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 do not see that many SM minis with chipped paint and weathered surfaces. I know SM maintain their gear between battles, but I was wondering why we see so few "in the battle" type paint jobs. I figure it is either because it takes more time or people don't like the look. I have noticed GW paints their troops to look factory fresh and weathers vehicles and dreadnaughts. Thoughts?

I don't know, used to be that weathering and battle damage was what all the cool painters were doing. Nothing wrong with it, though, but painting does seem to go through its fads, like NMM and OSL.

I think it can look great both ways.

It makes sense for smurfs to be prim and neat while a bunch of routy space wolves would be all scuffed up after a good old brawl.

Imperial fist would be battle damaged in a prolong siege, while alpha legion was already there.

It entirely depends on the fluff and setting you are going for.

if its a spacemarine chapter that has been stuck in combat for a long time they would proably look dingy as heck.

Why don't players do it? Because it's time consuming and difficult to make look good. On a scale of 1 to 10 of skill level, it takes about a 5 to paint a good "off the showroom floor" model, it takes about a 9 to paint a good "weathered and battle damaged" model, at least IMO. Painting good battle damage, IMO, takes an artistic touch that isn't really needed to paint a new shiny paint job.

Why don't GW do it? I think because they like to have their models looking like toys. FW do tend to weather their Space Marines, they tend to go for a much grittier look than the main GW range.

Skink has summed it up well for players; it takes a higher level of skill and a greater amount of time to do a good quality weathered effect - most have enough trouble just getting a good clean effect so a weathered effect is beyond many.


GW I suspect don't do a weathered view for the same reason that most miniature manufacturers don't, because they want their models to look bright, clear, crisp and clean to attract buyers. It's the same for most products - try selling a dented up car and a brand shiny new one and the shiny one will get far more money than one which might have the same engine and quality but just looks "banged up".

Of course monkey see monkey do also takes effect; so when GW (and other companies) show clean shiny models many also copy that effect in their own painting.

Uncool, definitely not, just too much work hah.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
Why don't players do it? Because it's time consuming and difficult to make look good. On a scale of 1 to 10 of skill level, it takes about a 5 to paint a good "off the showroom floor" model, it takes about a 9 to paint a good "weathered and battle damaged" model, at least IMO. Painting good battle damage, IMO, takes an artistic touch that isn't really needed to paint a new shiny paint job.

Agreed. I've tried some rust and stuff for chaos but am keen to weather my blood ravens, first squad is just about ready for the weathering step but I want to research it a bit more first - ie. how does ceramite weather, is it a whiteish grey material, does it chip, abrade etc. In Dawn of War they show it like this:


which I'm keen to try to emulate, but it seems non-standard for weathering miniatures which are more often pigment s and sponge rather than the more streaky worn/cracked off paint effect shown there around the neck specifically. Lots more examples of it to be had from the game.

Yonan, we are totally on the same wave length. How do you show chipped paint on ceramite? I love orks and they are easy, chipped paint leads to rust. SM, whole different ballgame. I was thinking about using one of the colors from the Colored Metallics Triad III from Reaper: Adamantium Black, Scorched Metal or Gunmetal Blue with a white highlight to create the ceramite. The second consideration for me is; I plan to paint a Dark Angels chapter, so the ceramite will need to stand out on minis with white, black and green color schemes.

People are attracted to wargaming for many reasons. For me it was building old, weathered and worn terrain. I am trying to "step up" my painting on miniatures and think weathering might by a good step. I agree with Tannhauser42, the NMM and OSL is cool, but it has a little "fad" vibe to it. No disrespect, I an not that good at either method.

If you like rusty stuff you might check out my Industrial Terrain Thread

Overread, For the record I like rusty cars. I just have a hard time getting girls to ride in them with me.

 tinker wrote:
Yonan, we are totally on the same wave length. How do you show chipped paint on ceramite? I love orks and they are easy, chipped paint leads to rust. SM, whole different ballgame. I was thinking about using one of the colors from the Colored Metallics Triad III from Reaper: Adamantium Black, Scorched Metal or Gunmetal Blue with a white highlight to create the ceramite. The second consideration for me is; I plan to paint a Dark Angels chapter, so the ceramite will need to stand out on minis with white, black and green color schemes

Depends how you want to do it, but on my Deathwing I use a liberal amount of black to give them the weathered look. Agrax earthshade gives them the right shade, but Nuln oil just really makes em look battered.

 jreilly89 wrote:

 tinker wrote:
Yonan, we are totally on the same wave length. How do you show chipped paint on ceramite? I love orks and they are easy, chipped paint leads to rust. SM, whole different ballgame. I was thinking about using one of the colors from the Colored Metallics Triad III from Reaper: Adamantium Black, Scorched Metal or Gunmetal Blue with a white highlight to create the ceramite. The second consideration for me is; I plan to paint a Dark Angels chapter, so the ceramite will need to stand out on minis with white, black and green color schemes

Depends how you want to do it, but on my Deathwing I use a liberal amount of black to give them the weathered look. Agrax earthshade gives them the right shade, but Nuln oil just really makes em look battered.

