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.

A big question, for me atleast, is how do people like battle damage on models?

I, personally, hate it. I dont spend 80 hours painting a squad of TDA to then go back and muck up what i just did with a bunch of paint spatter and "weathering"

I think its fine on orks, or nurgle / khorne, but armies like Tau, marines, eldar would have too much pride in their gear to let it get demolished.

Going into a battle yes. But say the game your playing would be the end of the war and your guys are beat up and covered in blood and guts. Battle damage or lack there of is about telling a story. Whatever story you want to portray is up to you. I personally like a little battle damage and muck and grime but that is just me...

Gunnvulcan wrote:A big question, for me atleast, is how do people like battle damage on models?

I, personally, hate it. I dont spend 80 hours painting a squad of TDA to then go back and muck up what i just did with a bunch of paint spatter and "weathering"

Agreed 100%. Even when done well, I dislike it. I'm fine with its use in dioramas and the like, but in models for actual play? Hate hate hate. And that's GOOD weathering. I've seen heavy handed horror that takes a decent paint job and basically dips it in mud. Such a waste.

Depends on the quality, mostly, for me. To assume that, in the line of duty, a marine will never get his armor scuffed or step in a puddle is ludicrous, so, like funkyh says, it's simply a matter of selecting a narrative point - pre-, mid-, or post-battle - to suit your personal tastes. I'm as much at odds with the "marines care for their gear, battle damage is unfluffy and ugly" camp as I am with those that insist that anything that looks like it actually might still function needs more weathering (extremism is never pretty, is it?). Battle damage can add gritty realism and it can tell a story, but a model slathered in Devlan Mud a hamfistedly stippled with Boltgun chips is probably not going to look as good as a pristine one, even if the latter is painted rather simply. Like most techniques, weathering requires practice and/or research to be done well, but objectively, on a finished model, none is better than a sloppy job.

Personally, I'm keeping my marines clean, simply for the sake of variety - my other army is Orks.

If it's done really well, then it can look good. Personally I like my Marines to look nice and neat though, and even my vehicles only get some damage on them in the form of a few bullet holes or scratches. I've seen great dioramas with battle damage and a few good armies, but by and large Marines are meant to keep their gear in good shape.

Chaos Marines, on the other hand, can go nuts with battle damage if they really want to. That's half of what goes into Nurgle conversions anyway.

Marines are supposed to have meticulously maintained armor. With the exception of Cursed Founding chapters, they should have appear well maintained and unblemished.

That being the case, I am not a fan of battle damage.

I like battle damage cause it makes your marines look like the battle hardened veterans they are suppose to be.

Bongfu wrote:I like battle damage cause it makes your marines look like the battle hardened veterans they are suppose to be.

To me it makes me think they're Space Hobos who couldn't afford to get their armor fixed up at the Mechanicum tailor.

Brother SRM wrote:

Bongfu wrote:I like battle damage cause it makes your marines look like the battle hardened veterans they are suppose to be.

To me it makes me think they're Space Hobos who couldn't afford to get their armor fixed up at the Mechanicum tailor.

Thats the fun part about this game. Everyone has their own viewpoint.

Brother SRM wrote:

Bongfu wrote:I like battle damage cause it makes your marines look like the battle hardened veterans they are suppose to be.

To me it makes me think they're Space Hobos who couldn't afford to get their armor fixed up at the Mechanicum tailor.

Haha...pretty much.

I like mud around the legs and feet of my models. On bikers I wash them three times to give them a good muddy look like they had a long ride though the woods to get to battle. That's mostly because I think dirty white is easier and looks more interesting than clean white on marines. That being said I try to keep the upper parts of the models reality clean because mud can only splash so high. I do, on rare occasion, put in chipped paint on a marine if he is in a very action packed pose. But for the most part I leave the chipped paint and rust for my chaos.

Clean marines can look good don't get me wrong. But from one army to the next, the ones that catch my eye have battle damage on them.

This could also be because for the first six years of warhammer 40k I played Imperial Guard.

Thats what the small packs on the waist are for... to carry small pots of paint to touch up scratches after a hard days fighting.

I love weathering, in fact in a bit addicted to it, although I don't game with my models. I see the beauty in a nice clean well painted army, but personally I like the whole 'story telling' side of a paint job.
A picture tells a thousand words.

As funkyh says, thats why this hobby is so good, nobody is right or wrong, its what you like.

leroy233 wrote:Thats what the small packs on the waist are for... to carry small pots of paint to touch up scratches after a hard days fighting.

I love weathering, in fact in a bit addicted to it, although I don't game with my models. I see the beauty in a nice clean well painted army, but personally I like the whole 'story telling' side of a paint job.
A picture tells a thousand words.

As funkyh says, thats why this hobby is so good, nobody is right or wrong, its what you like.

That's what initiates are for, painting your gear

I think weathering is what makes a good looking army into an awesome looking army for 40k. Its the grimdark, not the bright and shiny. Marines unless this was their first fight are going to have some battle damage, after 1 small fight. The marines don't show up to just any parade. They show up to fight the toughest and hardest enemies in the galaxy. So as has been said if this is your marines showing up on a planet for the first time, bright and shiny. If they have been fighting and running around a battlefield they are gonna be dirty and dinged up. Mine are in it for the long haul so vehicles are dinged up, nothing showing the vehicle is non functioning just resilient.

Personally on marines i hate battle damage. i like my guys loooking like they just rolled of the assembly lines... but on my nids... i do battle damage like hell..