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.

As a result of my approach to the hobby and my only average painting skills, I've always jokingly referred to my wargaming and modeling being playing with toys. However, recently I came into posession of a selection of FineScale Modeler magazines and it really reinforced the idea like a slap in the face.

Now I do realize that...
- our models have to stand up to the rigor of wargaming,
- wargaming models are not intended to be finely detailed representations of their subjects, and
- there are folks who convert and paint wargaming models to the level of pro model kit builders

but, by comparison to the pictures of coversions and paintjobs in FineScale I kind of feel like we're all just playing with toys (this doesn't necessarily have to be a bad thing).

What do you all think?

Im a Field Commander of a Mechanized Eldar Warhost ,


40k is srys business

I used to subscribe to that very magazine, and was a former small scale modeler before coming over to the dark side

I completely agree with you. While painters and modelers on here love to lavish detail and such on their minis, this is a community baseball league compared to the major leaguers that are in those pages. But I like wargaming more, cause when you finish a model, you actually get to do something with it, instead of just sit it on your shelf.

Ah, the eternal question, what do you do with that wonderful model when it is finished?
Wargames, at least, give you something to do with your models.

If anyone wants to see some major league models in person I would urge you to attend the MFCA show this coming weekend in Valley Forge PA. See www.MFCAShow.com for details.

Hah! I'm so glad this topic came up, because this rant has been stewing in me a while.

I had a subscription to FSM which lapsed a few months ago. I had a few people who said it was awesome, and useful, and I susbscribed to it for a year. I was furious when my subscription was up. FSM is garbage. I think the existence of Finescale Modeler exists only to make White Dwarf look like a reputable magazine. It has even less content; I'd say greater then 70% of each flimsy, thin issue was advertisements. I know they occasionally run good tutorials, but much like WD, they are rare; I can't remember reading a single useful thing throughout the entire run of my subscription. The actual articles within were usually devoid of content and always banal, and usually with misleading headlines on the cover: example. About 6 months ago or so, they had a beautiful F-16 done with a digital camo pattern, which looked incredible. The headline was Digital Camo revealed, we show you the secrets inside! or something like that. (I'm at work, so I can't reference the rag in question). Here is the big secret: it took a long time. That was the great insight they imparted.

For the final punch in the junk, FSM's version of a "years" subscription is actually 10 issues.

I call them dollies. Battles are big tea parties. Tournaments are man-dates.

Proper modellers make everything us wargamers do look like childish scribbling, that's true.

Ouze wrote:I think the existence of Finescale Modeler exists only to make White Dwarf look like a reputable magazine.

Hah. I took you seriously until you said this. There's hyperbole, and then there's babbling.

well, perhaps that was a bridge too far. Nonetheless, I was surprised (and disappointed) by the wide yawing chasm between the reputation and esteem other modelers hold them in, and the actual product that was delivered to me.

Great.. now I feel a little more embarrassed that I partake in this stuff at my age.

EDIT: Drank some beer. No longer embarrassed.

I used to be a fanatic about painting and modelling. Twenty years ago, I spent weeks on my celtic wood-elves, painting intricate warpaint, realistic eyes, godamned plaid pants for feth's sake!!! Now, I stick to neat base colors, washing and drybrushing. It would be more rewarding if the Ork Boyz that I spent a year (A YEAR!!!!!!) painting didn't get shot to hell by the third turn.

The big secret is that we play with toys and so do the model makers. There are a very small minority of both groups who do some absolutely astounding art work that transcends playing with toys....... the other 99.9999999% of us are just playing with toys. Nothing wrong with that just acknowledge it and don't take it or yourself too seriously.

Interesting. Locally, the wargamers are much better painters than the scale modelers.

It was absolutely hilarious when the scale modelers hosted painting lessons at the FLGS and tried to "teach" us.

lord_blackfang wrote:Interesting. Locally, the wargamers are much better painters than the scale modelers.

It was absolutely hilarious when the scale modelers hosted painting lessons at the FLGS and tried to "teach" us.

That is funny.

