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.

Sidstyler wrote:

Kaldor wrote:Also, saying that some types of models can't look good when weathered is stupid.

I've literally never seen an Eldar model with any serious weathering done to it that looked good.

http://www.dakkadakka.com/core/gallery-viewimage.jsp?i=350067&m=2&w=798

Now you have!

whitedragon wrote:Now you have!

...yeah...about that.

No offense to Mechanicum Jon, he's a good painter, but I personally don't like the weathering done to his DE. I honestly don't think it looks good, especially because its brown and looks kinda like rust the way it streaks across the hulls, and I don't imagine Eldar vehicles being the kind to rust. And Dark Eldar being the vain and egotistical "in and out" raiding force that they are, probably don't spend enough time in real space for weathering of that extent to really make sense anyway, nor would they likely allow their vehicles to fall into such disrepair in the first place.

This is more of a personal nitpick than anything, but I also don't like how, as soon as Dark Eldar hit, everyone immediately felt the urge to paint them all in bright, annoying colors just to be different. I personally like the darker schemes for them and think it suits the models better (which, like a lot of the studio schemes, is probably why that's the one you see on the box). I appreciate creativity and thinking outside the box as much as the next guy, but this is one of those cases where it kinda ruins it for me. You might as well paint them bright pink with floral patterns all over, it looks just about as threatening.

I'd still say they're good-looking models, certainly better than the quality of my own painting, but I disagree with certain aesthetic choices and don't necessarily think the weathering makes them look any better.

Come at me, bro.

Sidstyler wrote:I'd still say they're good-looking models, certainly better than the quality of my own painting, but I disagree with certain aesthetic choices and don't necessarily think the weathering makes them look any better.

thissomuch.

If you figure that tanks, troops and other military gear are involved in an environment that has flying dirt, debries, smoke, flame, blood, and lots of other dirty stuff involved in it, your guys would likely get dirty. The only time they are likely to be clean is when they are set up for a military review by their commander. I can understand the judges viewpoint but i wouldnt make weathering mandatory. However, i dont think i would give you full painting marks either since that sort of detail is consistent with the highest level of accuracy to detail.

As for the complaint that allies make it impossible to have a "unified army", a good starting point would be your bases.

Having SW marines on ice/rock bases and Eldar on temple bases is going to look silly, basing both armies the same will go a long way. Making some objective markers that combines both forces is also another step forward.

Sidstyler wrote: I've literally never seen an Eldar model with any serious weathering done to it that looked good.

You shouldn't be able to win Best General because you can paint real pretty, and you shouldn't be able to win Best Painted because you crushed your enemies and drove them before you.

I agree entirely, but in order to determine final over all rankings, painting should always be taken into account.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Weathering on certain models might not be your thing but it's impossible to deny that it looks good. You might question how it got that way, or why it hasn't been cleaned up and repaired. But just assume it's on prolonged deployment, or been caught in an explosion, or whatever, and put those questions aside for a moment and judge the model on its merits.

BrookM wrote:

marv335 wrote:

BrookM wrote:Could be worse, there was this guy telling us to weather our flyers. fething idiot.

I work on real combat aircraft.
they are dirty, smelly, and oily.
Weathering is entirely appropriate.

But are they also rusty and scraped all over? I hope not.

And I play in a land where I can wear purple or blue armor into combat, and face yellow armored opponents in the jungle...So if I want my technosexslaves to polish my antigrav skyboard before I give opponent an eviserating with my biomorphicly poisoned dagger it's really my perogitive.

Lol, I just hyperboled.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Sidstyler wrote:I'd still say they're good-looking models, certainly better than the quality of my own painting, but I disagree with certain aesthetic choices and don't necessarily think the weathering makes them look any better.

+1

Everyone's got their own tastes. The OP's wasn't up to the Judges. It happens. Sucks, but it happens.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Kaldor wrote:Weathering on certain models might not be your thing but it's impossible to deny that it looks good. You might question how it got that way, or why it hasn't been cleaned up and repaired. But just assume it's on prolonged deployment, or been caught in an explosion, or whatever, and put those questions aside for a moment and judge the model on its merits.

