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'm curious as to how many people here prefer for their models (even the SF/F models) to have some semblance of realism.
For me, I've found that as I get older, it's more important to me, to the point where I can't imagine painting, say, a space marine tank in colours that don't reflect its actual place and use on the battlefield.

For me it depends on faction. Space Marines just don't look right to me unless they look like they stepped out of an 80's comic book.

On the flip side, The Scions look absolutely silly with metalic trim on their armor, while a more realistic color for them looks much better.

Similarly, Tyranids, at least for me, looks better with bright colours, like most dangerous fauna in real life and classical depictions of such types of aliens/monsters while Kroot looks better with earthen tones that are more akin to a realistic animal.

This is because Tyranids are suppose to be this grander than life biological horror, so giving them a more vibrant color makes them look better. Kroot, on the other hand, is more down to earth and realistic. They're not engineered to be killing machines, but naturally evolved animals. Making them look bright and colourful without meaning just makes them look gaudy to me.

 joseph_curwen wrote:
... I can't imagine painting, say, a space marine tank in colours that don't reflect its actual place and use on the battlefield.

I'm not sure what this means...


Are you talking about painting in 'realistic' colours rather than bright Marine schemes, or weathering and battle damage?

Space marines aren't meant to be "realistic" soldiers.

They are zealous crusading space knights displaying their colours so that they strike fear into their enemies. Ever since 2nd ed, they take the field of battle in full parade dress.

(Not using the "colours of cowardice" (camouflage). )

In RT, things were different. The armour incorporated a mimetic outer layer, that could be programmmed to display a variety of camouflage or drab colours, as well as chapter parade dress. Maybe since then they just forgot how to work the "personalise desktop" functions.

I find ultra-realism a bit too grubby for my liking. I prefer a slightly cartoonish look without the models looking fresh out of anime

Well, looks like I'm going against the majority flow in that I like things to look on the more realistic side of things. I utterly love all the gritty INQ28-style painting, especially if it's applied to models that don't usually get that sort of treatment. I keep going back to Paradigms Eldar Corsair as the perfect example of this:



Just because a colour scheme is gritty or realistic doesn't mean that it can't be vibrant too. The cultures of 40k are pretty medieval when it comes to camouflage vs livery so you can still go pretty wild with colour. For instance, this is a servant of a Noble House done in vibrant but gritty colours:



And here's a Chaos Cultist by the same guy

Everyone has their own tastes. It comes down to that simple truth in the end.

Give me those 2nd edition Blood Angels all day.

I'm personally a fan of a mix. I love seeing gritty, dirty, weathered miniatures, particularly in the Blanche style. But at the same time, it's pretty cool to see garishly coloured non metallic metal miniatures that look like they stepped right out of a magazine from the 80's