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.

@Skink - Good points, and a good way of describing the two techniques of bringing forward visual interest. The Forgeworld weathering is a pleasing aesthetic.

Personally, I would like my space marines (though not necessarily their vehicles) to look like Ferrarris on a showroom floor, but that's just me. My eldar vehicles, I want to look like they are off the showroom floor too. Because we all know Eldar don't get dirty! Millions of years of technology has to be good for SOMETHING!

Maybe, secretly, I just want my car to wash itself

Subjective topic is still subjective.

Realism vs Fantasy? I say both are equally viable. To say that a fancy paint job on a space marine is wrong or should somehow be relegated to a status less important than a realistic paint job is kind of silly.

Would Eldar be less cool if they were painted as battle worn? Probably not. Is Steppenwolf the Chaos Lord any less cool nowadays because we know how to paint realistic looking crappy paint?

That's all realism is, making your models look like gak, but in a good way.

 darkcloak wrote:
Subjective topic is still subjective..

This

Lets look at things historically, not just artistically. Not terribly long ago there were soldiers running around on battlefields wearing bright red and pastel blue There was none of this camouflage or drab tones, it was vibrant and garish. The reasoning behind which was that it made it easy to identify who was who on the battlefield and allowed for a heroic aspiration. How could you possibly fail while wrapped in the heraldry of your king and country? Going back further than that saw the use of revered saffron yellow in China and the famed Papal and Roman Purples. There's plenty of grounds for obnoxiously bright schemes when it comes to uniforms and regalia.

With regards to battle damaged space marines...
It really depends what the story of the encounter is, and which space marines we're talking about.
The vast majority of chapters dont get too involved in lengthy conflicts where battle damage will be accumulated and grime collected. Thats the job of the imperial guard.
More often than not the marines are sent in to save the guard from a lengthy conflict by tipping the balance (immensely) in favour of the imperium.
They show up, look good, blast everything and go again.
While inbetween encounters the servitors would be performing the maintenance rites on the equipment keeping it in tip top condition as best they know how.

So to see heavily damage marines implies that somethings gone wrong with the battle plan, very wrong.
Realistic damage on them, in my mind, has to be fresh ~ made on the current encounter pretty much, I would expect a pristine deployment every battle in most ordinary circumstances.

As for bright vs muted... either way, as shock troops, hiding isnt the point. They're not typically about sneaking up on you when they arrive by drop pod or thunderhawk :/
edit ~ also when they do get damage, I have my doubts about scratches being silver... the armour is made of 'ceramite' isnt necessarily metal? Im unsure if a colour has been defined, but I'd like to see beige.

I like to contrast my Orks. Cloths will be darker reds, browns, yellows, and blues with grey's in there. But the skin is always a bright green. This is so that the 'Orkiness" is brought out by their skin. Really bright colours I like to leave a little cleaner than most, so my whites will pop and yellows a tad more. Most of my yellows and whites are reserved for skulls and motif's anyways

HairySticks wrote:
With regards to battle damaged space marines...
It really depends what the story of the encounter is, and which space marines we're talking about.
The vast majority of chapters dont get too involved in lengthy conflicts where battle damage will be accumulated and grime collected. Thats the job of the imperial guard.

Then again there is no way to stay clean when you show up in a Drop Pod

 Dust wrote:

HairySticks wrote:
With regards to battle damaged space marines...
It really depends what the story of the encounter is, and which space marines we're talking about.
The vast majority of chapters dont get too involved in lengthy conflicts where battle damage will be accumulated and grime collected. Thats the job of the imperial guard.

Then again there is no way to stay clean when you show up in a Drop Pod

Well It should be clean in the pod.