I'm not going to say that brown Falcon didn't take some serious skill and some patience to pull off, but meh. It's a brown Falcon, I like all the FW addons and the freehand on it, but I could think of better things to do with it.

It all goes back to personal taste.

MightyGodzilla wrote:It all goes back to personal taste.

Only to a point though. I can't simply slap one thick coat of paint on a model and claim it's just as good as anyone else's because it's my personal taste that I want it that way. Personal taste can excuse style choices (I want it glowing, NMM, lots of freehand, gritty and realistic, pastel colours, monochrome, etc) but not technical skill. Painting models is both personal taste, and technical proficiency.

We can question the personal taste choices of a painter (should that model be weathered or not being a prime example) but that shouldn't have any bearing on what we think of the paintjob. It's either well executed, and looks good, or it doesn't. Wondering why a falcon is rusted or beaten should never be a reason to dislike it as a paintjob.

Saying "That's a well executed paintjob, but I would have preferred it if it were clean" is ok.

But saying "That paintjob is no good, it should be clean" is not.

Assuming of course, that the paintjob is well executed!

I really liked the Falcon.
The glowing anti grav unit on the bottom was a really nice touch and it is well marred by random battle damage.
For the most part i feel that painting scores should be entirely assigned using a rubric so that they are not wholly subjective. For a perfectly painted and converted model with no effort at weathering or battle damage i would consider a score of 9/10 being legitimate. Still an A rating, though not an A+.

sennacherib wrote:I really liked the Falcon.
The glowing anti grav unit on the bottom was a really nice touch and it is well marred by random battle damage.
For the most part i feel that painting scores should be entirely assigned using a rubric so that they are not wholly subjective. For a perfectly painted and converted model with no effort at weathering or battle damage i would consider a score of 9/10 being legitimate. Still an A rating, though not an A+.

No, a non-weathered model can still earn a 10/10. Weathering is a style choice, and not everyone should have to make the same choice. A well executed parade ground finish is just as good as a well weathered model.

Though it requires arguably less skill and effort? to paint a model with a parade ground finish.
I think this all boils down to personal preference. The most amazing models i have seen have had some nod given to weathering etc. Once again this is personal preference so it will be hard to convince me or you otherwise.

sennacherib wrote:Though it requires arguably less skill and effort? to paint a model with a parade ground finish.

While these models have some minor paint-chipping painted on, I do not believe that the removal of said effect would in any way diminish the finished models.

Further, I give you:

What are you talking about? There's obviously no skill in those 3 models because there's no weathering!

>.> :-)

Kaldor, being able to paint parade-ground ready models to a higher standard doesn't invalidate the point.

Painting a model with weathering generally requires painting it up in basic colours first, and then applying the weathering.

So painting a model without weathering is leaving off a step (or multiple steps, depending on how in-depth the weathering is) in the process... which pretty much fits the definition of 'less effort'.

Those models you posted still ultimately took less effort than a model with the same amount of free-handing or the same level of insanely awesome blending that was also weathered would have.



Note that I'm not saying that makes them inferior... The choice to weather or not is an easthetic one, and whether or not it results in a 'better' end product is therefore up to the individual. The models Kaldor posted are awesome in their own right, and I don't personally feel that a lack of weathering makes them any less impressive. The point is simply that not weathering them means less work than weathering them would have.

Less skill is a different point entirely... Being able to weather convincingly is a different skill to being able to paint awesome freehand, or a clean, smoothly-blended surface. Weather or not it requires more skill is going to depend on the individual and the techniques being used.

insaniak wrote:Those models you posted still ultimately took less effort than a model with the same amount of free-handing or the same level of insanely awesome blending that was also weathered would have.

But a display of technical skill does not have to encompass all effects. None of those models had OSL, does that mean they left off a step? Or what about models that choose to use metallics instead of NMM? Have they left off a step?

Weathering is a stylistic choice, and sometimes is not appropriate. Choosing to leave it off definitely IS choosing not to display a technique, but it's never been required that all models display all possible techniques in order to be judged as 'good' models.

I am sure if the model had extreme blending and free-hand art, the judge wouldn't have said much about weathering. Normally the rubric asks for 'advanced painting techniques' LIKE weathering, freehand art, advanced highlighting.

