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've seen this phrase thrown around a lot and would like to know.

It means different things to different people, but generally, it means that from a typical tabletop distance (a few feet) the models look like they're reasonably painted. The army should look good as a battleforce, but the individual models don't need to photograph like a magazine model or box art. Some gaming clubs and such also stipulate a minimum of 3 colors.

Commission painters usually mean neatly painted miniatures that have washes and some level of highlights, that again, look attractive from a distance, but will also pass inspection as decently painted but not award winning when held close. ie good gaming pieces for tabletop wargames.

Also, it's distinct from display and competition quality pieces, which will have a lot more detail, look flawless when photographed singly, and often take anywhere from 20 hours to hundreds of hours (months) to complete 1 model.

Whenever someone on the internet says "Tabletop Quality" it means "This model is gak. I just don't want to say that because you'll get offended."

Which is why I don't ask for criticism nor criticize other people's work.

I go by the old standard of three colors and based for tournament play.

It's about the only way to look at it that's not subjective...

I always considered Table Top Quality a mini you put some effort into, not a top prize winner or even contendors in some big mini contests, but still looks nice and complies with the 3 color minimum.

And something that won't make you make that "Nooooooo!" face when a mini falls off the table.

 Beta wrote:
And something that won't make you make that "Nooooooo!" face when a mini falls off the table.

If you put any effort whatsoever into assembling and painting a miniature and don't have a disposable income, then it's pretty normal to 'make that "Nooooooo!" face when a mini falls off the table,' even if it's not showcase-quality.

It's usually a three color minimum. It varies from person to person (I personally don't like unbased guys, but would consider three color minimum and no basing as TT standard). But generally, the idea is a basecoat (so blue for Ultramarines), then two or more colors for the details (red for the bolter, silver for the barrel and magazine).

It doesn't have to be perfect (no edge highlights or washing is fine) but more than just a basecoat or primer.

for me, as a professional painter, it means the least amount of effort that i can bring myself to put into a model, and still be proud of releasing it out into the wild...
if it was up to me, i would paint everything to my display standard, but some clients want a little more of a budget paintjob, so i call that tabletop quality...

i can't really bring myself to do sub-par painting (for my personal standards), or work to anything less than the best of my ability, so my tabletop quality really just means it is on a legal gaming base, instead of a display plinth...
competition quality goes on a gaming base too, most often, but is painted in a more less simplistic style, and hyper-detailed...
display quality and competition quality are the same for me, just based differently...

cheers
jah

To me, a tabletop standard paintjob is one that I'm personally proud of, at the same time realizing that it's not going to win an award. The purpose of its paintjob is to look good on the table. A tabletop standard is any well painted model that is not "showcase" quality, IMO.

Tabletop quality for me means I can photograph a unit & be just a satisfied as the whole army. A TTQ model will have shading in the form of a wash or washes (different washes for different colors) & maybe some highlights in the form of drybrushing but, since I play IG, not much more than that. As I base & paint separately it may not be based but merely attached to a black base until it's ready to be transferred.

3 colors and based is its pretty standard meaning. Its what most tournaments that have any painting requirements usually go by.

As others have noted;
Three color minimum and flocked bases (now it means finished bases, not smooth plain bases). And black is not a color, lol...
.
Think of it this way;
It is your hobby, but it is also your opponents hobby, so painting is a way to respect your opponent, thus a three color minimum is just what it is; a bare minimum.

 rexscarlet wrote:
As others have noted;
Three color minimum and flocked bases (now it means finished bases, not smooth plain bases). And black is not a color, lol...
.
Think of it this way;
It is your hobby, but it is also your opponents hobby, so painting is a way to respect your opponent, thus a three color minimum is just what it is; a bare minimum.

Soooo... if you use blue primer, is blue a color?

In my years, I have played a bazillion ultramarines that are no more than painted blue, wash splashed on, and a decal on the shoulder. Sometimes, a cheapo drybrush. Some people count a colored ring on the base a "color" too lol.

