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 apologize in advance if this should actually be in the showcase)

So, we all know GW has some old, outdated, or just plain ugly minis, and that the same is true for armies as a whole. For some, this isn't the case, as I don't think I've yet seen a truly awful guard army, and I can't think of a way to possibly make an ork army look bad. I mean, even any stripe of power armor looks at least decent with a single color and a wash.

... but on the other hand, you have some armies that just struggle. I'm talking like tau, where GW was only able to come up with like 2 paint schemes that look even decent, or like necron that invariably devolves to drybrushing boltgun, or tyranid or dark eldar (new or old), that not even 'Eavy Metal can seem to get a good scheme for, even for official display. Blue and red dinosaur-bugs? Dark eldar that are just painted black because any color would just show off their faults?

I can think of exactly one DE army that I've seen painted that I've liked (Nerdfest's), and I don't know if I've ever seen a nid color scheme I've liked. Even otherwise nice models like wraithguard or kroot only ever seem to get worse once you break out the paintbrush. And don't even get me started on some of the really wretched WHFB armies out there.

So, what I'm not asking for is people who have done nice painting work, as that's easy enough to find. What I'm asking for is if anybody has pictures of an army that is usually an eyesore, even when painted by GW's own painters, that have been risen to the level of at the very least not embarrassing by a really nicely designed and executed paint scheme.

I don't know, it all boils down to aesthetics being subjective. What constitutes as an eyesore would look really good for some people. To give you an example, during the early days of my miniature collecting, I have avoided GW stuff like the plague since the proportions are really, really fethed up. Then it grew on me. My friend still thinks they look silly with those big heads and big guns and stocky bodies.

I actually think Tau, Dark Eldar and Tyranids are not eyesores. Lizardmen on the other hand, the models just don't sit well with me.

And GW female sculpts. UGH. Aside from the new Dark Elf plastic sorceress, the new plastic banshee, one Bretonnian damsel and Isabella von Carstein, I think GW's female sculpts are crappy. They look like men with breasts. Even the new wyches: they have broad shoulders and no hips, and the only indication that they're female are their breasts.

I would agree that the majority of Tau armies I've seen are a little "flat" in the colour scheme department. Some even look like lego. I strongly disagree with Necrons, DE and Tyranids as I think these are some of the best armies for painting.

It really is a very subjective feeling you are describing there. I like a lot of the Tau colour schemes, I like the Tyranids range, I think the new Dark Eldar are awesome, but I think that with a crappy paintjob, Space Marines are really, really butt-ugly and Guard? I shudder to think of the 2nd ed IG models - or the current Catachans. No amount of painting skill can make those look any good.

So yeah, since everybody will have a different idea of what is an eyesore, this is probably going to be a thread full of good paintjobs on cool models for most people and a lot of people telling you that you weren't right in the head for liking or disliking this or that model range.

heartserenade wrote:I don't know, it all boils down to aesthetics being subjective. What constitutes as an eyesore would look really good for some people. To give you an example, during the early days of my miniature collecting, I have avoided GW stuff like the plague since the proportions are really, really fethed up. Then it grew on me. My friend still thinks they look silly with those big heads and big guns and stocky bodies.

I actually think Tau, Dark Eldar and Tyranids are not eyesores. Lizardmen on the other hand, the models just don't sit well with me.

And GW female sculpts. UGH. Aside from the new Dark Elf plastic sorceress, the new plastic banshee, one Bretonnian damsel and Isabella von Carstein, I think GW's female sculpts are crappy. They look like men with breasts. Even the new wyches: they have broad shoulders and no hips, and the only indication that they're female are their breasts.

At least in the 40k strand this is fairly justified.

A wytch is, after all a killing machine. Her shoulders would be huge.

To be honest I wish they'd tone down the breasts on female models. To me, it just seems unnecessary that if I want to paint a bret damsel, she can't have a dress that goes up to her neck line.

heartserenade wrote:And GW female sculpts. UGH. Aside from the new Dark Elf plastic sorceress, the new plastic banshee, one Bretonnian damsel and Isabella von Carstein, I think GW's female sculpts are crappy. They look like men with breasts. Even the new wyches: they have broad shoulders and no hips, and the only indication that they're female are their breasts.

OT, but Michaelangelo couldn't sculpt (or paint) women well at all. As the man had an absolute mastery of the male form, he's usually just bang some boobs on a bloke and call it a day.

http://artmodel.wordpress.com/2008/08/10/gender-maneuvers-from-michelangelo/

So we shouldn't be too judgmental - one of the greatest artists the human race has ever produced had difficulty with it so it must he hard

Ailaros I agree that I've pretty much never seen a great Tau army and the only good Necron armies are the ones which aren't silver. The best thing about Guard and Orks is the conversions. Because both armies can be so divergent from the norm there's so much scope for fun. There's basically nowhere to go with 'Crons or 'Nids that doesn't involve just using other models...

Tek wrote:

heartserenade wrote:And GW female sculpts. UGH. Aside from the new Dark Elf plastic sorceress, the new plastic banshee, one Bretonnian damsel and Isabella von Carstein, I think GW's female sculpts are crappy. They look like men with breasts. Even the new wyches: they have broad shoulders and no hips, and the only indication that they're female are their breasts.

