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 have often heard the phrase "table top" in reference to models, but I just want to know, what exactly do you consider "table top". post what you think is the lowest quality mini that still counts as "table top" in your book. i just think it would be interesting to see the difference in peoples ideas of table top.

I would consider the minimum standard for a miniature to have all details painted without paint spilling over too much and also that the model got some kind of shading or lighting, either simple highlighting or a wash. Also I expect the base to have some kind of texture to it and not just brown/green paint.

Here are 2 examples of my horde figures:



and



About 3 colors, washed, highlighted with some detailing.

Base colours, a highlight or wash and a finished base is what I consider tabletop

You could also make an argument for the old school GW standard of 3 colors and based....

(not that I like to cite anything GW....)

 Ifurita wrote:
Here are 2 examples of my horde figures:



and



About 3 colors, washed, highlighted with some detailing.

These would be well within tabletop standards, definitely not the bare minimum.

At a minimum the model should be completely painted with neat edges and using two or three colours. I would recommend three because that is often used as an entry requirement for tournaments.

The base should be finished. Larger models and vehicles, etc should have some details and insignia. Models should be varnished.

The above is what I would like to play against as a minimum. It doesn't worry me if the colours are flat and unshaded.

I believe many people are put off by the Golden Demon standard models talented modellers put in the gallery. It is unrealistic and even in some sense pointless for many people to finish an entire army to such a standard. Better to play with a whole, finished army than a few models painted to a higher than tabletop standard.

Infurita, these are way above what I have seen as table top.

Some people just want to get a game on, some they dont really care about the painting, other really go for the painting, its everyones point of view.

I would like to think everyone puts in a good effort in painting as it makes for a better game on a decent gaming board.

If people cant be bothered to paint the mini then there are plenty of game that dont require modelling or painting.

For me tabletop means the models must be fully painted and at least have had a wash applied. Bases must have been given some attention, either just painting them or applying some actual base material (preferred).

These Eldar are pretty much tabletop in most regards - they were test models for my Guardians and so I didn't finish them to a very high spec. However, they have a minimum of 3 colours, have shading provided by washes, a few details (such as eyes and gems) painted and their bases have had at least some attempt made to tie them together:

FUlly painted and based in a minimum of colour per main details. Like you don't need to paint every single detail but the major ones (face,gun,hair...) painted in a different colour

 SilverMK2 wrote:
For me tabletop means the models must be fully painted and at least have had a wash applied. Bases must have been given some attention, either just painting them or applying some actual base material (preferred).

These Eldar are pretty much tabletop in most regards - they were test models for my Guardians and so I didn't finish them to a very high spec. However, they have a minimum of 3 colours, have shading provided by washes, a few details (such as eyes and gems) painted and their bases have had at least some attempt made to tie them together:

These would probably be low-level tabletop standard, so the standard should range anywhere between the 2 pictures I commented on.

But if you painted the rims of those bases black and put in some minimal effort to base (sand, wash, drybrush + a little grass), I think they would look fine.

I do all my bases black. Thats how I like them.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
I believe many people are put off by the Golden Demon standard models talented modellers put in the gallery. It is unrealistic and even in some sense pointless for many people to finish an entire army to such a standard. Better to play with a whole, finished army than a few models painted to a higher than tabletop standard.

That's the extreme end of the spectrum, but I do think the general sense of "tabletop" on Dakka is skewed rather high. Even since I've been here, I've noticed a shift. What used to predominantly refer to "three colors plus basing (i.e. tournament standard)" now seems to mean "doesn't use advanced techniques, regardless of whether the 'simple' paintjob is immaculately executed and looks damned good, even blown up in a macro shot." There are also a growing number of commission painters who divide their work into discrete 'levels,' based on the effort involved, when determining pricing. When they say "tabletop," that means the shallow end of what they are capable of - much higher than the average Joe Painter. As an example, look through Ifalna's "Tabletop Standard" gallery. Like Ifurita's Orks, the results are much more nuanced and attractive, due to the painter's skills, than what is necessary to be recognizable and look decent at arm's length, which is what I would consider the goal.

I mean, that's in the name, right? Tabletop standard, i.e. painted for the tabletop, not for a collector's display cabinet and not for a high resolution photo shoot. "TTQ" has become a misnomer, as "tabletop" no longer reflects quality, but instead the effort involved. Dipping/washes, airbrushing, and the artful application of single-layer highlights allow for some pretty impressive work to be labeled "tabletop standard," under the new definition. Personally, I like to see at least some sense of light/shadow, whether it be a wash or simple highlights (even just black-/edge-lining), and I think that's become the norm everywhere, not just on Dakka, due to the general advancement of miniature painting as an artform. A degree of cleanliness is also a must, as is completeness, but complexity is not: If your model only requires two colors beyond the primer (Necron on asphalt?), I won't begrudge you the lack of "sufficient" color and "proper" basing - the model is complete, if not complex.

