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.

The most glaring issue i have is the FW new release stuff, specifically the HH marines

QFT. I wouldn't describe the paint schemes as "shocking", but they are definitely 5/6 points on CMON, rather than the 7/8 I would expect. I respect that they are chasing a style closer to that seen in Military Modelling and similar publications, but there have been a few cases of minis that look great in the grey and then rather disappointing in the painted pics, which rather defeats the object.

R.

Samurai_Eduh wrote:

 Yodhrin wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
The Deathwing model referenced above shows how the lack of depth in the armour is offset by the large amount of gubbins on the figure, so that a relatively complex piece is achieved with a set of individually simple operations.

However I have always felt that paintwork that looked "too good" was likely to put people off painting their models at all. I am glad that there is a system by which good results can be achieved relatively easily. There are several, of course, and GW want to sell theirs.

Whereas by contrast, I feel that when the company who makes and advertises the miniatures puts no effort into painting them to a high standard, lots of people will just think "meh, they don't bother, why should I? *basecoat+sloppy drybrush*". I learned to paint -and wanted to learn- because GW at the time was awash with creativity. I got White Dwarf or a new Codex and the models inside looked incredible, I went into the stores and the display/demo armies were still of fantastic quality but more achievable; I wasn't intimidated by that, rather I saw the clear progression from the basic stuff I and other newish/game-focused people were churning out up to the masterclass standard stuff done by the studio or seen at GD. And more than that, the store itself was full of knowledgeable staff members and vet players who were happy to sit down with you and walk you through a technique, or show you a cool new trick. I'm still nowhere near that level, but I enjoy the process of learning, and I'm not convinced that the new paint-by-numbers attitude at GW will help people find that enjoyment.

I don't object to their having an easy to use "system" in their paints, I applaud it in fact since it likely will mean a rise in the quality of the general "tabletop-standard" paintjob, what makes it paint-by-numbers is that that's ALL there is. It's not sold as a way to give beginners a step-up, or to help game-focused hobbyists who're less concerned with painting to achieve a better standard without much extra effort, which then leads into more advanced stuff "like the studio guys do", it's just "Buy your Games Workshop^TM Official^TM Paint Set^TM and follow the Official^TM Colour Scheme^TM for your Blood Angels^TM and you too can have an Army^TM like the Amazing^TM Master Level^TM forces painted by the Studio Team^TM!".

There's room to both encourage with easily achievable techniques, and to inspire with difficult high-quality paintjobs, it's not an either-or proposition.

This is really just meant to show how to paint an army easily using thier "system". To be honest, I like the approach. I'd rather have 10 people at the club have your "basecoat+sloppy drybrush" and have the people feel like they accomplished something, than one with an 'eavy Metal paint job that no one feels like they can achieve.

I cover exactly that proposition in the post you're quoting/replying to. To start with, people shouldn't be feeling proud of something they deliberately put no effort into, which is the context of the "basecoat+sloppy drybrush" remark you ignored. Again, it's NOT a binary issue, you can have a paint range that's designed to make it easy for new people without also removing any trace of highly skilled work that people can aspire to. You don't help people improve by telling them they don't have to, you help them improve by providing inspiration, instruction, and constructive critique.

I have mixed feelings about this. On the one hand, if they ratchet down their game a little, I have to imagine that it's more consistent with their push to get newer gamers into the HHHobby. And is it so bad to present the models to a standard that the average painter, if they are careful, is more likely to actually achieve? Perhaps they can use this as a push to cut down on the grey legions - here's how to do simple, good looking paintjobs easily, and on WD or our Website*, we show advanced painters how to do really incredible stuff.

On the other hand, Bugman has a point.

 NAVARRO wrote:
I expect a company that labels itself for collectors, best in the world, ferrari level etc, etc to publish an image consistent with that.

So, there is some merit to both sides.

So far as showing the lightning claws all warped, hey, I'm all for that, since it accurately depicts what you're probably gonna get.