PICS?

It's all up to personal preference. I like cleaner Marines (especially with my retro 2nd edition stuff) but if you look at any of the Horus Heresy models from Forgeworld, all their studio paintjobs are really weathered and beat up.

 tinker wrote:

 jreilly89 wrote:

 tinker wrote:
Yonan, we are totally on the same wave length. How do you show chipped paint on ceramite? I love orks and they are easy, chipped paint leads to rust. SM, whole different ballgame. I was thinking about using one of the colors from the Colored Metallics Triad III from Reaper: Adamantium Black, Scorched Metal or Gunmetal Blue with a white highlight to create the ceramite. The second consideration for me is; I plan to paint a Dark Angels chapter, so the ceramite will need to stand out on minis with white, black and green color schemes

Depends how you want to do it, but on my Deathwing I use a liberal amount of black to give them the weathered look. Agrax earthshade gives them the right shade, but Nuln oil just really makes em look battered.

PICS?

Check out my gallery. Pics are kinda eh, but you'll see what I mean.

I just don't like the look. I like the clean, well maintained look.

I found battle damage can be rather quick and easy to do if you know what you are doing. I love doing a few hints of damage here and there. No matter what, you won't have perfect looking armor for long. Take a look at what I did for my marines using the foam packing material in the blister packs. I just used a torn corner and dipped it into whatever you want to use as your damage color and wipe some of it off and dab it against where you want it to be a bit damaged.

I find you can't go to far with the battle damage, some chips or wear and tear like the Black Knights and Imperial Fists in the thread is just about perfect.

As the Astartes clean and maintain their armour and equipment to a neerly fanatical level outside of combat, with Loken being a prime example and even in the Fulgrim Book Solomon is shown to think that his constant maintanance of his Wargear is bordering on a religious ritual so they cannot be all heavily weather... Accept maybe the odd squad like a Havoc Squad who a normally the primary target of heavy bombardment would be a prime candicate for massive weaing.

It would also add a bit of flavour to your contingent to mix it up at a squad level.

I never liked weathering, my models are starting a fight and like they always claim their suits are relics and taken care off. Some how letting them rust chip or dragged through crap and not be fixed just seems wrong. It keeps them alive so hopefully there would be a little pride in their gear. Not to mention I never even seen a real suit of arms rusted or chipped .

OgreChubbs wrote:
I never liked weathering, my models are starting a fight and like they always claim their suits are relics and taken care off. Some how letting them rust chip or dragged through crap and not be fixed just seems wrong. It keeps them alive so hopefully there would be a little pride in their gear. Not to mention I never even seen a real suit of arms rusted or chipped .

I like the idea of weathered SM because even though it might be the start of a fight, I like the feel that they're on a long drawn out campaign. Not just fly out from home, punch on for half a day, fly home and fix armour.

For my IG, I like to imagine they've spent a lot of time in trenches, on the march and so on, so that repainting their armour to cover scratches isn't super high on the priority list.

But each to their own. I tend to not weather my SM simply because I can't get something I think looks nice. I don't weather my Cadians because I tend to speed paint them. I do weather my DKOK because I'm willing to spend a bit more time on them.

I really want to weather alot of my minis. But I have spent so long on some of them (my current batch of centurions) that I just cant bring myself to attempt any weathering.

I've got a practice piece (a resin wing from an old forgeworld flyer) that I use to practice techniques and even though i can manage some nice enough weathering, I just cant bring myself to put it on minis that I have spent hours painting.

 Deadshot wrote:
I just don't like the look. I like the clean, well maintained look.

I am starting to wonder if it is a regional preference as well. In a PM conversation about a Swap Shop item, a fellow gamer said he noticed that folks in the USA like chipped and weathered models. However, our UK counterparts prefer clean and crisp presentation.

Added a poll to the OP.

The question in the poll and the question in the title isn't really the same...

I prefer my marines crisp but I am actually rethinking that a bit nowadays...

Between battles the artificers restore and repaint armours to make them look like new, but at the end of or in the middle of the battle it might very well be chipped and dirty.

I really don't like the idea of rust on the armour though since it's not made of steel.

With the exception of my Dark Angels, purely because I wanted something different for them, I go grimy and weathered on most things. On Space Marines, the weathering makes sense as it highlights just how tough they are; these guys can shake of laser fire, tank shells and all manner of more esoteric weapons, they're going to take a chip and dent or two.

It also adds a lot of realism for me, I hate the GW-esque super-clean look

 tinker wrote:

 Deadshot wrote:
I just don't like the look. I like the clean, well maintained look.