I agree with oadie completely. As soon as I saw this thread, I was wondering how long before I saw a great looking model touted as tabletop. It was post #3, which is pretty average for these threads.

We all have different standards for what we consider our own minimum. For most reasonably good painters, that includes a textured base and a wash, which are low effort/high yield techniques.

The standard for what we consider tabletop painted for others, while still flexible, I think is less varied. I think the model should be fully painted, meaning no chunks of primer showing through. The base should be neat and painted (even if just painted black). Weapons should be a different color from the body. But, in genral, the four foot rule applies. I can't tell if a Space Marine Sargeant's eyes are painted from that far, but I sure can sell if his head is painted flesh toned. And that's all I need.

That's one of the things I like about painting to a tabletop standard. My Tyranids above are literally, primed in almond, carapaces done with mechrite red, black hooves and claws, and then the entire model is washed with a brown. The rest of the details are done, for the most part, with the GW washes. I think it lets you get away with good results with minimal effort.

Indeed, in The Time of Washes, there is no excuse for having flat colours - I think that is the cause of the shift in what is considered TT rather than commission painters.

Finally the wider wargaming crowed is catching up with the miniture model painting world in terms of common techniques to produce better looking models.

I don't really have any standards for other peoples' models. As long as they look painted and based, I'm happy.

For my own models, I don't have a massively high standard. As long as they look fine from a reasonable viewing distance, I'm happy.



Up close they look a bit messy from the washes, but from any distance other than close inspection, the messiness just blurs in to noise. Another example might be my IG. Up close they look pretty average, but in the flesh from any reasonable viewing distance you don't notice the slight inconsistency from the wash and they look decent IMO, and only take about half an hour per model to paint.



Of course, those models aren't based, I'd also base them to bring them up to "tabletop standard".

I always thought that 'tabletop standard' meant minis that would look good viewed from about 2 feet away

"Tabletop standard" for most seems to be my best friggin' painting ability...........

I'd be happy to see any of those figures on a tabletop across from me.

I think there are a couple of other trick/gimmicks that painters can use to help elevate the quality of "table top". Washes/dip is one of them. Taking a little bit of extra time on bases is another ... so that they don't look so monotone.

One of the comments I got on my table top figures (I specifically asked) was my basing. I take sand from the playground, wash the entire base with brown, drybrush with bleached bone, and then add small clumps of static grass. Very simple and basic. From 2 feet away, there is enough color contrast to make it appear like more work has been done then there really was.

The Orks above were painted in a large mass of 100+ in a month. Of the 100 Orks, maybe 5 of them have the checks and another 5 have blue facial tattooing ... but the colors stand out and make it look like there is more freehand work in the army than there really is.

Simple conversions (raise an arm, make the figure stand on something) that elevate a figure slightly to break up the uniformity of height, also make your units stand out a bit.

 AegisGrimm wrote:
"Tabletop standard" for most seems to be my best friggin' painting ability...........

Same here, but its all relative. My average painting I consider to be OK by general standards, yet a buddy of mine who is new to gaming & painting thinks its great.

definitely, i find that as your painting gets better, your eye becomes more critical of others paintjobs because you know what to look for.

I guess the question is "tabletop" a measure of quality, regardless of effort or an indication of what steps were put into painting a miniature (effort) regardless of quality?

Generally bare minimum is 3 colors, and based. Basing can really be anything or any color so long as it looks like some type of ground somewhere in the universe.

That's the "technical" standard but I've seen it abused where literally a model had just enough of "3 colors" for the person to go look there is a spot of red, green, and blue it's 3 colors!

I'd rather see a half primer/half decently painted army than an entire army of splash painting. IE colors basically just thrown on the model haphazardly to technically meet the requirements.