OT, but Michaelangelo couldn't sculpt (or paint) women well at all. As the man had an absolute mastery of the male form, he's usually just bang some boobs on a bloke and call it a day.

http://artmodel.wordpress.com/2008/08/10/gender-maneuvers-from-michelangelo/

So we shouldn't be too judgmental - one of the greatest artists the human race has ever produced had difficulty with it so it must he hard

Michelangelo carved Pieta, and you can see from there that he can sculpt feminine, soft figures if he so wanted:



It is a stylistic choice in Michelangelo's part: he was the one of the of the first artists who spearheaded Mannerism which diverged from naturalism: see his Sistine Chapel works for a good example. From there you can see his figures, both male and female figures have more muscles than necessary. He even sculpts and paints well-muscled babies, for crying out loud:



I don't think it's a stylistic choice in GW's part.

Sorry, kind of a fan of Michelangelo. He's my favorite artist of all time, and I even have quite embarassing photos of me hyperventilating after seeing a copy of Pieta. So...yeah. Some people fawn over celebrities. I fawn over a long-dead eccentric man.


I hope I don't sound pretentious or anything.

The use of muscles on the children stems from greek humanism, doesn't it? Where the most natural form of man is the best?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
of course, they're all fully clothed.

heartserenade wrote:
Michelangelo carved Pieta, and you can see from there that he can sculpt feminine, soft figures if he so wanted:

Spoiler:

I mean, even how he sculpts Jesus is soft and feminine.

It is a stylistic choice in Michelangelo's part

Sorry for the threadromancy, but wasn't that just because Michaelangelo used pretty much exclusively male models for his work? I have a postcard of Pieta in my study - for me the most impressive aspect is that one figure looks dead and the other alive, despite both figures never having been alive in the first place. The feminine figure is a bundle of robes.

It is simply a matter of taste.

I happen to find Vostroyans absolutely awful. I cannot find a single redeeming feature about them (except perhaps that they are white metal...so I don't run into them too often).

Personally, I find standard PA marines to be very blah. The Termis are OK, with the GK Termis being a notch above (A good paintjob makes them look awesome). I am definitely not a fan of SM vehicles, especially Dreds (unless you're talking a Contemptor...FW hit the mark on that one). On the other hand the Dreadknight, despite making the GK pilot look like baby Carlos from the Hangover, is a pretty awesome model.

I think that, for GW's poster boys, the SMs don't really look all that special or intimidating. I think GW needs to up the ante and make them live up to their supposed legendary power.

heartserenade wrote:I don't know, it all boils down to aesthetics being subjective. What constitutes as an eyesore would look really good for some people. To give you an example, during the early days of my miniature collecting, I have avoided GW stuff like the plague since the proportions are really, really fethed up. Then it grew on me. My friend still thinks they look silly with those big heads and big guns and stocky bodies.

I actually think Tau, Dark Eldar and Tyranids are not eyesores. Lizardmen on the other hand, the models just don't sit well with me.

And GW female sculpts. UGH. Aside from the new Dark Elf plastic sorceress, the new plastic banshee, one Bretonnian damsel and Isabella von Carstein, I think GW's female sculpts are crappy. They look like men with breasts. Even the new wyches: they have broad shoulders and no hips, and the only indication that they're female are their breasts.

I think howling banshees look pretty nice ;D

Perhaps GW artists are students of Michaelangelo?

TBH I think the Wyches are a step forward. Thinking of buying them myself for conversions.


Don't tell me you can't recognize the female on this picture.

GW miniatures tend to be over-masculined. For example, the Catachans - they look horrible! The body proportions are all wrong. Cadians are not much better though, with their overgrown heads.

Also, I agree with Tau armies not having coherent style and good paint themes. The necrons do look a bit corny, but the new releases did them good. This all is a matter of personal opinion though, for example, I hate Space Wolves for their cheesy appearance - and now they have real wolves, too!

With tau, there are plenty of nice paint schemes, it's just that few of them are covered by the codex, and you usually take a bit of a risk with them, so only works some of the time.

I agree on hazard. It's just gw making the colour schemes look meh. Tau are one of the best factions on creating custom colour schemes.
Take this one as an example, desert style

http://advancedtautactica.com/viewtopic.php?f=35&t=13162

SM on the other hand are very bland and can be just plain boring. Only adding chapter iconography and free handing can make them have a bit of a flavor. This is why I decided to try diffrent armies and buy a few models. The guardians I bought a really long time ago, are now a WIP on an iyanden army.

Diabolical13 wrote:Tau are one of the best factions on creating custom colour schemes.
Take this one as an example, desert style

http://advancedtautactica.com/viewtopic.php?f=35&t=13162

Bloody hell, they are FANTASTIC. I want a Tau army now!!

I really don't like GW's standard tau colors or their plain crons.

I have seen Space Marine armies who have a decent paint job, does that count?

Don't share your view that Necrons, Dark Eldar, Tau and Tyranids are ugly as these (plus Eldar and Sororitas) are exactly the armies I collect. Could post unusual and decent paint jobs for all of them, if you want. But there are quite a lot.

To be honest many of GW's paint schemes on the boxes and the website are kinda meh in my opinion.

2nd edition orc armies were painted really good, way too much red thou.

looking at those literally hurts, just like any army that is painted in bright yellow,blue,red,pink or any neon color.