 Verviedi wrote:
Whenever someone on the internet says "Tabletop Quality" it means "This model is gak. I just don't want to say that because you'll get offended."

Not universally, but it seems like this is actually true, much of the time. To some, TTQ is equivalent to "well, at least you tried. I think..." When I first started reading the boards (before I ever put brush to model), the focus was more on the tournament standard: 3+ colors and basing. The only way to really botch a tabletop paintjob was to prove unable to stay inside the 'lines.' As the apparent average quality of painting and modeling improved, the general meaning shifted more towards either "doesn't used advanced techniques, a complex scheme, etc." or "simply isn't good enough to be called anything else."

Another view sets 'tabletop' not as a failure to reach 'display' levels of quality, but as a whole alternative paradigm to 'display' painting - optimizing the painting method for view at arm's length, instead of right at the tip of your nose or under the unforgiving macro lens of a high-res camera. Strong colors, stark highlights and shading... basically, what <15mm painters do, but at a larger scale. If looking good on the tabletop is your primary concern, who needs smooth blends, miniscule detailing, and subtle color shifts that can't be seen from 3' away? Some of the most striking armies I've ever seen were 'basic' paintjobs, but with an attractive scheme, applied neatly using techniques aimed at achieving a certain effect from a certain distance. If I comment on such a model I find I always have to qualify my response - it's hard, nowadays, to utter "tabletop" as part of a compliment, even if your intent is to recognize a painter achieving exactly what they set out to do.

So, basically, "different things to different people, but probably not as good as 'display quality' means" is the best answer you're likely to get.

 oadie wrote:

 Verviedi wrote:
Whenever someone on the internet says "Tabletop Quality" it means "This model is gak. I just don't want to say that because you'll get offended."

Not universally, but it seems like this is actually true, much of the time. To some, TTQ is equivalent to "well, at least you tried. I think..." When I first started reading the boards (before I ever put brush to model), the focus was more on the tournament standard: 3+ colors and basing. The only way to really botch a tabletop paintjob was to prove unable to stay inside the 'lines.' As the apparent average quality of painting and modeling improved, the general meaning shifted more towards either "doesn't used advanced techniques, a complex scheme, etc." or "simply isn't good enough to be called anything else."

Another view sets 'tabletop' not as a failure to reach 'display' levels of quality, but as a whole alternative paradigm to 'display' painting - optimizing the painting method for view at arm's length, instead of right at the tip of your nose or under the unforgiving macro lens of a high-res camera. Strong colors, stark highlights and shading... basically, what <15mm painters do, but at a larger scale. If looking good on the tabletop is your primary concern, who needs smooth blends, miniscule detailing, and subtle color shifts that can't be seen from 3' away? Some of the most striking armies I've ever seen were 'basic' paintjobs, but with an attractive scheme, applied neatly using techniques aimed at achieving a certain effect from a certain distance. If I comment on such a model I find I always have to qualify my response - it's hard, nowadays, to utter "tabletop" as part of a compliment, even if your intent is to recognize a painter achieving exactly what they set out to do.

So, basically, "different things to different people, but probably not as good as 'display quality' means" is the best answer you're likely to get.

Great post. Definitely this. If you play Tyranids, you don't set out to paint every Gaunt up to display quality, two major colors, a detail (white for teeth and nails) and a base are enough for most players.

Raven Cowl wrote:
I've seen this phrase thrown around a lot and would like to know.

Place model on table.

Does it look good?

That is table top standard.

 jreilly89 wrote:

 oadie wrote:

 Verviedi wrote:
Whenever someone on the internet says "Tabletop Quality" it means "This model is gak. I just don't want to say that because you'll get offended."