Weathering is usually more obtainable than magical gems and free-hand art and glowing highlights... so when a judge tells a average painter 'you didn't weather' it is valid... you didn't take the effort to go to the advanced paint techniques and you stopped at a specific level of effort.

That landraider looks in complete and would look better with weathering.

Kaldor wrote:But a display of technical skill does not have to encompass all effects. None of those models had OSL, does that mean they left off a step? Or what about models that choose to use metallics instead of NMM? Have they left off a step?

NMM doesn't really take any more work than painting metals to an equivalent standard. The common assumption that metallics don't need to be shaded or highlighted, or follow the same principles of lighting as NMM isn't actually true in painting at the level of the models you posted.

Not having OSL doesn't mean that they've 'left off' a step because the lighting effect would generally be done as a part of the blending process, so not actually require any more work than painting the model without it.

To head off any more examples, it's not so much leaving off a step to not include an extra technique as simply that you're not displaying as many techniques. Not weathering, because weathering comes after everything else, is one step less than weathering would be. That's not quite the same as having a step left off though, unless you assume that everything should be weathered.

Weathering is a stylistic choice, and sometimes is not appropriate. Choosing to leave it off definitely IS choosing not to display a technique, but it's never been required that all models display all possible techniques in order to be judged as 'good' models.

Nobody is claiming that models need to display all possible techniques in order to be good. Just that models that don't incorporate as many of those techniques arguably require less skill... which ultimately is fairly self evident. Mastering more techniques requires more skill. (as opposed to using more techniques, but doing them badly, which wouldn't, necessarily )

insaniak wrote:Nobody is claiming that models need to display all possible techniques in order to be good. Just that models that don't incorporate as many of those techniques arguably require less skill.

Well, yes. But as I mentioned above, it's not a problem limited to weathering. It is true of any and all techniques, and one should no more decry an unweathered model as lacking skill, than a model using conventional metallics, or not using OSL, or wet blending, or drybrushing, or two-brush blending, or any other of a thousand different techniques.

Kaldor wrote:

insaniak wrote:Those models you posted still ultimately took less effort than a model with the same amount of free-handing or the same level of insanely awesome blending that was also weathered would have.

But a display of technical skill does not have to encompass all effects. None of those models had OSL, does that mean they left off a step? Or what about models that choose to use metallics instead of NMM? Have they left off a step?

Weathering is a stylistic choice, and sometimes is not appropriate. Choosing to leave it off definitely IS choosing not to display a technique, but it's never been required that all models display all possible techniques in order to be judged as 'good' models.

Yea I have to agree with this considering my last posting.

What I am concerned as I have said over again. Painting is Subjective. When it becomes completely objective is when I see a symptom, and illness that is creeping into the hobby.

That is one of my worries. If more and tournaments are going to make paint a integral part of winning, then (A) only those people people that paint at the high(est) levels will have a chance to win it all. (B) People will get their armies painted by other professional artists.

To me this defeats the purpose. Unless the painting (and other soft scores such as sportsmanship) are separate eventually the tournament scene will be in decline as the average person has little or no chance in winning. I do not want to see this happen. I really don't.

I'm not knocking weathering of models, some of them are incredibly detailed and the painters are artists in their own right. Artwork is Artwork and it is done in many different ways. But all Artwork should be praised, not downgraded. I'm so old skool in this line of thought.

To the OP I suggest that if that person runs a tournament is going to ding you for weathering don't pay your money and go in knowing that you are already in a handicapped position.

Kaldor wrote:... and one should no more decry an unweathered model as lacking skill, than a model using conventional metallics, or not using OSL, or wet blending, or drybrushing, or two-brush blending, or any other of a thousand different techniques.

Requiring less skill to do is not the same as lacking skill in execution.

Sculpting a skull requires less skill than sculpting Skullie McSkull, Skull-Captain of the Imperial Skull Marines, because fewer different sculpting techniques are required. But sculpting a really good skull still displays a lot of skill at sculpting skulls.

Similarly, painting something solely using conventional blending techniques uses less skill than painting something using multiple techniques... because it requires the mastery of fewer different techniques. But painting something solely using conventional blending techniques really well still displays a lot of skill.

