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 think the "why" posts are over-analyzing it a bit. Space marines are usually painted in a clean style because GW uses a clean style for their catalog models, and most people tend to mimic that style. It's a very straightforward method that has distinct highlights even from across the table and puts more emphasis on GW's official step-by-step process than on artistic talent. But it's very definitely a "clean" style that represents an abstract ideal of a perfect space marine at the expense of realism.

 Peregrine wrote:
I think the "why" posts are over-analyzing it a bit. Space marines are usually painted in a clean style because GW uses a clean style for their catalog models, and most people tend to mimic that style. It's a very straightforward method that has distinct highlights even from across the table and puts more emphasis on GW's official step-by-step process than on artistic talent. But it's very definitely a "clean" style that represents an abstract ideal of a perfect space marine at the expense of realism.

Had me until the end.

I prefer the weathered look, but it is more time consuming (I'm not a very skilled painter ).

 jreilly89 wrote:
Had me until the end.

I don't see how you can disagree with that. GW's catalog models do not accurately represent what a "real" marine would look like, nor do they intend to.

Personally, I go with clean, but either works. I think it also depends upon which chapter - I have to think that the average Lamenter has armor that is significantly more scuffed up that the average Ultramarine.

 Peregrine wrote:

 jreilly89 wrote:
Had me until the end.

I don't see how you can disagree with that. GW's catalog models do not accurately represent what a "real" marine would look like, nor do they intend to.

They have to be at least 12 feet tall, breathe fire, and sell White Dwarves for double price.

Truly Space Marines are gods amongst men.

Also, remember that from a fluff standpoint (and laziness on GW's part), SMs are pristine heroes of the Imperium. No way a xenos's splattered skull bits would adorn their armor after three consecutive days of hand to hand combat.

Just curious if for the "cracked ceramite" look anyone has tried any of the crackle effect paint you can find at some hobby stores? Used on ceramics an such for weathering? (This is all theory) but I was thinking base with the ceramite color you want, crackle over, then paint the non cracked bits with your main colors/highlight as normal?

 Peregrine wrote:

 jreilly89 wrote:
Had me until the end.

I don't see how you can disagree with that. GW's catalog models do not accurately represent what a "real" marine would look like, nor do they intend to.

I'm not disagreeing with your idea on painting, it's the "extent of realism" that had me rolling. 40k is pretty far from realistic.

IMHO, it all depends on what you are going for.

I would think a company of marines just arriving to a battlefront as fresh troops would have pristine condition equipment as it would be an affront to training to have equipment in poor condition.

However, if the marines have been on the battlefront for a while and have seen a lot of combat, then their armor would receive damage and could be chipped, bullet riddled, soiled and weathered.

I personally make mine as if they are just arriving to the battle front so they and their equipment are in good condition.

 jreilly89 wrote:
I'm not disagreeing with your idea on painting, it's the "extent of realism" that had me rolling. 40k is pretty far from realistic.

Sure, but you can still paint in a realistic style. Space marines might be impossible, but you can ask yourself what one would look like if you suspend disbelief and imagine that it is possible to make one, and then paint it in that style.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 GamesEtc wrote:
I would think a company of marines just arriving to a battlefront as fresh troops would have pristine condition equipment as it would be an affront to training to have equipment in poor condition.

But even then you're going to have subtle weathering. Remember that space marines are heavy, even minor bumps are going to have a lot of force behind them and chip the paint. Unless you're talking about fresh troops as in "literally just stepped out of the paint shop and onto the battlefield" you're going to have paint chips, dirt, etc. This doesn't mean that their equipment is in poor condition, all of the damage is just aesthetic flaws. It just reflects the fact that space marines are walking tanks, not priceless paintings to be displayed in a museum.

unless the paint is magnitized to make sure it doesn't chip. I forget the name but I got it done to my bike and that thing just doesn't get scratched even tho I rammed it into a pole.

 Peregrine wrote:

 jreilly89 wrote:
I'm not disagreeing with your idea on painting, it's the "extent of realism" that had me rolling. 40k is pretty far from realistic.

Sure, but you can still paint in a realistic style. Space marines might be impossible, but you can ask yourself what one would look like if you suspend disbelief and imagine that it is possible to make one, and then paint it in that style.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 GamesEtc wrote:
I would think a company of marines just arriving to a battlefront as fresh troops would have pristine condition equipment as it would be an affront to training to have equipment in poor condition.