*snicker

I am glad i read this thread! I haven't bought WD for quite a while and have grabbed a couple of the newer versions to see what they are like and if they bought back anything from the 'good ol days' we like to reminisce about! in regards to the painting a couple of things really slapped me in the face, first was the obvious level or style of painting dropping considerably, it's not bad by any stretch, but when you get used to looking through these premium hobbyist magazines for inspiration and technique you can bring to your own force it's dissapointing to find things going backwards (in my eyes at least)

secondly the 'paint Splatter' atricles on showing you how to paint! Um, really? this is kind of a mixed bag for me, I know they are a company pushing their products they just re tooled and released with the new paints and layers etc. and that's what companies do, but the step by steps are VERY basic and don't match with some of their comments, showing a well painted and blended Nurgle daemon or similar with subtle highlights and multiple washes to blend the intestines into the surround, and then telling you 'how to paint this' is wrong! they're not showing you how to paint this like this! they're showing you a rather dumbed down version or quick scheme, if they tout the article as such, I again have no qualms about it just don't tell the newer hobbyists that your paint wil be this good if you just do this!

I would love to see a easier version of a scheme and then an advanced one on a following page, does anyone remember their face painting tute? one page was a basic job and overleaf was the 'Eavy Metal' version, it was great, you could master the basic and then slowly progress yourself as you went along learning!

and as i'm starting to get ranty here with my dissapointed and tired old mind, Terrain! please bring back beautiful hand made battle fields! and take decent and evocative battle report shots to really push the cinematics of the story! a la Istvaan V White Dwarf!

 Kilkrazy wrote:
I have always felt that paintwork that looked "too good" was likely to put people off painting their models at all

This is why I can't paint after going on Dakka. It's like stage fright

 progreen10 wrote:

http://www.games-workshop.com/gws/catalog/productDetail.jsp?catId=cat440277a&prodId=prod1710018a

nuff said

This is more so because of what a low quality product finecast is. I wouldn't expect GW to make their models too bad as that could hinder making little Timmy want to buy it.

Them again GW does a lot of stuff that makes little sense

In any regard they still paint better then me.....

I consider it vastly superior to the old way, or at least the old way I remember when they outlined absolutely everything in black.

 Deadshot wrote:
I think its rather the paint system the compaby is selling. Base, wash, highlight, highlight, drybrush, glaze, texture. To sell more paint I suppose and their saying, "sell by example" to 'Eavy Metal. Recently I have begun to pick up on the highlights in the WDs. I can in older issues when I look for it but with the recent mags I can just see it.

I agree with this and can add that the new paints are not doing them any favors.

In short, the new paint formulas are craptastic.

 Grot 6 wrote:

I agree with this and can add that the new paints are not doing them any favors.

In short, the new paint formulas are craptastic.

In what ways do you think they fail?

I personally have yet to have any experience other than positive when the paints are used in the 'style' they're advertised for (i.e. base paints for coverage, layer paints for layering, etc).

the base too thick.the paint, inconsistant. I've had issue with the paint caking, and the coverage on the orks I'm painting is taking more effort then the older style paints.

My experience is leading my to run to vallajo and reaper to shore up the issues.

 yakface wrote:
In what ways do you think they fail?

Well, I haven't tried very many of the new line, but I think Nuln Oil sort of fails at it's intended use, presuming that use is to flow into indented detail and off of raised surfaces to enhance contrast. While Badab Black did an excellent job of doing this without changing the character of your model, I find Nuln Oil tints the entire thing black so significantly it's essentially a totally different thing then a wash.

Yep, if the heavy metal team is still a thing they are either on an insane schedule and have no time to work well or they have been replaced with new guys.

That mini is very interesting. Look at the lines on the helmet and compare with those on the shoulder pad. Was it painted by two or more different people?

R.

I'm actually wondering if there is still a Heavy Metal team. If so, I'm not seeing it in the stuff GW puts up on their web site.

Personally think WD should show a ranage of painting styles. The hobby is a diverse one some like to paint and some don't and there is a world of difference between painting a nice looking table top army to play games and a golden deamon entry and WD should reflect that IMO. So while I'm as happy as the next man to look at examples of high art I'm just as interested to look at models/articles that show me how to knock up a nice looking army for gaming in a resonable time. It's all about striking a balance.

They said that the Heavy Metal team requested the new Edge Paints, so they still have to exist. GW wouldn't lie about that...

