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 just wondering if this would fit most people description of table top quality?

People have had "tabletop quality" for far less (basically it only requires you to have about 3 colors that are not just different shades of each other). I'd say you're way above that.

I'd consider it TT quality; probably better.

It's definitely at least TT.
Sometimes TT is used to refer to things that are "good enough", in the sense that the painter didn't try to add details that can't be seen from a meter away (like painting minor things such as pouches, belt buckles etc.).
In your case, I would say that while you could improve your technique (the edge highlighting isn't very neat, and your paints seem a bit too thick), you went the extra mile to do a second highlight on the aquillas or the blood drops. It shows that you're aiming for more than the bare minimum.

Are you happy putting it on the table? If so, yes.

Being overly simplistic: does it have paint on it and if you squint really hard is it coloured appropriately?

Just seeing some shading in the wing elements to the dreadnaught I figure shows a fine effort for tabletop quality.
Heck, edge highlights were done, I have typically seen "block painting" as being enough.

I find for me, "tabletop quality" is what my personal opinion of my own "get it on the table best effort" is what sets the standard, not so much other people's opinions.
Plus I find people have a certain expectation of me when I say I am fielding more/new models.

Do what makes you happy and people generally like it too.

More than enough for tt level. Base is bit bare for the size but that's matter of taste how busy base you want

I'd say it's definitely "Nice tabletop quality"...i.e. what table-top quality should really mean.

Not professional artist grade stuff, but not slap-dash 12-year old painting either. Perfectly suitable. Also, as long as you're confident and comfortable putting it on the table - that's as good as you need it.

I play with a group of excellent painters and while I'm at the bottom of the list (easily), I am comfortable putting my stuff on the table, so that's as far as I go. My minis don't bring the "level" of the game down at all.

Here's the thing: this website is both a blessing and a curse. You're going to see some of the best painting outside of pros, and plenty of pros mixed in. It can be both inspiring and disheartening.

You've done a neat job with real effort. You've highlighted, it looks like maybe some blending. You have a finished base. Those are advanced techniques (despite what many will say). Tabletop is:

1. Basecoat for model (say, in this case, red)
2. 2 other colors (probably a metal for the guns/mechanics and the wings painted white)
3. MAYBE a finished base--maybe just painted green or brown

The hobby has moved along, and the standard has increased in people's MINDS, but you could bring the standards I mentioned to ANY store or tournament.

You are doing much better than that. I'd say you are between tabletop and advanced, leaning toward advanced.

Yes, only a complete would complain about seeing that on the table.

If you're looking to improve as a display painter there's room for improvement.
If you want to be proud of how your army looks on the but finish it some time this century it's perfect. Smoother edge highlighting is the only thing you may want too improve, but that will come with practice.
If you're looking for bare minimum tabletop you've blown past it. Table top quality to me is, from 3 feet away: can I clearly identify the model? is there differentiation between parts? (in this case bare metal / armor plates / iconography different colors) If both those are a yes then my standard for a painted model are satisfied.

I would also say "everything counts in large amounts!".
That level of painting with a full army and reasonable terrain would look "stunning' from 3-4 feet away and would be photo-worthy and would seem very impressive to the uninitiated.

I find the bare plastic or unassembled models take away from the hobby where it would not attract new people to the game if it looks ugly.

What I see here easily is a fine representation of the hobby and I hope would inspire others or spark interest in 40k gaming.
(A paid for GW announcement...)

I agree with the above posts. If you want tabletop standard then you are past that edge highlights and highlights on the eagle put you well avove that. Inly bit of critisism is the highlights are a little thick, but that comes with practise. I find painting space marines a pain as they are so flat and the little details like the edge highlighting and weathering make all the difference.

Good job so far and hope to see your progression in the future.

 Talizvar wrote:
I would also say "everything counts in large amounts!".
That level of painting with a full army and reasonable terrain would look "stunning' from 3-4 feet away and would be photo-worthy and would seem very impressive to the uninitiated.