The outside obviously gets scorched. (and at that it should be almost 80% covered in soot)

this was exactly the idea i had in mind when painting the Logan mini...
he shows up for the battle, clean and pristine, and then has to run through a hail of fire, chipping his paint (if you look at the 360 view in my gallery, you will see that there is very little damage on the back of his armor, because a Vikings wounds should always be to the fore)...
it was not intended to be an example of a guy in the middle of a long campaign...
a series of lightning strikes (with down-time in between for clean-up and repairs), while the Guard hold ground, is very much how i interpret the Space Marine fluff...

still trying to say one style is better, or more difficult, when it comes to painting is never going to be something that everyone agrees upon...
it's like the NMM vs. TMM debates...
one side says TMM is easier to paint, while the other side says it can be just as difficult to do TMM really well...
meanwhile, i have seem horrible examples of both styles, as well as mediocre and mind-blowing examples...
depends on how much thought, time, and effort one puts into developing their skills, in my opinion...

cheers
jah

 Desubot wrote:

 Dust wrote:

HairySticks wrote:
With regards to battle damaged space marines...
It really depends what the story of the encounter is, and which space marines we're talking about.
The vast majority of chapters dont get too involved in lengthy conflicts where battle damage will be accumulated and grime collected. Thats the job of the imperial guard.

Then again there is no way to stay clean when you show up in a Drop Pod

Well It should be clean in the pod.

The outside obviously gets scorched. (and at that it should be almost 80% covered in soot)

I'm not so sure that a drop pod is 100% sure to be dirty on arrival. Really depends where you land it, no reason that they dont have technology to withstand entering an atmosphere without burning up your paint job. And surely it doesnt just impact the ground at terminal velocity? ... no thrusters of any kind to soften that impact?

There could be some dust kicked up over the marines enemies more so than the marines exiting the pod all glorious and shiny with freshly polished bolters, not even having soot from firing a round just yet. Heck even the bolter shells are going to be highly polished up with intricate rubbish carved in by the servitors ~ burn heretic and all that jazz.

At the moment of deployment I really would think they go in all shiny and polished, and come back as dirty as that single engagement might make them before getting repairs while some other squads plucked from another company have a go if necessary.
There are some (great) stories of marines stuck in long term combat, beyond what theyre made for, I did say above its really situation dependant and not what I'd call typical. Neither is wrong, but the polished shiny look could be a bit more fluff appropriate with a lot of the chapters I think.


edit ~ reading up now .. got me thinking about it heheh.

I stand corrected;
'a Drop Pod travelling at up to 12,000 kilometres per hour. At these velocities, it takes only a matter of solar minutes, or even seconds, for a Drop Pod to reach its destination as it plummets through the atmosphere, only firing its retro thrusters at the last possible moment before making a devastating impact on the planetary surface with enough force to crush most structures.' http://warhammer40k.wikia.com/wiki/Drop_Pod

The pod itself stands a good chance of taking some dmg doing things like that.
but to support my point about the whole religios side of all this for the marines;
'During the descent it is common for Space Marines to give voice to prayers to the Emperor and hymns of vengeance, steeling themselves against the danger of violent orbital entry and preparing themselves for the battle ahead.'
Battle is as much a religion for these guys as it is a job/purpose. They take a lot of pride in their gak.

darkcloak wrote:Subjective topic is still subjective.

Obviously. I have never tried to argue any different. I just think there's some misconceptions in the wargaming/sci fi/fantasy crowd when it comes to weathering because we don't spend as much time looking at awesomely weathered models.

For years I used to wonder "why aren't these models coming out like I'm imagining in my head?", "Why do my Wood Elves look like they are made from candy?" and so on. It took me a long time to realise it's because what I was picturing in my head was something gritty, but what I was producing was something comic-book style, and to produce something gritty I had to make more use of browns and blacks in my shades and pale colours in my highlights (so not just shading blue with a darker blue and highlighting with a cyan... but shading with a brown and highlighting with a pale grey).

I think if more wargamers were exposed to well weathered models and had a better understanding of what goes in to creating them, they'd probably appreciate them more, and quite possibly even start to like the weathered look more than they currently do.

HairySticks wrote:The vast majority of chapters dont get too involved in lengthy conflicts where battle damage will be accumulated and grime collected.

My contention is that even if you clean your armour right before a battle, it takes all of 30 seconds to accumulate the grime and damage you see on the likes of Forge World models.

Just ask your Mum how dirty your clothes were after playing a game of football or running around on the playground for a few minutes

It only takes a few steps across dusty ground for your shoes and the bottom of your trousers to become dusty, or a few steps on muddy ground to get muddy, let alone with explosions going off around you, and I think it'd only take diving for cover a couple of times on hard ground to strip the paint from the edges of your armour or the shrapnel from a grenade to take off a whole slab of paint.