Although if that is true then it does also speak to the "only use GW stuff" direction they have taken. I've often heard that the HM guys frequently use non-GW supplies, so if they are forced to use GW only I could imagine them speaking up and saying "if we have to use our stuff only, then we need to make stuff we can use!"

I'm sure they requested all the new GW paints. This is why they're so quiet they're just so busy using them to paint all these new finely detailed models GW keeps releasing.

They were in a paint-frenzy induced coma, that is what is keeping them quiet.

It's also the reason the quality has been a bit less than stellar lately. After the time in a coma they are painting as part of their physical therapy to get their fine motor skills back.

I heard they were that gifted they're actually still painting while in this comatose state.

I like the new paints... >_>

I've had nothing but good experiences with them. One of the models I consider to be the best model I've painted was done with the new paints and an old bottle of blue wash. The new paint line does what's advertised. It gives painters a set formula to achieve solid results. More experienced painters will obviously scoff because the skill level you're at isn't the level the target audience is at.

If this is a purposeful marketing decision to market painted figures in an easily achievable manner then it can (for the most part) be a good thing. The problem is that there are still well.painted models that you look at and go "huh? How do I paint that?" And then we get a disparity that nerdfest was talking about.

I haven't really used any of the new paints, might pick up the white at some point though.

Ever since I picked up my first bottle of Vallejo I just fell in love with dropper bottles.

I find myself shifting between dropper and paint pots... my vallejo paints are really inconsistent which is what's putting me off of them...

 Alfndrate wrote:
I find myself shifting between dropper and paint pots... my vallejo paints are really inconsistent which is what's putting me off of them...

Reaper Master Series; invest.

Failing that, have you put agitators in your Vallejo bottles? Those wee lava bead thingies do well enough, and with them in you don't have to shake the pots nearly as long to persuade the paint to act how it's supposed to.

 Ouze wrote:

 yakface wrote:
In what ways do you think they fail?

Well, I haven't tried very many of the new line, but I think Nuln Oil sort of fails at it's intended use, presuming that use is to flow into indented detail and off of raised surfaces to enhance contrast. While Badab Black did an excellent job of doing this without changing the character of your model, I find Nuln Oil tints the entire thing black so significantly it's essentially a totally different thing then a wash.

I have the opposite experience with my Nuln Oil. It's vastly lighter than the previous black washes and won't tint colors even with several coats.

I'm not calling you a liar, I'm suggesting maybe there's some inconsistency in the product.

One thing to consider is the fact that some stuff is painted for the table/battreps and other stuff to advertise colours and models. Back in the old days the studio armies werent top notch painted but somewhat simple yet good looking on the table. If you go too heavy on blendings and details sometimes it's looking weird on the table when you are a bit away. Besides that, yes there are some really "bad" examples of painted miniatures by the 'eavy metal team. I remember some lotr chars that looked well, terrible. They were meant to to be on the table but someone decided to make closeups for the WD and it was anything but someone I like to see. To the painters defense, the models are actually a pita to paint because of the quality. At least when they got introduced - havent touched a lotr mini since 2 or 3 years.

 DarknessEternal wrote:
I have the opposite experience with my Nuln Oil. It's vastly lighter than the previous black washes and won't tint colors even with several coats.

I'm not calling you a liar, I'm suggesting maybe there's some inconsistency in the product.

Fair enough. I got some right after it was released - perhaps they tweaked the recipe and you have a newer one (?), or, as you say, it's inconsistent. If they did indeed change it up, I may try a second bottle. I picked up some AP dark and that works OK for now.

They've been dropping for a long long time. It isnt something new.

I can easily paint a figure to that standard, and I don't consider myself to be anything more than a middle-grade painter, and I also lack a job where that's all I have to focus on all day! The detail on that shoulderpad, especially the white on the emblem and the grey tau markings, is simply gadawful for something that's being used as advertising. There's no other way about it.

What advertisement?

Strange, that image looked a whole lot better on my cell phone earlier today

Perhaps GW has heard of the internet and mobile browsing, and that's what they're hoping to do now with their models. Kind of like how some Golden Daemon painters will paint under harsh convention lights so that their stuff looks proper at the games day