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.

Hey guys, sorry if I posted it in the wrong place. Dont know if it should be in the P&M section, but since this pertains to the gaming hobby as a whole, I thought I'd bring this discussion forth here.

Simple question, what are the boundaries of the "table-top standard", when it comes to having painted miniature armies on the battlefield?
Would the bare-minimum be the undercoat, and basecoat? The highlighting? Or would it be the three-colour minimum requirement that I've seen used for gaming tournaments?
On the other end of the scale, what would be considered the highest end of "table-top standard", before you're entering a territory where it's clear that significant level of skill, effort and patience was put into the model?

I know this is highly subjective, and subjected to wide interpretations, but the question came to me when I was looking at my miniatures and wonder, am I painting at a "high tabletop standard"? What do I have to do to step beyond it? If I did improve, would it make my army anymore noticeable than if I had gone with a simple basecoat + washes method? I've played 40k with my friends, and the reactions are varied. Some are impressed to even see a painted army, and others are just "meh" about it and just want to roll dice, and better still, it helped motivate of my friends to paint his army.

Any opinions, insights or other input from the Dakka community would be great. Cheers.

I'm not sure if other people'd take it this way, but my view on the "table-top standard" is this: Basically, every part of the model has to be painted. So this means the armour, face, boots, weapon, cape, hair, etc etc. Small things could be missed, I guess, especially if you've undercoated before. However, what you don't have to do is do any shading, highlighting or any stuff like that.

So if you had an Ork boy, you would slap some green on his skin, black on his armour, silver on his choppa and slugga, brown/black on his trousers and boots and maybe paint the teeth white.

What would you *want* to see on the table? A little effort?

There is no real definition of table top standard. Its not Golden Demon quality, so that's about it...

If my what people say to me is true, a good tabletop standard will be primed, base coat, shaded (wash), the a quick highlight (In my case a light dry brush or extreme edge highlight).

Most tournament table top standard seems to be at least three different colours. In my opinion for the few Seconds it takes to wash a model with Payne's Grey/Devlin Mud there is no reason not to have your models shaded.

Tabletop standard, I think, is when it's clear to see that a painter has put time and effort into their pieces regardless of skill level. There's nothing worse than playing a grey, silver or black undercoated horde, because, after all, painting is a part of the hobby too. If you're gonna drop anything up to £30 (sometimes more) on a single model, at least do it the justice of putting some paint on it instead of just leaving it.

For Me, It's
1. Undercoated
2. Based.
3. 3 Colour minimum.

For me, tabletop standard is simply base colours, more or less where they should be.

Anything beyond that is a bonus.

 insaniak wrote:
For me, tabletop standard is simply base colours, more or less where they should be.

Anything beyond that is a bonus.

This is pretty much how I see it too. It is sort of the minimum required to have every piece of the miniature painted in the "correct" colors. No shading or highlighting needed.

A visual proof the painter has made some effort to detail his models beyond the mere basecoat + drybrush standard.

I agree it's very much about the effort - but I'd say that you need.

- All the model painted neatly, with the right colours on the right bits
- Based. This is really important - unbased models are not up to tabletop standard

Shading and washed would be ok, but just neatly an clearly painted is good enough.

Part of the whole 'tabletop standard' is to help your opponent recognise what is what. Have you ever tried to look across the table at a black-undercoated unit and figure out what guns they're carrying from 4 feet away? Even worse, a unit that's half painted in various different schemes, with a few unpainted and black undercoated models mixed in.

Id probably go with basecoat, wash, drybrush and then a few details to add more colour.
Depends on the models, the above you could do for marines or such and then for detail just colour the iconography on their armour and their eyes that would be a decent tabletop paintjob.


Better than tabletop could be going and doing all the details plus highlighting, using more than just a wash to shade, maybe get fancy and do some OSL.

Edit: oh and base your models with at least 2 different textures, such as grass and sand.

Old Rogue Trader standard was 3 colors, and based.

Tabletop: 3 colors minimum and based. Should be able to look across the tabletop and recognize what the enemy models are.

I think many have a higher standard definition of tabletop standard though. For my models I consider tabletop quality as a model that people would look at from 3 feet away and think "this looks pretty good" but if they would pick it up they would be able to see mistakes and errors.

I think it is just undercoated, base coated and based.

Bascoated with basic shading and highlighting. Being mainly a painter and modeller i prefer to see some effort put in to the figs regardless of skill level.

I hate going in to my local GW and seeing people play with unpainted/ undercoated figs

Tabletop standard to me is just an 'honest' effort to get some painted models on the table. I just want to see that the owner cares about the models and isn't just using the latest and greatest, unpainted to win.