But even then you're going to have subtle weathering. Remember that space marines are heavy, even minor bumps are going to have a lot of force behind them and chip the paint. Unless you're talking about fresh troops as in "literally just stepped out of the paint shop and onto the battlefield" you're going to have paint chips, dirt, etc. This doesn't mean that their equipment is in poor condition, all of the damage is just aesthetic flaws. It just reflects the fact that space marines are walking tanks, not priceless paintings to be displayed in a museum.

Big dents and tears I could imagine being on a model, but remember that these guys are supposedly 8ft tall. Surely a tiny scratch like a shrapnel mark, or scuffs from dirt and dust in the air, at the scale the models are, would be far too tiny to make out?

It's just hard to do. Also, most "weathering and battledamage" borders on "WTF!?" if you actually go logically.

Firstly, their armor is only really going to "weather" in a protracted campaign, or if they're rolling around (somewhat literally) on VERY rough surfaces or in dirt. They need something that scrapes the paint off, and if you do that, you're just going to go with whatever color you think ceramite is, and then ONLY at points where it could contact the ground (knees, elbows, MAYBE shoulders, maybe farthest out part of chest, etc). Could it of course get grimy from being in mud or dust? Sure, but you don't see a lot of those paint jobs.

For battle damage you have to actually do some work on the model itself to make it look realistic. Drilling small bullet holes, taking a small chunk out but making it look like a bullet just bit it or a lasgun dinged it but only melted a very small pool. A literal cut to show where a chainsword or knife or something similar bounced off or bit in a bit.

To make it actually realistic is incredibly hard and you have to figure out what effect you're going for...and people don't do it. Without the examples, it's less likely that someone has the thought process to do it in the first place.

Depends on the marines, and the power armor in question.

Ultramarines or Blood Angels? Pristine, blinding blue and red at all times. And freshly mowed grass on the base.

Space Wolves and White Scars? Armor kept in good condition, but covered in dirt and hair, and scratched with runes/symbols.

Minotaurs? Either meticulously well kept or drenched in blood.

Lamenters? Scratched, dinged, shattered and punctured, with none of the original yellow paint still on it.

Iron Hands? Covered in all those oils and unguents that the machine spirits in their armor love so much, but otherwise spotless.

Black Templars? Chipped and worn from countless crusading, with rust marks all over the wrists from those chains. But you better believe that tabard is freshly laundered.

Emperor's Children? So blinged and sparkly you'd have to squint to see the actual condition of the armor.

Thousand Sons? Either magically spotless, or with holes blown in the armor and heads missing.

Plague Marines? The only ones that should actually have rusty armor. Magical Nurgle rust that affects ceramite.

Sisters of Battle? Spotless. They have hordes of priests that do nothing but chant liturgies and whip themselves while scrubbing that armor with their hair. During combat.

Inquisitors? Horrendously expensive holo-fields that make their power armor look like classy smoking jackets.

Maxim C. Gatling wrote:

 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.

I understand exactly what you are saying in the red text. I think this is the look that I am going to go for!
Thanks

Like applying makeup I believe its a balancing act. If its done poorly try avoiding it, but if your smart about it go for it!
Unless they are new recruits like Blood Claws (or whatever your army is) then new and shiny is the go!

Cambonimachine wrote:
Just curious if for the "cracked ceramite" look anyone has tried any of the crackle effect paint you can find at some hobby stores? Used on ceramics an such for weathering? (This is all theory) but I was thinking base with the ceramite color you want, crackle over, then paint the non cracked bits with your main colors/highlight as normal?

Very good idea! I think if you apply the "cracking" paint very thin it will make small cracks. I will try this out and let you know how it works.

 GamesEtc wrote:
IMHO, it all depends on what you are going for.

I would think a company of marines just arriving to a battlefront as fresh troops would have pristine condition equipment as it would be an affront to training to have equipment in poor condition.

However, if the marines have been on the battlefront for a while and have seen a lot of combat, then their armor would receive damage and could be chipped, bullet riddled, soiled and weathered.

I personally make mine as if they are just arriving to the battle front so they and their equipment are in good condition.

clearly not a military man.. i dont think anyone in the armed forces has arrived anywhere with kit in good condition haha the reality is that armed units, even when not directly in a war or combat zone, will be undertaking exercises and training. sure, you inspect and service your kit, but it will never be in a perfect factory new condition, ever. just like anything in real life. the only people who have shiny brand new stuff is those on ceromonial duties.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Badablack wrote:
Depends on the marines, and the power armor in question.

Ultramarines or Blood Angels? Pristine, blinding blue and red at all times. And freshly mowed grass on the base.

.

***grass painted green