Not universally, but it seems like this is actually true, much of the time. To some, TTQ is equivalent to "well, at least you tried. I think..." When I first started reading the boards (before I ever put brush to model), the focus was more on the tournament standard: 3+ colors and basing. The only way to really botch a tabletop paintjob was to prove unable to stay inside the 'lines.' As the apparent average quality of painting and modeling improved, the general meaning shifted more towards either "doesn't used advanced techniques, a complex scheme, etc." or "simply isn't good enough to be called anything else."

Another view sets 'tabletop' not as a failure to reach 'display' levels of quality, but as a whole alternative paradigm to 'display' painting - optimizing the painting method for view at arm's length, instead of right at the tip of your nose or under the unforgiving macro lens of a high-res camera. Strong colors, stark highlights and shading... basically, what <15mm painters do, but at a larger scale. If looking good on the tabletop is your primary concern, who needs smooth blends, miniscule detailing, and subtle color shifts that can't be seen from 3' away? Some of the most striking armies I've ever seen were 'basic' paintjobs, but with an attractive scheme, applied neatly using techniques aimed at achieving a certain effect from a certain distance. If I comment on such a model I find I always have to qualify my response - it's hard, nowadays, to utter "tabletop" as part of a compliment, even if your intent is to recognize a painter achieving exactly what they set out to do.

So, basically, "different things to different people, but probably not as good as 'display quality' means" is the best answer you're likely to get.

Great post. Definitely this. If you play Tyranids, you don't set out to paint every Gaunt up to display quality, two major colors, a detail (white for teeth and nails) and a base are enough for most players.

There's one more common usage. For a certain class of nervous painter TTQ means "this is the best that I could do but I'm going to pretend like I could have done better, pleaseohpleasedon'tcrushmyhopesanddreamsIamnotworthy!!!!"

Or at least, that's what it means if you ever see me use the phrase.

It is certainly subjective.

My table top quality of painting, due to my skill and experience, is, very possibly, going to be better than someone who has just started in the hobby and has no painting experience.

This is *my* version of Table Top, for example. I put more effort/time into my models and as such, have fewer of them right now (lol).

As long as someone has but *some* effort into putting out a completed model (some colors and a base), then I, personally, am fine with that.

In my mind, it means something that you would be happy to put on a table and throw dice around. Something that when the grubby-handed teen sweeps up your figure from in front of you unbidden, that you can resist cracking his face with your codex. Something that if it falls or scrapes, you don't gnash your teeth, but know that you can dab a repair when you have five minutes that evening.
I don't have a quality or standard, but a mindset that these are game pieces, so meant to be played with.

At the core of it, "Tabletop Standard" at one time have means the minimum required to show respect to your opponent and venue by not fielding a bare or half-finished model.

 Buttery Commissar wrote:
In my mind, it means something that you would be happy to put on a table and throw dice around. Something that when the grubby-handed teen sweeps up your figure from in front of you unbidden, that you can resist cracking his face with your codex. Something that if it falls or scrapes, you don't gnash your teeth, but know that you can dab a repair when you have five minutes that evening.
I don't have a quality or standard, but a mindset that these are game pieces, so meant to be played with.

At the core of it, "Tabletop Standard" at one time have means the minimum required to show respect to your opponent and venue by not fielding a bare or half-finished model.

I think you pretty much have it, although I don't think I have a model that's painted that I wouldn't be pretty upset if someone just trashed it in a moment of exuberance at a gaming table

One problem, of course, is, there isn't much to describe work that's between "tabletop standard" and "display standard". For instance, both of these models that I've painted, I consider tabletop -- even though the Death Company here took maybe 2 nights to prep & paint, and the menoth models don't even take 3 hours:

"Table top quality" is a term that's mostly meaningless yet it gets used far too often It's mostly meaningless because it's meaning varies wildly depending on personal expectations, abilities and the context in which it was said.

To me, table top quality simply means the quality I can paint in a reasonable time to actually produce an army. If I'm pumping out models in under an hour each or under half an hour for horde armies, that's table top quality to me, because if I took much longer to paint them I'd never actually finish a whole army.