I am starting to wonder if it is a regional preference as well. In a PM conversation about a Swap Shop item, a fellow gamer said he noticed that folks in the USA like chipped and weathered models. However, our UK counterparts prefer clean and crisp presentation.

Added a poll to the OP.

Don't get me wrong, I love seeing a beautifully weathered model, especially if it fits the theme. Orks don't look right to me without oily gubbinz and sooty exhausts, and muddy tracks and all look great. DKoK look amazing when muddied up. But on my own models I prefer a clean look.

It looks good for marines who have been cut off from a supply line for an extended period but I like a healthy mix of the two since in the middle of the battle they have scratches and scrapes, but on the parade ground they are squeaky clean, and if they have just been through hell you get the picture.

I find doing clean off the press paint jobs to be easier in some ways, but harder in others then the weathered look.

clean jobs are hard to make look realistic yet clean, and the colour consistancy is harder with some colours, the weather I find a conveiniant way to fix oops's with or to hide gaps.

weathering can be as easy as selectively putting on a wash.


personally I prefer the "almost fresh, but has some dirt/minor scuffs" on it so its realistic, but still crisp and new ish looking.

 tinker wrote:
Yonan, we are totally on the same wave length. How do you show chipped paint on ceramite? I love orks and they are easy, chipped paint leads to rust. SM, whole different ballgame. I was thinking about using one of the colors from the Colored Metallics Triad III from Reaper: Adamantium Black, Scorched Metal or Gunmetal Blue with a white highlight to create the ceramite. The second consideration for me is; I plan to paint a Dark Angels chapter, so the ceramite will need to stand out on minis with white, black and green color schemes.

People are attracted to wargaming for many reasons. For me it was building old, weathered and worn terrain. I am trying to "step up" my painting on miniatures and think weathering might by a good step. I agree with Tannhauser42, the NMM and OSL is cool, but it has a little "fad" vibe to it. No disrespect, I an not that good at either method.

If you like rusty stuff you might check out my Industrial Terrain Thread

Overread, For the record I like rusty cars. I just have a hard time getting girls to ride in them with me.

I always thought it would look very dark grey, with a bit of metallic tinge to it on the really deep gouges.

Here's how I did it on my Deathwing:

I like they grey on the Deathwing, just not sure it will translate well the the Ravenwing.

this was my first try at chipped black paint...
it is very labor intensive, but looks alright...
i will definitely be giving it a try on some Ravemwing...



cheers
jah

 tinker wrote:

 Deadshot wrote:
I just don't like the look. I like the clean, well maintained look.

I am starting to wonder if it is a regional preference as well. In a PM conversation about a Swap Shop item, a fellow gamer said he noticed that folks in the USA like chipped and weathered models. However, our UK counterparts prefer clean and crisp presentation.

Added a poll to the OP.

Huh? Only 1 UK person said they like clean models. There's no real regional trend I can see.

Also to your poll question, I prefer (well) weathered Space Marines, but I personally don't do it because I can't be bothered taking the time to do it.

Agreed, with the well maintained armor and kit, however, I think it's ok to make the Marine's kit, and armor look battle worn. It doesn't take much fighting to get dirty, and scuffed up. Even in training a grunt is going to get scuffed up, tear uniforms, bang helmets on corners or low ceilings. So I can imagine it's quite alright to make your Marines appear like they've been in action for a while. If you want them to look like they are standing on the departation deck of the assault ship prior to battle then crisp and clean is the look for you. But no matter how much rubbing powders, and cleaning they do is going to help when they're running through urban streets, breaking through walls, getting peppered by shrapnel, and hit by rounds.

 tinker wrote:
I do not see that many SM minis with chipped paint and weathered surfaces. I know SM maintain their gear between battles, but I was wondering why we see so few "in the battle" type paint jobs. I figure it is either because it takes more time or people don't like the look. I have noticed GW paints their troops to look factory fresh and weathers vehicles and dreadnaughts. Thoughts?

First off, I say they're your minis, paint them however YOU want them to look. Take constructive criticism, but in the end, if YOU like them, that's what matters.

That being said, SM minis are painted 'factory fresh' for several reasons: First, it's lore-friendly because their armor is repaired/repainted in between battles. Second, it differentiates them from Chaos Marines who seem to look like they never maintain their armor. Third, I'd say that the 'clean look' is because SM are one of the most popular armies and a nice clean paintjob is easier to pull off than a battle-worn look, so it's not as intimidating to new painters.

Let me re-phrase that last statement. It's pretty easy to do say, Chaos, and have them look all jacked-up. What's difficult is making the armor look dirty and paint-chipped yet keep the sense that the armor is well-maintained, recently painted and is just dirty and chipped from recent heavy use. Know what I'm saying?

I don't think it's because people don't like the look. If done properly, it looks awesome. It makes the model look...dangerous.