, chaos), cool paint jobs (chaos, Eldar) or truely insane stuff (chaos). Marines are constrained by their very nature to be pretty bland and banal.

Has anybody noticed who usually wins these sorts of things? My guess is going to be with Eldar or Chaos.

It's not too hard to make basic SM's look decent, it's much harder to do Tyranids or Aspect Warriors or even Guardsmen well, just because there is generally more than armor plating to the model, and Marines have large relatively uncomplicated spaces like shoulder pads and leg armor that's pretty bare.

You're probably right, which is unfortunate since a really well painted Space Marine is actually a better test of someone's painting skills. Most people only paint on edge highlights, the real skill comes in blending highlights across a Space Marine's armor. Basically achieving with a brush what is normally done with an airbrush or natural light.

Zip Napalm wrote:You're probably right, which is unfortunate since a really well painted Space Marine is actually a better test of someone's painting skills. Most people only paint on edge highlights, the real skill comes in blending highlights across a Space Marine's armor. Basically achieving with a brush what is normally done with an airbrush or natural light.

It's the same for Tau armor. So many tau armies look like Tron crap because people edge highlight like 2 mm's on their armor.

stonefox wrote:

Zip Napalm wrote:You're probably right, which is unfortunate since a really well painted Space Marine is actually a better test of someone's painting skills. Most people only paint on edge highlights, the real skill comes in blending highlights across a Space Marine's armor. Basically achieving with a brush what is normally done with an airbrush or natural light.

It's the same for Tau armor. So many tau armies look like Tron crap because people edge highlight like 2 mm's on their armor.

True that! I always air out the new guys on the block.

I'll add with advent of more figures in any one army and the need to field them relatively quickly, we're going to see less and less blending technique being used. It is time consuming and can never compete with a bucket of goo and spin drill. Don't get me wrong, I think dipping is a great way to get models on the board, I just believe it's disappointing to see good brush work disappear from the tabletop.

I'll be glad to see "dip" style washed armies over grey plastic, that's for sure!

I don't think you will ever see brushwork disappear, I just think you will see fewer Primer Marines.
Perhaps armies like orks and guard will see more dipped rank and file, but the good painters are always going to be touching up, adding details, highlighting etc. I think dipping will merely allow the poor to mediocre painters field a decent force much faster, and give them more time to spend on characters, or Cheetos, or something.

Either way, I think the top level of painting will remain where it is, with the bottom levels improving a bit.

stonefox wrote:

Zip Napalm wrote:You're probably right, which is unfortunate since a really well painted Space Marine is actually a better test of someone's painting skills. Most people only paint on edge highlights, the real skill comes in blending highlights across a Space Marine's armor. Basically achieving with a brush what is normally done with an airbrush or natural light.

It's the same for Tau armor. So many tau armies look like Tron crap because people edge highlight like 2 mm's on their armor.

No they arent undervalued like marines, just not many good painters go near them because they are not a challenge. Its like painting a small rhino, its just a box.

Marines can still be a challenge if you make it so with the curves and some freehand, which is why you still see a lot of marine stuff in GD.

Let's take a look at some stuff in 2008 that I came across over my lunch break.

08 Chicago Golden Demons
Slayer Sword winner: marine vs chaos marine
40K single mini: Sanguinius primarch
40K squad 2nd place: Space marine command squad
40K squad 3rd place: Mechanicus Astartes (aka tech marines)
Open Competition Bronze: Space Marine Commanders

08 Baltimore Golden Demons
40K squad 2nd place: Ravenwing bike squadron
40K squad 3rd place: Blood Angels death company
Open Competition Gold: Salamander Space marine

08 LA Golden Demons
40K single mini Silver: Black Templar High marshal
40K single mini Bronze: Salamander Terminator
40K squad 3rd place: Knights Obscura terminators
Open Competition Gold: Space marine captain

Admittedly, these are not armies, but I cannot find much info about Best Painted Army for Adepticon or GWUS events over my lunch break. Those awards may incorporate painting into "theme" or "appearance". I'm not sure what Checkmate Hobbies ran in '08, but I suspect the Best Imperial theme winners, Howling Griffins, were the SM drop pod army.

What makes Space Marines so common in the top tier for presentation? Probably what some people are complaining about: the flat surfaces allow lots of freehand work. In addition, the Space marine line has, hands down, the most bits and bobbles and largest plastic line which allows much more customization.