FSM seems a good magazine to me, you get a few articles on this and that. Some are better than other obviously. Then you get a few reviews of new kits that are built by magazine staff. There are pages of photos from various model shows or submitted by readers, you get the readers letters and hints/tips pages, there are a few pages at the front covering the various upcoming releases from all sorts of companies, you get a few odd pages like the nostalgia one at the back where they look at some weird old kit.

Gives me plenty to read and it's a good bit cheaper than WD. There are a few adverts in the magazine but at least you know they are from a variety of companies and they are there to pay for the magazine. Unlike say WD, which is full of their own adverts which merely serve to advertise the very same products which they are constantly pushing in the 'articles'.

WD does hardly any of the things that FSM does. WD painting articles are frequently similar and only a tool to show of the latest release, they don't seem to cover the many different modelling techniques that exist like airbrushing, masking, pinwashes and using various oils, pastels and others. Why not? Because GW only advertise their own stuff and they don't make these, and their magazine is about pushing products not teaching advanced painting techniques. All they do is go ooh and ahh at the Golden Daemon stuff without telling you how those painters achieve these effects. It's not learnt from reading WD that's for sure.

WD doesn't do any product reviews, obviously, because they are only selling their own stuff which they rave on about as being brilliant. There is no interaction with readers through a letters page and submitted photos. The future releases only covers what they are pushing that month because GW refuse to announce anything more than a matter of weeks before hand. WD is everything you expect of a magazine written entirely in house to push your own products on your own terms.

I read SMMI and SAMI every now and then, but it always boils down to yapping over the after-market options.

Yeah, we're playing with toys. What's the problem? Children play with toys, sure, but children play sports too and no-one's calling professional sportsmen out. iPhones are toys, nice cars are toys, big TVs are toys. We're all just playing in our own way. There's nothing to disrepect there.

With specific regard to dedicated modeller/painters over those who play games with their miniatures, I see no difference. I've an equal amount of respect for a skilled modeller, painter, or player. If one isn't great at any, hey, as long as your having fun.

Eilif wrote:Are we all just playing with toys?
What do you all think?

YES. We are.

Your point is?

Hell, I used to play games with my models, back in the 80s. Actual "proper" military scale models. 1/76 to 1/87 and 1/100. 15mm is not a new thing.

Military modeller often has better painting articles from a gaming point of view, anyway.
FSM passed its glory days back in the 80s.

There is a definite trend for accuracy in more generic modelling, as they will get critiqued on it by historical buffs on quite minute details.

We wargamers only have to worry about WYSIWYG and the rule of cool!

I've never subscribed to FSM only flicked through it a couple of times but do have a few of their "how to" books. I have found these to be excellent guides on general modelling and more refined techniques that I have then tried to apply to wargaming projects. I would particularly recommend ther Airbrushing books as starting reference.

Also most of the completed models that they show in them are amazing, really crisp paint jobs and in minute detail.

I have some of their issues from the early 80s when they did some SF models (X-wing, Eagle transporter, Cylon raider (light up) and a couple of others). Those articles were well done (even down to the use of powdered pastel chalks for weathering - this was pre-Mig powders - and people still use some of those techniques.)

Saying that normal modelers are an inarguably superior caste of painters and modelers to wargamers is an absolute and utter joke, and nothing short of that.
There's just as many shoddily made and shoddily painted panzers and F-16s out there as there are shoddily made and shoddily painted chimerae and rhinos. Probably more so.

Certainly, you can "ooh" and "aah" at the talents of the absolute best modelers and painters that exist, y'know, the kind that get pictures in magazines, but that would be like comparing normal finescale modelers to Golden Daemon winners.

Knowing several people who do or have done ordinary modeling of various sorts, I can safely say that I am a much worse painter than they are. But the same goes for my painting skills compared to literally anyone here on dakka. In fact, the average dakka member seems to be at least as good a painter as the average ordinary modeler. Sometimes more so, due to the greater amount of artistic freedom allowed in wargaming.