Not that it's wrong to paint unweathered Marines, if you like that then go for it! I don't weather my Marines, but not because I think it looks better, mostly because I can't be bothered and lack the artistic ability to reproduce what I think looks cool

HairySticks wrote:Really depends where you land it, no reason that they dont have technology to withstand entering an atmosphere without burning up your paint job.

I don't think it's the panel or the paint itself that is burning, it's any dust or contamination (and quite possibly the air itself?) causing the scorches.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

darkcloak wrote:Subjective topic is still subjective.

Obviously. I have never tried to argue any different. I just think there's some misconceptions in the wargaming/sci fi/fantasy crowd when it comes to weathering because we don't spend as much time looking at awesomely weathered models.

For years I used to wonder "why aren't these models coming out like I'm imagining in my head?", "Why do my Wood Elves look like they are made from candy?" and so on. It took me a long time to realise it's because what I was picturing in my head was something gritty, but what I was producing was something comic-book style, and to produce something gritty I had to make more use of browns and blacks in my shades and pale colours in my highlights (so not just shading blue with a darker blue and highlighting with a cyan... but shading with a brown and highlighting with a pale grey).

I think if more wargamers were exposed to well weathered models and had a better understanding of what goes in to creating them, they'd probably appreciate them more, and quite possibly even start to like the weathered look more than they currently do.

HairySticks wrote:The vast majority of chapters dont get too involved in lengthy conflicts where battle damage will be accumulated and grime collected.

My contention is that even if you clean your armour right before a battle, it takes all of 30 seconds to accumulate the grime and damage you see on the likes of Forge World models.

Just ask your Mum how dirty your clothes were after playing a game of football or running around on the playground for a few minutes

It only takes a few steps across dusty ground for your shoes and the bottom of your trousers to become dusty, or a few steps on muddy ground to get muddy, let alone with explosions going off around you, and I think it'd only take diving for cover a couple of times on hard ground to strip the paint from the edges of your armour or the shrapnel from a grenade to take off a whole slab of paint.

Not that it's wrong to paint unweathered Marines, if you like that then go for it! I don't weather my Marines, but not because I think it looks better, mostly because I can't be bothered and lack the artistic ability to reproduce what I think looks cool

HairySticks wrote:Really depends where you land it, no reason that they dont have technology to withstand entering an atmosphere without burning up your paint job.

I don't think it's the panel or the paint itself that is burning, it's any dust or contamination (and quite possibly the air itself?) causing the scorches.

It takes more than 30seconds to get dirty unless you actually go rolling in it. Im aware mate, have my own toddler.
As an adult, I can wear a white shirt all day.. and actually not have it covered in filth by the end of the day. A space marine is not a toddler either, probably hasnt seen peppa pig and doesnt know how much fun jumping in muddy puddles is supposed to be.


The pod yes, upon looking it up (see my edit above), any pod on the table has taken a high speed impact with the ground. The soot is probably the least of the marks that no one would see (on the bottom side only, which is on the ground already)

 jah-joshua wrote:

Son_of_corax wrote:
This is the whole point I said that there is no right or wrong answer its purely an exercise in seeing people opinion. On something that's peaked my interest lately
As the game states its in the grim darkness of the future so the key is in that statement.
I never said comic book styling isn't serious art but there's a time and a place for it.
The major issue I have is people thinking painting gritty realism is somehow easier than the fantastical, which as I said any artist whose done both would say its harder to perfect random applications of wear and tear making it not look artificial to painting lots of layers to add shade.
In terms of what I said with what the hobby aims for look at the transition, of some chapters colours over the past 15 years.
With some races its got more realistic i.e Orks
But gw are trying to force people to use layers more so than the last generation of paints which was washes.
Its a war-game at the end of the day, and I suppose that's where I take my key from its "war".
I always feel that marines look stupid when painted to a parade standard then put on bases that show battle conditions.

you say that there is no right answer, but make statements as if you opinion is fact...
it's a bit confusing...

yes, the setting is grim, but then the fluff goes on to specifically state that Marines maintain their armour to be as pristine as possible at every opportunity...

this setting is completely over-the-top heroes and villains...
seems the like the most appropriate time and place for comic book styling to me...
of course that is a limitless styling, since comics can be gritty too...
it is not just the clean lines and bold colors of a traditional comic style, which is why any approach is equally valid here...

i have painted both, and i could not disagree with you more...