This is also why I am a huge fan of painting scores going into tournament scores. Some folks complain...namely those with half painted, or bare minimum painted armies who change armies like the store stinker changes underwear (I estimate once a month maybe) just so they can "Pwn" people with their latest cheese creation, and they don't have time to paint in between hardcore list making, and CoD sessions. lol

potatosack wrote:
I have often heard the phrase "table top" in reference to models, but I just want to know, what exactly do you consider "table top". post what you think is the lowest quality mini that still counts as "table top" in your book. i just think it would be interesting to see the difference in peoples ideas of table top.

so long as it's built I'll play against it :/

for my own models I find "table top" to be more of an excuse than anything for people to not put all that much effort into a model. there have been times when I've seen models where all they need is a little highlighting, shading etc but that person is content with it because "meh, it's table top". I just paint all my models to the best of my ability. granted this is why I only have a single army painted but god damn it looks nice

ok it's nice to have a fully painted army but why be content with a meh paint job when if you put a little more time in it could be a great paint job?

 DPBellathrom wrote:


ok it's nice to have a fully painted army but why be content with a meh paint job when if you put a little more time in it could be a great paint job?

Well some people don't actually like painting their army, but won't or can't afford someone else to paint it for them. Getting it to the "Tabletop Standard" means they won't be disqualified from Tourneys and they can just focus on playing more.

Feast of Blades is a good example, the local qualifier was scored on paint, and what you described fit somewhere into the middle score: just enough effort that he isn't going to lose by paint score. Fast forward to the Nat'l level and he only needs 3 colors and basing done. So that player is covered either way.

As far as paintjobs go, IMO if the owner is happy, then let them be happy. Keep the tabletop standard the same as the Tourney standard 3 colors and some basing. If we leave the standard low enough for everyone to accomplish then paintjobs have something to work up from, not work up to just to be standardized. The standard should be something anyone could reasonably accomplish from beginner to masterclass painters.

Paitryn wrote:

 DPBellathrom wrote:


ok it's nice to have a fully painted army but why be content with a meh paint job when if you put a little more time in it could be a great paint job?

Well some people don't actually like painting their army, but won't or can't afford someone else to paint it for them. Getting it to the "Tabletop Standard" means they won't be disqualified from Tourneys and they can just focus on playing more.

Feast of Blades is a good example, the local qualifier was scored on paint, and what you described fit somewhere into the middle score: just enough effort that he isn't going to lose by paint score. Fast forward to the Nat'l level and he only needs 3 colors and basing done. So that player is covered either way.

As far as paintjobs go, IMO if the owner is happy, then let them be happy. Keep the tabletop standard the same as the Tourney standard 3 colors and some basing. If we leave the standard low enough for everyone to accomplish then paintjobs have something to work up from, not work up to just to be standardized. The standard should be something anyone could reasonably accomplish from beginner to masterclass painters.

now the bit I highlighted is just stupid and a reason why I feel that painting should not hold any sway over how well you do in a tourny. I love the idea of best painted armies and so forth but it does bother me a little when the quality of your paint job effects the outcome of the game. same really goes for sportsmanship IMO as the score can be very subjective

as for your other point about people not wanting to paint due to time, dislike etc ok that's fine and all but to me it just seems lazy to paint it all to TT level and then not go back bit by bit and sharpen it up. I mean, why wouldn't you want a well painted army?

 Ifurita wrote:
I guess the question is "tabletop" a measure of quality, regardless of effort or an indication of what steps were put into painting a miniature (effort) regardless of quality?

I think it's a little bit of both, but more the latter.

there's a level of crisp, clean painting that a reasonable person can achieve, but for the the very young, or people with any number of physical limitations (trembling, eye sight, whatever) that can slide down.

What I consider a model ready for tabletop play (as opposed to a display piece or other "fully painted" model) is different from what I consider "table top" standard. It's a little bit like car insurance. You have to have state minimum coverage, but I have quite a bit more. So while I'd want to pick out details and apply a wash before really calling a model painted, that's not what I expect from others.

A table top model should have all primer covered, have major details picked out, and have some sort of basing. So, take a DV Dark Angle, paint it green, pick out the modled arrow in red, the bolter in gunmetal, and the chapter badge and chest eagle in white. Paint hte base brown, glue some flock on it. Boom, Table top standard.

I think also that the improvement of paints, shades, layers, glazes, etc. has actually improved what people would normally consider the difference between high and low tabletop. I feel it's now easier to find techniques online to improve both your skill and speed, making it easier to do your hordes army better then what painters in the past were ever able to do. It's setting a standard now that people are able to achieve 'eavy metal level of painting in a few months time, when in the past it seemed near impossible for new people to achieve that level.

Hell I know I'm not a great painter, but just things like knowing how to thin down paints, proper use of washes, and light detail work and bring what I thought was barely passable, to the realm of damn good tabletop.