To me, if the base is at least painted a block colour (even just gone over in black so it's neat), and the model is at lest painted so the clothes / skin / weapons are able to be told apart, that's the minimum required. Washing them is preferable to add shading / bring out detail, and maybe a drybrush. That would be 'tabletop standard'.

I feel that ultimately for any game, block troops should be at least the minimum, characters / unique models should have a little more effort put in (pick out that detail, highlight, etc.)

Xeriapt wrote:Id probably go with basecoat, wash, drybrush and then a few details to add more colour.
Depends on the models, the above you could do for marines or such and then for detail just colour the iconography on their armour and their eyes that would be a decent tabletop paintjob.


Better than tabletop could be going and doing all the details plus highlighting, using more than just a wash to shade, maybe get fancy and do some OSL.

Edit: oh and base your models with at least 2 different textures, such as grass and sand.

The 2 different textures thing is confusing, and seems a little arbitrary.
A 2 Colours thing would be more logical...

I mean, my armies are currently being based in 'Urban Wasteland' and 'Snow Field'... the Urban wasteland is mostly a 'tarmac' style thing using the Astrogranite Texture, with occasional lumps / rubble... and Snow wastes are... snow wastes... kind of smushy, black slush + snow. (A few bases might have cratery bits, a few may have rocks, but most are just dirty snow.)

But mine are all at least 2-3 colours / shades, and frankly I think even painting them dark grey then drybrushing them with a lighter grey is a suitable 'minimum'

- Regardless of the methods employed to paint it, does it look good from 3 ft away?
- Does it have at least minimal basing (sand or flocking)?

That's what I would judge as tabletop standard. If it looks good on the table with a bunch of other models, then you are there. I hold my own painting up to higher expectations, but that's just for my personal stuff.

 WaaaaghLord wrote:
Tabletop standard, I think, is when it's clear to see that a painter has put time and effort into their pieces regardless of skill level. There's nothing worse than playing a grey, silver or black undercoated horde, because, after all, painting is a part of the hobby too. If you're gonna drop anything up to £30 (sometimes more) on a single model, at least do it the justice of putting some paint on it instead of just leaving it.

Eh, I disagree. There are plenty of things worse than playing a grey horde. Aside from a meteor striking you in the head on the way to your FLGS, I have seen plenty of paintjobs that made me cringe and think "should have just left it bare plastic." I don't take away from a person trying (if they were indeed trying), but just because someone slops some paint on a mini doesn't mean it improves the looks.

 d-usa wrote:
Tabletop: 3 colors minimum and based. Should be able to look across the tabletop and recognize what the enemy models are.

I think many have a higher standard definition of tabletop standard though. For my models I consider tabletop quality as a model that people would look at from 3 feet away and think "this looks pretty good" but if they would pick it up they would be able to see mistakes and errors.

This. I think the essence of "tabletop standard" is that when you look at them from the usual "during the game" distance- 2-4 feet away, they look finished and nice. It's when you look at them up close and see flaws, shortcuts and mistakes that you see that they're not "display standard" or "competition standard."

If you ask if you think you've painted enough for "table-top standard" (as you put it) then you haven't. Paint some more.

I would agree that the use of three or four colors, some washes and a base coating is good enough for most people. IT really improves my experience of the game when i play on a table well populated with meticulously crafted terrain, and facing a fully painted army. When someone really invests time in the modelling and painting of their collection, it takes the game to a whole other level.

I agree with mannahnin that table top should look good from 2-4 ft away and that competition standard should have no visible flaws when examined up close. Comptetition standard might also include the use of drybrushing and high lining.

I would say Tabletop standard is 3 colors, tournament is 3 colors plus basing.

Its not primed or bare metal/plastic/finecast. It has paint on it in 2-3 or more colors. It doesnt have to even be good.

Thats table top standard.

 Mannahnin wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
Tabletop: 3 colors minimum and based. Should be able to look across the tabletop and recognize what the enemy models are.

I think many have a higher standard definition of tabletop standard though. For my models I consider tabletop quality as a model that people would look at from 3 feet away and think "this looks pretty good" but if they would pick it up they would be able to see mistakes and errors.

This. I think the essence of "tabletop standard" is that when you look at them from the usual "during the game" distance- 2-4 feet away, they look finished and nice. It's when you look at them up close and see flaws, shortcuts and mistakes that you see that they're not "display standard" or "competition standard."

This, I think is a reasonable standard that anyone starting the hobby should try to achieve. Not everyone should try to be a GD winner, but all of us should try to have a neat looking army.

Why would you go for the absolute minimum, when its not even tournament legal. If I was going to paint them at all, I would want at least 3 color, and basing. What if a tournament came up and I found I actually wanted to go, but couldnt because of the requirements.