Pretty much that it's painted like one would reasonabley expect a finished model, not a masterpiece, would look like.
Every part of the model is painted, with a color that belongs there.

Skin has skin color, weapons are painted, armor is painted, and a few details are picked out.

It should look like someone gave a damn about it, even if they weren't the best painter.

 darefsky wrote:
I go by the old standard of three colors and based for tournament play.

Pretty much the old stand by.

As you can see above tabletop has come to mean alot of things to different people.
Ignore them.

Seriously though, traditionally, it has had 2 different (not mutually exclusive) meanings commonly used by wargamers for the past couple decades.

1) 3 colors and based (sand or flock). This is what GW (and other) tournaments have long required for entry.

2) Looks good from the distance one would view it on a tabletop. Generally this is 3-4 feet away, reflecting a miniature on a table and a person standing at the table edge..

Personally I refer to my miniatures as "tabletop". They tend to be 5-8 colors very neatly (applied), sometimes a drybrush, followed by a brush-dip with polyshades, matte varnish and basing. Technically it's better than the bare tournament minimum required and I frequently receive praise (possibly undeserved) for them. However, it's a standard that I find looks more than satisfactory from tabletop distances and I'd much rather understate their quality than claim a higher level of proficiency than I am capable of.

 Eilif wrote:
As you can see above tabletop has come to mean alot of things to different people.
Ignore them.

Traditionally, it has had 2 different (not mutually exclusive) meanings commonly used by wargamers for the past couple decades.

1) 3 colors and based (sand or flock). This is what GW (and other) tournaments have long required for entry.

2) Looks good from the distance one would view it on a tabletop. Generally this is 3-4 feet away, reflecting a miniature on a table and a person standing at the table edge..

Personally I refer to my miniatures as "tabletop". They tend to be 5-8 colors very neatly (applied), sometimes a drybrush, followed by a brush-dip with polyshades, matte varnish and basing. Technically it's better than the bare tournament minimum required and I frequently receive praise (possibly undeserved) for them. However, it's a standard that I find looks more than satisfactory from tabletop distances and I'd much rather understate their quality than claim a higher level of proficiency than I am capable of.

So ignore everyone else but listen to you? RIght. Totally not conceited at all

 Talys wrote:

 Buttery Commissar wrote:
In my mind, it means something that you would be happy to put on a table and throw dice around. Something that when the grubby-handed teen sweeps up your figure from in front of you unbidden, that you can resist cracking his face with your codex. Something that if it falls or scrapes, you don't gnash your teeth, but know that you can dab a repair when you have five minutes that evening.
I don't have a quality or standard, but a mindset that these are game pieces, so meant to be played with.

At the core of it, "Tabletop Standard" at one time have means the minimum required to show respect to your opponent and venue by not fielding a bare or half-finished model.

I think you pretty much have it, although I don't think I have a model that's painted that I wouldn't be pretty upset if someone just trashed it in a moment of exuberance at a gaming table

I had my eyes opened regarding what I was comfortable with other people handling, when I entered a local GW painting competition with a model that had been given to me for Valentines day. It was not the standard of painting that made me care, but the thoughts and memories behind the figure. The planning and care I took of it. Nottingham GW staff had taken time to teach me how to paint fire, and it was my first drill-and-pin figure. I'd even learned how (gasp) to use brass etched bracken.
I returned later in the week to find it out on one of the store display tables, being played with by children. Internal screaming, and twitch-face aside, I very gently explained to the manager that this was not okay with me. I didn't race over and snatch it up, just asked him to please not be so cavalier with my property. He removed it, put it away and I walked out happy and assured that it would be looked after.
It wasn't, I came to collect it and it had been quite literally stepped on.