Most "painting" or "best painted army" awards I've seen go way beyond painting to include conversions and exquisite bases for all the models.

I simply don't agree that Space Marines have no chance in a "Best Painted army" or "best theme or appearance" award. It's more likely they will appear in the top 3 than nearly any other army in my experience.

There's a big difference between painting a single model, or a unit. In these cases none of them are close to being normal "codex" marines, or a basic marine tactical squad.

Really I'm wondering if an entire army can win best painted, and your attempting to talk about individual models. It's apples and oranges.

BigToof wrote:There's a big difference between painting a single model, or a unit. In these cases none of them are close to being normal "codex" marines, or a basic marine tactical squad.

Really I'm wondering if an entire army can win best painted, and your attempting to talk about individual models. It's apples and oranges.

Marines can win best painted army, they just have to go the extra mile to make sure everything is clean and theres a noticeable amount of freehand work. Honestly they aren't the hardest army to win it with, tyranids are very difficult to make look interesting (everyone looks the same), as are the necrons (everyone looks the same and silver).

it's much harder to do Tyranids or Aspect Warriors or even Guardsmen well

Not really, 2 stage drybrush and light highlighting then minor detail work makes a tyranid look great. All those little crevices and details take to drybrushing or inking very well, and the models are basically just three tone carbon copies of one another. As for aspect warriors, those have the same problems as marines, large empty curved surfaces and plate armor.

I can see your rationale BigToof. But I disagree.

Space marines may have a lot of free space on their models, and their vehicles may just be boxes. But that ends up being a boon to people with freehand skills.

Greaves and shoulder pads actually have enough space for three-dimensional pitting/scarring battle damage effects, each sergeant can wear a back banner with a free hand mural on it, Their chapter logo can be embellished, and their armor can be multi-colored with great contrasts. Someone who is very skilled with a color wheel has carte blanche in his color schemes. And thanks to the fluff of "have pride in your colors", all color choices are valid from a background perspective.

The trap that even good painters fall into, especially with space marines, is to understate the colors too much. If you are going to throw your model into a three-light tent and press a macro camera up to it, then subtlety is an asset. However, when everyone's 'first look' and your entire gameplay experience is going to be from further than 2' away, then bright colors and stark contrast are what is going to get you 'favorite army' votes. Each painting judge is different. But from experience I can tell you that a vast majority of them have unsophisticated palates. They are suckers for razzle-dazzle, and leave the 'dirty, worn, realistic' armies in the dirt.

The only difference between best painted single models or squads and best painted armies is the number of models. With Space marines not having to deal with hordes like Guard, Orks, and many tyranids, one can more easily spend time on the 40-50 models many tourney marine armies have.

BigToof wrote:I looked across at him and remarked that to some extent all his beautiful work was going to waste, because winning Best Painted with marines is an uphill battle. (Not impossible, just harder than other races)

Am I wrong?

The subject doesn't matter; the painting does. What did Da Vinci paint in the Mona Lisa? Just a portrait of a lady.

Good points Shep, I'll mention it to my friend next time I see him.

Unfortunately, the other thing I was seeing with his style was that same exact beautifully done "dirty, tired, worn" realism that doesn't seem to catch the judges attention.

Sadly it also seems like whatever is visually screaming the loudest is most likely to win awards.

Dal'yth Dude wrote:The only difference between best painted single models or squads and best painted armies is the number of models. With Space marines not having to deal with hordes like Guard, Orks, and many tyranids, one can more easily spend time on the 40-50 models many tourney marine armies have.

No my point was that when people can paint a single figure or unit they cherry pick the most interesting. Few people are going to chose battle brother Charles, who's armed with a bolter and standard power armor. Instead they chose chapter masters, Primarchs, and very fluffy units. The more normal troopers are seldom if ever done.

groz wrote:

BigToof wrote:I looked across at him and remarked that to some extent all his beautiful work was going to waste, because winning Best Painted with marines is an uphill battle. (Not impossible, just harder than other races)

Am I wrong?

The subject doesn't matter; the painting does. What did Da Vinci paint in the Mona Lisa? Just a portrait of a lady.

True, but I think that that is MUCH more a matter of right place, right time. Honestly, *I* am not impressed with that particular painting, and it took a well publized theft (at the time) to bring it into the lime light. Before that time it was viewed as a pretty normal picture.