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.

Do whatever feels/looks right to you, not anyone else, when i started I painted on three thick colours that looked terrible but all together they looked like a table top army of terribly painted mini's! but I loved them and thought they were cool, i've now been gaming for 15 years and althoough my work will never win golden demon it's good 'tabletop' quality and that's how I like it, so there really is no right or wrong answer to the question just differing opinions, but if it's neat clean and got some well painted colours then you're there if it's what you like!


keep doing what you love because in the end the emperor protects... i'm such a nerd!

Don't know why it didn't cross my mind before, but I took a peek in your galler Nob. I'd say you're hitting table-top quality smack on the head.

Generally speaking I'd take work being appraised as "table-top" quality as a compliment. Think of it like a passing grade on a test.

I suspect table-top quality is like porn. It's hard to describe, but I know it when I see it. It nestles that spot between "it's got paint" and "Holy crap, how long did THAT take?!"

I don't know, to me it is more "what is this model to be used for?"

Display - Not meant to be handled. This is stuff that takes hours, for example totally smooth blending, probably not washes (all blended instead), females have makeup and males have clearly defined facial features.

Tabletop - Meant to be handled. Painting is simplified because it will have to be fixed. For me, this means base coats for all areas of the models, washes, drybrushing, and simple layered highlights. Eyes, teeth, and details are all painted, but simply. Bases are all finished and are uniform throughout the army. Others clearly apply it differently.

So tabletop has wide meaning. I think the only sure thing is that it means painted, but clearly not a display model. Since there is no standard you wouldn't be able to know the intent from a passing comment. But, like was mentioned above, it is good because it means the army looks like it is where it belongs - on the tabletop.

Edit- for clarification

Nob 'ead wrote:Sorry to sound noobish but what is tabletop quality?

It means no bare plastic, no bare metal, and no primer showing anywhere.

I'd say this unit of mine is at table top quality:



Basic highlighting, most details picked out, painted bases.

@1-UP i completely agree there

Yeah, I think "not meant to be handled" is a good way of cutting off tabletop from competitive levels of painting.

at the bottom, I start tabletop quality with if every part of the model looks vaguely realistic. To me, just priming a model is not tabletop quality. Things that should look metallic should look metallic. Faces should at least have a coat of some flesh color on them, etc.

Basically, for me tabletop starts when a model has had it's basecoat solidly blocked out. Everything below that implies that the person spent less than 10 minutes on it, and didn't actually give the painting a real effort.

It's all reletive, but for me it's having a base colour with at least one shadow and one highlight plus a completed base.

edit: The overall painting skill doesn't always come into play. Tabletop quality is also sometimes referred to as 'looks good at 3 ft.'

Table top is usually 3 colors and the base being done , with maybe a simple wash to add some depth . it basically is just enough to get the army on the table where its not boring to look at while you play , or is the minimum paint required to play in a tournament .

Also it is usually the cheapest level of painting from a painting service , nothing special just enough to get them out there on the table and not have people grone in there mind that they have to spend the next 2 hours looking at an unpainted boring mob of minis .

My view of TT quality would differ depending on who's models are in question.

My own would have to be neat with a few layers of highlighting and a wash or two, but for others, I would go by if they have actually put some effort into their models.

Its one thing someone fielding what looks like vomit over some plastic when their general looks fantastic, that is pure laziness and I would not consider the units near TT, but someone who has a consistent paint quality across their whole army and who obviously painted them within their own personal painting skill level and did not just toss paint at them, well that would be table top or above for me.

Tabletop to me is simply something I can be proud to set on the table, above a rush job (basecoats, maybe a wash or two) yet a tad below display quality. While it's not going to be anything special, I'll still have spent a modicum of time on it, to the tune of a couple hours. Of course, I'm rather picky about painting to begin with, so the line between my "table top" and others "display" can be a wee bit blurred.

Nob 'ead wrote:Sorry to sound noobish but what is tabletop quality? I see it referenced to time and time again but i'm not exactly sure how good that means your painting is. Is it good or just the standard needed to use in a game without your opponent ridiculing you? Thanks!

Nob 'ead,

I think that by now it should be clear that 'table top' quality is a subjective term.

I could easily say that there is a spectrum of unpainted ->primed -> slop&go paint job -> table top -> good job -> Great! -> Excellent! -> Astonishingly great! And within that spectrum, there are levels of each. However, I'd rather just tell you good, great, or could use some work. We all started somewhere. Constructive feedback is more useful than labels.

I went through your gallery, and would say:

Your ultramarines:
- My definition of table top quality, if I were forced to pigeon-hole it.
- I see no shading or highlighting.
- No flocking on any of the bases. Just bare, black base.
- What is painted was painted "between the lines." No blue on your red eyes, no red on your blue armor.
- As a whole, if you put down this army on the table and asked it was "table top quality" I'd say yes. Decent to good table-top quality.
- I'm assuming you painted these first?

Your stompa
- I wouldn't say is table top quality. I would tell you "its great!"
- The metal paint is even and smooth, which isn't easy on a large mini.
- There is shading on the arms (badab black wash)?
- The blood stains are a nice touch.

Your Orks
- I'd say 'Good job!' and mean it.
- All of the minis have a basic shading, at least. A wash followed by highlights, it appears.
- The paint job is clean and "between the lines."
- Color choices look good for orks.
- The metal on their guns look shaded as well. The pictures are very dark, though.
- I don't like the base flocking. Static grass never looks good by itself. If you used some sand basing and then put clumps of grass on top, the bases would look much better.
- It looks like you spent a lot of time detailing the orks. I would like to see that army in person.

@Kronk, great feedback didn't really expect that in this thread! Yes the Space Marines were the first models I ever painted and I began to hate them and therefore changed to orks I do need to take better pictures I guess I was just in a rush!

I like how you classified it, no fiddly bits

I've never actually had my models reviewed before as i've never been to a club so thanks again!

i regard "TTQ" as being a passably 'good' job from 3-5 feet away, yet fails the "up close" standard.

It's the opposite of the "GD" winning 'standard' (which is a diorama standard).

I can't paint to the GD standard* so I don't bother doing so.


*I can't meet the "entry" standard, let alone have a chance of winning.

I consider tabletop quality to be a neat three-colour minimum, without necessarily having any highlighting or drybrushing.

Tabletop quality means that a tabletop mini looks great at 2 feet away; which is typically how far your opponent can see your mini.
Of course this means that the miniature is somewhat presentable and at least has the painting you would expect such as basing, basecoating shading and some drybrushing, etc.
Basically you aren't going to win Golden Demon but it still looks good.

Personally I prefer to paint my miniatures slightly above tabletop quality
Because despite the fact that I look emotionless and neutral 87% of the time to my peers I still crave their attention and approval.

I consider "tabletop quality" to be a finished figure in about an hour. For me, that's a few colors and a wash. A typical figure takes me three or four hours over two days with multiple layers, highlights, and washes. Bigger figures can take me multiple weeks. So when I do a figure in an hour, I'm not trying my hardest. I'm just trying to get a painted figure on the table quickly.

When I see someone else describing their minis as "tabletop quality", I think "half assed" - or rather, they made an effort, but either it wasn't up to their normal standard, or their skill is low enough that they don't feel comfortable describing it as painted. Either way, at best, you'll end up with a figure that you shouldn't look at in good light under a magnifying glass.

Locked for threadnomancy