this took me one tenth of the time to paint:



versus this:



the amount of thought that went into each paintjob is equal, but the amount of time and skill that went into the Blood Angel is miles ahead of what i had to do on the Stormraven...
some washes and a sponge take care of the grit, while the fantastical style takes a lot of very precise work with the layers and lines to create the comic book style...

i don't understand how GW is trying to "force" layering any more than layering was already a thing in the 'EM style for a couple of decades before they changed the names of their latest paints...
washes are still there in the form of shades...

again, you say there in no right answer, and then go on to say how stupid you think Marines look with a parade ground paintjob...
there obviously is a right answer for you personally...
i'm not trying to attack you here, just pointing out why i am a little confused...
personally, i like a mix of both bright schemes and damage...

i had great fun painting this one:



there are almost as many approaches as there are individuals in any kind of art...
one thing i never understood, are the people who get irritated by basing altogether...
i hear a lot of "why is he dragging that terrain around with him everywhere he goes???", and they prefer the clear acrylic bases...
some people get in a tizzy over snow basing...
for me, i see a miniature as a representation of a moment caught in time, like a photograph, and like to create a visual story of that moment with the paintjob and basing...

anyway, like i said, i'm not trying to be a jerk, i just find myself totally on the other side of the fence with my thoughts and opinions on this one...

cheers
jah

Ok lets look at the opening statement of this thread, its been a debate between me and a friend who cant paint realism but thinks its alot easier which is the bases of all of this
Yeah there isnt right or wrong as it is whatever suits you best but I'm entitled to my opinion

Lets look at fact what I ve said is factually correct on Space Marine colour schemes, and the major reason for this was the cartoon styling of the 90s which GW has swiftly moved away from, and is very apparent if you go to Warhammer World and look at all their 40k models on display.

Fluff how I love a debate on fluff, it only states a marine polishes and repairs their armour between campaigns not during some war-zone they are still in,

Ill be honest the Storm Raven looks terrible, and looks to have had the same over the topness applied to its weathering that people apply to the fantastic. In no way does it represent the realism and why nature works on a vehicle i.e how rust drops down from a rivet, which is what I was stating in the start of the thread

Yes I wont lie that I like the Blood Angel and its painted magnificently, but I stand by my assessment that its too pristine and looks silly on a battlefield base, which is what Ive said all along. Look at it logically hes using a jump pack, which kicks up alot of dust and would scorch the armour as well as the helmet would get scratched from the intake behind his head sucking in air and hence grit. So While the reds are pretty and its all done well it just doesn't fit

To think you just need to use washes and a sponge for grit is truly naive, just look at any FW masterclass book, to see it takes more than that. Also that isn't going to allow you to accomplish the richness of rust that contains purples, blues, yellows and yes orange. But without knowing or understanding that by doing research or looking at real like wear and tear on combat vehicles people do things like your storm raven or as someone put it "Grimnar who fell down the stairs" again while it looks impressive and is nice, it looks like a cartoon.

Onto the paints, I for one build the mixers that make GW paints and can say for a fact that they are thinner and forcing people to layer. I always preferred the option of this depending on what I was going for at the time

For me I will say what I said before I take my cue from it being a War game and war is war


Automatically Appended Next Post:



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Polonius wrote:
One thing to keep in mind: 30k marines are from legions, which were the main fighting army of the Crusades. A 30k Salamander was a front line grunt, fighting en masse.

By 40k, the Astartes are closer to special operations: they dont' have the numbers or the need to operate en masse, but instead they are used for surgical strikes and as a highly mobile, highly adaptable fighting force.

Toss in 10,000 years of superstition and ritual, and the marines of "today" attach more importance to painting their colors, they have more downtime to do so, and they have less downside.

Just because they are Legions has nothing to do with paint schemes, its just what happened in GW at the time in their painting department.

In terms of saying Chapters don't have the numbers to fight en masse is again inaccurate the Wolves only split once, so easily number over 50,000 and the BT number well over the 1,000 limit

Space marines in 40k are now soo much busier than their counterparts in 30k as they have to look inward as well as out. Marines had a lot more downtime during the crusade, evident by the Horus Heresy books

Trends come and go.

When I started GeeDub years ago the trend was fantastical bright schemes with Goblin Green flocked bases. Every one with Goblin Green. Oh how much I got through.