We're all just playing with toys. But the "we" there isn't "we wargamers compared to the modelers". The "we" there is "absolutely anyone who puts a bunch of money and time on something that ultimately does not do anything but look pretty and create fun".
I wouldn't dream of putting PC gamers at an inarguably higher rung of videogaming than console gamers.
Or linux users above mac users (...okay, maybe a little).
Or finescale modelers above wargamers.
The idea that your chosen avenue of small-scale modeling and painting would actually negatively impact your skill, as if there are secret arcane techniques available to those who put together and paint tiny little stuka planes that are completely incomprehensible to those who put together and paint tiny little valkyries, is patently absurd.

Anyone who tells you differently is just engaging in snobbery.

*Added Edit* And anyone who tells you differently should share their arcane stuka-painting techniques with us poor valkyrie-painters so we can become better.

The best thing about sci-fi and fantasy modeling is you don't have some expert blasting you because they didn't use that camo paattern until late in '44.

I see no purpose in models that exist only as models. I guess some people like it, but I rather do something with my insanely expensive hobby rather than having people pretend to care when they look at my shelf

snurl wrote:The best thing about sci-fi and fantasy modeling is you don't have some expert blasting you because they didn't use that camo paattern until late in '44.

Yeah, making "history" is part of the fun. Though, the history buff in me admires those kinds of details and I also get very tired of hearing grand left turns in fluff to justify a chaos grey knight army. To me thats right up there with the Masons and Iluminatti.

Yep. we do play with toy soldiers. thats why i find it so amusing when someone gets egotistical about how good at playing with toy soldiers they are. Someone here actually claimed to be the best general with 40k figures. Wow. Thats amazing.

I love my toys. I love the hobby for being able to have fun with a group of like minded freinds, buildmodels and scenery and paint. Winning is tertiary.

I would not call them toys because they are not suitable for children, I consider them more like Tokens.

Many people try to call themselves artists because they paint or sculpt a mini, I find it all very silly because at best they are competent crafters that can decorate some tokens or objects ( in case of static modelism).

If you take away the delusions of grandeur from your hobby activities you will probably see that its a very enjoyable and relaxing activity... unfortunatly many do not see it that way.
Most of my tokens are just on display and dont see the gaming table, some of them are sold at some companies for people to have fun decorating them and thats about it. Tokens to decorate.

Kirasu wrote:I see no purpose in models that exist only as models. I guess some people like it, but I rather do something with my insanely expensive hobby rather than having people pretend to care when they look at my shelf

You should make things primarily for yourself not others. Other people can enjoy them but if they were mainly for others you stick them in a museum or something. There's often more to military modelling than just building the kit, you van do a bit of research into it and get a few books, if it's a vehicle you can learn more than technical details but where and who used it. You always learn a lot. A model build can turn into a whole project, and if you are particularly interested in one part of that history you can make a model unusual by painting/converting to make it unique for a particular army or period. And when you're into a certain theme then you can add to it. For instance my dad in recent years has modelled Korean and East German tanks. He's not a master modeller by any means but it's the unusualness that gets attention. There are a lot of kits out there, variety is huge so at a display show you can see a lot of different things.

malfred wrote:I call them dollies. Battles are big tea parties. Tournaments are man-dates.

Quoted for truthery.

Malf and I have yet to go on such a man-date, unless you count that time ...well... nevermind about that.

Seriously though. Dollies. That's what they are and anybody who gets pissed at the nomer is ridiculously fooling themselves.

It doesn't help that some model shop owners have an attitude towards customers that aren't in their early teens or late forties. I was asked twice if the kits I bought were for myself and not gifts. I wish my local shop would hurry up with the renovations already.

I will say that GW's stuff for the most part is made to last. Can't say the same about FW's stuff though. But when comparing a GW kit to say a Tamiya kit, Tamiya is a better kit to build, but nowhere near as durable as the GW kit.

snurl wrote:The best thing about sci-fi and fantasy modeling is you don't have some expert blasting you because they didn't use that camo paattern until late in '44.

Put some female head-swaps on your marines and then go to a few games, and you'll see what our equivalent is.

Ouze wrote:

snurl wrote:The best thing about sci-fi and fantasy modeling is you don't have some expert blasting you because they didn't use that camo paattern until late in '44.

Put some female head-swaps on your marines and then go to a few games, and you'll see what our equivalent is.

QFT. Folks are the same all over.