The Hellblade is jaw-droppingly good, and there is no denying that it requires a level of skill pants-wettingly high above anything I'll ever be capable of... But at least going by those pictures it doesn't display as high a skill level as the Dark Angels dreadnought, which has the same smooth blending, but with awesome freehand thrown in on top.

Both are fantastic models. Both are painted by amazingly skilled painters... but one of them displays more skill in those two examples than the other.

The DA Dread (as does the LR) also has some carefully-chosen and placed battle damage/weathering. Both of those painters chose to portray a beautifully-finished model that still has some damage and wear to it.

insaniak wrote:Both are fantastic models. Both are painted by amazingly skilled painters... but one of them displays more skill in those two examples than the other.

That's true. In the same vein, a large model displaying a hundred different techniques (assuming they're all well executed) also displays more skill.

But is the volume of skills on display with any given model the most important thing to judge? Or is the execution of the skills the painter has chosen to display more important?

I don't think it's ever as simple as more techniques > less techniques.

And some more food for thought: Choosing what techniques to display and what not to, is an extremely important skill to have.

Kaldor wrote:But is the volume of skills on display with any given model the most important thing to judge? Or is the execution of the skills the painter has chosen to display more important?

Judging the standard of the painting should certainly include the number of different skills displayed, yes, unless you're only looking to judge certain particular skills.

Sidstyler wrote:

whitedragon wrote:Now you have!

...yeah...about that.

No offense to Mechanicum Jon, he's a good painter, but I personally don't like the weathering done to his DE. I honestly don't think it looks good, especially because its brown and looks kinda like rust the way it streaks across the hulls, and I don't imagine Eldar vehicles being the kind to rust. And Dark Eldar being the vain and egotistical "in and out" raiding force that they are, probably don't spend enough time in real space for weathering of that extent to really make sense anyway, nor would they likely allow their vehicles to fall into such disrepair in the first place.

This is more of a personal nitpick than anything, but I also don't like how, as soon as Dark Eldar hit, everyone immediately felt the urge to paint them all in bright, annoying colors just to be different. I personally like the darker schemes for them and think it suits the models better (which, like a lot of the studio schemes, is probably why that's the one you see on the box). I appreciate creativity and thinking outside the box as much as the next guy, but this is one of those cases where it kinda ruins it for me. You might as well paint them bright pink with floral patterns all over, it looks just about as threatening.

I'd still say they're good-looking models, certainly better than the quality of my own painting, but I disagree with certain aesthetic choices and don't necessarily think the weathering makes them look any better.

Come at me, bro.

Just responded to you because you responded to me, but the rest of the replies in this thread go in laughable circles about what painting "skill" is or isnt.

We've proved that painting is subjective. /End thread.

People aren't losing points for not weathering; points are being set aside and awarded to people who do. Points need to be set aside for the people who put the extra effort into their models. Getting a model to a clean, sharp paint job will reward a certain level of points, but is also achievable by a good percentage of the participants. Top marks need to be set aside for taking it further.

Don't like weathering? Then represent idealized lighting with the full gamut of gradients, reflections and highlights. Judges can tell the difference between a simple, clean, non-weathered model and one that models real shadow and light. That's what the examples above represent. The colours are pure and clean, but they are not flat either; they are built up from dark to light to add depth to otherwise flat plates and surfaces. Freehand is also being used to add detail and interest to otherwise boring surfaces.

Sure, models can look very nice without weathering. But in a competition, you need to pull out all the stops to win. Weathering is just one option.

Otherwise, how can a judge award adequate models the same amount of points as models that have an extra 2 or 4 or 10 hours invested in them? That reminds me of today's school system, where we award everyone passing grades simply for showing up, or don't keep score at junior's football match so we don't discourage the kids who aren't scoring. It makes people feel better, but also encourages minimum effort.

There should be written guidelines and levels to a paint scoring competition, for example: unpainted-0, partially painted-5, GW tournament minimum-10, extra effort-15, Golden Demon level-20. Keep it simple, and make it difficult for a max score. How many GD level armies are being played?