Either leave them plastic grey to resell them later, or paint them with effort. Anything else is a waste of time and effort.

maelstrom808 wrote:

 WaaaaghLord wrote:
Tabletop standard, I think, is when it's clear to see that a painter has put time and effort into their pieces regardless of skill level. There's nothing worse than playing a grey, silver or black undercoated horde, because, after all, painting is a part of the hobby too. If you're gonna drop anything up to £30 (sometimes more) on a single model, at least do it the justice of putting some paint on it instead of just leaving it.

Eh, I disagree. There are plenty of things worse than playing a grey horde. Aside from a meteor striking you in the head on the way to your FLGS, I have seen plenty of paintjobs that made me cringe and think "should have just left it bare plastic." I don't take away from a person trying (if they were indeed trying), but just because someone slops some paint on a mini doesn't mean it improves the looks.

That wasn't what I meant, I just like seeing that someone has put effort into their armies, I suppose. I've seen my fair share of dodgy painters, but at least they're giving it a go, trying to improve and enjoying what they do. My first minis were absolutely terrible, and the only way I improved was by painting. And then some painting. And then painting, experimenting and painting some more.

At the end of the day it's their miniature and their choice what they do with it, I just find it disconcerting playing a grey army, it takes away somewhat from the "narrative" feel of any wargame.

 WaaaaghLord wrote:

maelstrom808 wrote:

 WaaaaghLord wrote:
Tabletop standard, I think, is when it's clear to see that a painter has put time and effort into their pieces regardless of skill level. There's nothing worse than playing a grey, silver or black undercoated horde, because, after all, painting is a part of the hobby too. If you're gonna drop anything up to £30 (sometimes more) on a single model, at least do it the justice of putting some paint on it instead of just leaving it.

Eh, I disagree. There are plenty of things worse than playing a grey horde. Aside from a meteor striking you in the head on the way to your FLGS, I have seen plenty of paintjobs that made me cringe and think "should have just left it bare plastic." I don't take away from a person trying (if they were indeed trying), but just because someone slops some paint on a mini doesn't mean it improves the looks.

That wasn't what I meant, I just like seeing that someone has put effort into their armies, I suppose. I've seen my fair share of dodgy painters, but at least they're giving it a go, trying to improve and enjoying what they do. My first minis were absolutely terrible, and the only way I improved was by painting. And then some painting. And then painting, experimenting and painting some more.

At the end of the day it's their miniature and their choice what they do with it, I just find it disconcerting playing a grey army, it takes away somewhat from the "narrative" feel of any wargame.

Ack! *hisss* The "N" word!

lol, I kid. We tend to worry a bit more about the face stomping of each other rather than having pretty armies, but having two good looking armies on the field definately enhances the experience.

To me the '3 color standard' and 'table-top standard' are different.

3 color standard = 3 colors and based; utilitarian type of thing just to be eligible for tournaments

Table-top standard = a little more detail put into the paint job whether via more colors or added techniques, and looks decent about 3' away, and is based.

I would consider just being basecoated as table-top standard so long as there are maybe a few more details painted or more than 3 colors and it was based.

everyone has covered basic tabletop, but not the other end of the scale...

"On the other end of the scale, what would be considered the highest end of "table-top standard", before you're entering a territory where it's clear that significant level of skill, effort and patience was put into the model?"

you just answered your own question...
high-end tabletop should show a "significant level of skill, effort, and patience..."
for me, and my customers, the only difference between a display mini and a gaming mini is the base, and maybe the fact that is not a "game legal" mini...
a display mini will normally be mounted on a very elaborate base...
even the most beautifully painted mini, with a "game legal" base can be slapped down on the table, though you want a nice coat of matte varnish on it, which is something i don't use for competition minis...
just because a mini will see some action doesn't mean i will put any less effort into the paintjob...
luckily, my clients are crazy enough to slap a $350, beautifully painted, HQ down on the table, which i think i awesome...

there is no good reason to put anything less than 100% into a paintjob, no matter what level you paint at...
if you aren't enjoying painting a mini, put it down and grab a different one...
bringing a mini to life should not feel like a chore, it should be an adventure...

cheers
jah

3 colors and based. The reason is color differences gives the human eye the ability to focus in on the important aspects of the model quicker and help the player understand what he is looking at. Being a sea of grey, or black primed makes it very hard from across the table to distinguish models, weapons, wargear and so on, slows down the game and is a burden to opponents.

Now of course, 3 colors and based, I have seen people drybrush a model with 3 colors then paint the base black. These models are technically event legal, but the players have gone out of their way to make the weapons, wargear and units *HARD* to distinguish which gives them an advantage and burdens an opponent.

Personally, I feel if you really want to do a simple paintjob, the least you could do is paint the important parts of the model, like the weapons a clear contrasting color which makes it super easy to identify those parts. There was a reason when a marine was blue head to toe, the weapons were bright red and in your face. I feel that tabletop should attempt to make models easy to distinguish for opponents.