I learned not to bring such pieces of myself out with me any more. Now if I give a remotest gak about a figure, I'll leave it at home and paint a second. Or I paint with full acceptance that something will happen. I don't put less time in, but I steel myself for the oops.

 jreilly89 wrote:

So ignore everyone else but listen to you? RIght. Totally not conceited at all

"Ignore" It was intended as a bit of tongue-in-cheek, ( will add emoticon above) but my statement still stands. You can choose from the multitude of different opinions that are offered up by different folks, or you can go with the usage that wargamers have been using for decades.

The problem with alot of these "definition-of-term" discussions is that for many folks (not all by any means) their exposure to wargaming is limited by time in the hobby or to a specific sub-genre of wargaming. Often they don't know the history or the actual meaning of some terms as used in the wider wargaming hobby. Thus you get alot of "in my opinion", 'to me", 'I think that" or "everyone has their own idea" kind of statements. Those are fine if you just want opinions, but like any terms, most wargaming jargon has (or at one time had) fairly specific meanings.

I've only got about 20 years of wargaming under my belt and there are alot of folks with more knowledge than I, but rest assured when someone asks for a definition of a term I'm going to try and give them something based on wide acceptance and tradition, not just a personal opinion.



As seen aboveI have a slightly more concrete defintion of "tabletop" but this...

 oadie wrote:
'tabletop' not as a failure to reach 'display' levels of quality, but as a whole alternative paradigm to 'display' painting - optimizing the painting method for view at arm's length…
...if looking good on the tabletop is your primary concern, who needs smooth blends, miniscule detailing, and subtle color shifts that can't be seen from 3' away? Some of the most striking armies I've ever seen were 'basic' paintjobs, but with an attractive scheme, applied neatly using techniques aimed at achieving a certain effect from a certain distance.

really resonates with me. Nicely said.

I don't view tabletop painting as something that "isn't good enough". Rather my level of painting is simply one that is manageable given the amount of time and effort I want to put into painting, gives a result that is visually pleasing to me and (most importantly for me) provides myself and my opponent with a lovely spectacle on the gaming table. I don't enjoy the process of painting (or care enough about display opportunities) to want to put alot of time into it but I do want nicely painted figures, so my "slightly better than basic tabletop" gives me results that I'm very content with.

IMO "three color minimum" isn't tabletop standard, it's an attempt to rules lawyer the painting requirements for a particular tournament. Who cares how many colors are on the model, what matters is what level of detail is used. A more reasonable definition for "tabletop standard" is that the model is completely painted, but not necessarily with any advanced techniques or multiple passes of detailing. It's a simple but complete paint job intended for mass-production efficiency instead of making a small number of display pieces. So that means three things:

1) All parts of the model, including details, are the appropriate color. How many colors this takes is irrelevant as long as it is done correctly.

2) All paint is applied cleanly without sloppy color placement/visible brush strokes/thick paint covering up details/etc.

3) Some level of shading is included, even if it's just a simple wash + drybrush.

If you're not meeting those three requirements then you're just using "tabletop standard" as an excuse for poor quality.

 Peregrine wrote:
IMO "three color minimum" isn't tabletop standard, it's an attempt to rules lawyer the painting requirements for a particular tournament. Who cares how many colors are on the model, what matters is what level of detail is used. A more reasonable definition for "tabletop standard" is that the model is completely painted, but not necessarily with any advanced techniques or multiple passes of detailing. It's a simple but complete paint job intended for mass-production efficiency instead of making a small number of display pieces. So that means three things:

1) All parts of the model, including details, are the appropriate color. How many colors this takes is irrelevant as long as it is done correctly.

2) All paint is applied cleanly without sloppy color placement/visible brush strokes/thick paint covering up details/etc.

3) Some level of shading is included, even if it's just a simple wash + drybrush.

If you're not meeting those three requirements then you're just using "tabletop standard" as an excuse for poor quality.

I totally agree with this. I know that I'm a paint snob, but well painted armies improve the game greatly.

Lots to take in. What I'm mostly getting is make sure the models are fully painted, as neat as can be, and based. Thanks everyone.