Then it moved on to multiple basing styles (ice world FTW) and black undercoat-up-to-white-highlight super-deep colours.

Then the airbushing, weathering powders, chipping techniques and so on more commonly seen on historical miniatures started coming in, as people tackled bigger miniatures and Forge World stuff.

Do what the feth you like. I take actual chunks out of my Marines' armour, then paint brightstyle. It works for me. It may not for you. Eh. It's an easy balance. I'm not the world's best painter but it's fun to model and looks OK at a distance.

HairySticks wrote:
With regards to battle damaged space marines...
It really depends what the story of the encounter is, and which space marines we're talking about.
The vast majority of chapters dont get too involved in lengthy conflicts where battle damage will be accumulated and grime collected. Thats the job of the imperial guard.
More often than not the marines are sent in to save the guard from a lengthy conflict by tipping the balance (immensely) in favour of the imperium.
They show up, look good, blast everything and go again.
While inbetween encounters the servitors would be performing the maintenance rites on the equipment keeping it in tip top condition as best they know how.

So to see heavily damage marines implies that somethings gone wrong with the battle plan, very wrong.
Realistic damage on them, in my mind, has to be fresh ~ made on the current encounter pretty much, I would expect a pristine deployment every battle in most ordinary circumstances.

As for bright vs muted... either way, as shock troops, hiding isnt the point. They're not typically about sneaking up on you when they arrive by drop pod or thunderhawk :/
edit ~ also when they do get damage, I have my doubts about scratches being silver... the armour is made of 'ceramite' isnt necessarily metal? Im unsure if a colour has been defined, but I'd like to see beige.

Id beg to differ, look at how some chapter fight i.e white scars use a lot of bikes so will get pretty dirty, raven guard fight guerrilla warfare so get hella dirty, the Ultramarines in books have been described as having pretty battered armour after battles like damnos tyrannic war, Thracia, just to name a few. Look at the fists in storm of Iron again they got into a very protracted campaign

In terms of the games we play its always company strength which means a protracted campaign. For small scale warfare your lucky if a squad is sent perfect example Dan Abnett's Iron snakes book. I highly suggest this for anyone to read as well.

To see weathered and Damaged marines mean that they have been doing their job and going where the fighting is thickest as is their role. Yes pristine on deployment but not actually in combat which is what we all play at the end of the day

I will agree that scratches or gouges are most likely like a metalically cerment colour but


Automatically Appended Next Post:
@ JohnnyHell personally love to see these as a true representation of war. I agree with you on the taking chunks out I tend to do the same after all being hit by a bolt isn't going to just scratch your war plate

I find it fun to do! I rationalised that my Marines are deep into a Tyrannic War. So lots of caustic insect 'shell' holes, deep claw gouges, etc.

@SoC: i did clarify that i was not going for a realistic military modeling approach to the Stormraven, but weathering in a cartoony style, which is what i paint...
i do not try for real world logic in painting for a fantastical setting like 40K...
if i were painting Bolt Action or FoW, i would try some military modeling techniques...

i disagree that the 'EM studio is moving away from the cartoony style of the 90's...
while FW has incorporated a lot of military modeling techniques into their work, the 'EM studio has not...
you don't see them applying weathering powders and such into the studio armies or painting guides...
look at their White Scars army, or Iyanden Eldar, and tell me they are not cartoony...

as to the fiction, you have a different interpretation than i do...
i have read examples of Marines repairing their armor in between battles...
there is plenty of scope in the fiction for all interpretations...

layering has always been the dominant technique of the 'EM studio...
that is not a new thing...
i don't know about the new paints forcing layering, since i switched to P3 10 years ago, and use them exclusively...
if you are not happy with GW paints, you can always use a different brand...

whatever you choose, have fun, and maybe try to sound a little less judgmental of other people's approach...

cheers
jah

One place we have seen how the EM studio handle weathering is in the Space Hulk set.
The guy with the claws (claudio? ...original )

Is noticably weathered compared to the others, still though for what the fluff says he's been doing, he's kept it pretty clean considering.

~ can still be seen on the Australia GW site ;http://www.games-workshop.com/en-AU/Space-Hulk

Which is the "better" Picasso painting? There's no right or wrong answer. I like some of the arguments this thread has thrown up though.