I find the bare plastic or unassembled models take away from the hobby where it would not attract new people to the game if it looks ugly.

What I see here easily is a fine representation of the hobby and I hope would inspire others or spark interest in 40k gaming.
(A paid for GW announcement...)

UNASSEMBLED MODELS? Who does that?

 3orangewhips wrote:

 Talizvar wrote:
I would also say "everything counts in large amounts!".
That level of painting with a full army and reasonable terrain would look "stunning' from 3-4 feet away and would be photo-worthy and would seem very impressive to the uninitiated.

I find the bare plastic or unassembled models take away from the hobby where it would not attract new people to the game if it looks ugly.

What I see here easily is a fine representation of the hobby and I hope would inspire others or spark interest in 40k gaming.
(A paid for GW announcement...)

UNASSEMBLED MODELS? Who does that?

You'd be surprised how many people will quickly assemble just a bare frame of a model leaving off things like arms, heads, etc...(just a body essentially) to play a game.

Some people do it so they can easily paint the model, others do it because they bought the model 20 minutes before the game started...


And to answer the OP, your dreadnought is absolutely tabletop quality. I'd be proud to be on the opposite end of a table facing off against that thing.

 3orangewhips wrote:

 Talizvar wrote:
I would also say "everything counts in large amounts!".
That level of painting with a full army and reasonable terrain would look "stunning' from 3-4 feet away and would be photo-worthy and would seem very impressive to the uninitiated.

I find the bare plastic or unassembled models take away from the hobby where it would not attract new people to the game if it looks ugly.

What I see here easily is a fine representation of the hobby and I hope would inspire others or spark interest in 40k gaming.
(A paid for GW announcement...)

UNASSEMBLED MODELS? Who does that?

Me.

On complex models I'll leave parts off until I'm done painting them.
On the flip side I try not to use them more than once in any given state of incompleteness. (Assembled, basecoated, 1/2 done with painting, fully painted but unfinished assembly)

 ChaoticMind wrote:

 3orangewhips wrote:


UNASSEMBLED MODELS? Who does that?

Me.

On complex models I'll leave parts off until I'm done painting them.
On the flip side I try not to use them more than once in any given state of incompleteness. (Assembled, basecoated, 1/2 done with painting, fully painted but unfinished assembly)

For some reason I was thinking a sprue or something--a pile of parts. We've all fielded those centurions who didn't have arms because of our painting schedule.

This is an example of what "table top" standard should be, in my opinion. One base color, at least two spot colors, washed and highlighted. Good job.

 Luciferian wrote:
This is an example of what "table top" standard should be, in my opinion. One base color, at least two spot colors, washed and highlighted. Good job.

We all have our own definition of what tabletop quality is, but I think the official definitions leaves off washed and highlighted. Highlit?

I'd say paint that banner thing on his legs, do a little text on it annnnd you're done.

And a very light dry brush on the base, a few grass tufts and boom. You're done.

Aaaaannnd, you can go so far down the rabbit hole you eventually have to draw a line and say "good enough" or you will only get a squad of 10 done every month or so.
It really boils down to what you can live with as a good representation of how you can paint.
I remember working on one squad at a time and by the time I got to a third squad, my painting got sufficiently better I wanted to re-do the first squad.
That leads to the path of madness!

As to the question on "Who fields models with missing parts".
The guy who wants to do as little as possible and yet play his net-list.
If I see legs glued on a base, possibly with or without a torso one more time...
It could be worse, played a guy who printed out two sided paper cutouts once...

I do understand, this one guy actually cringes if I mention painting a marine with the arms attached with the bolter.
You MUST ALWAYS paint a marine with the arms off to do it PROPERLY.
He has a point but I look at it as: if it is hard to reach to paint, it is hard to see as well.

Just like how we have varying opinions, there are varying levels of what people will accept.
I appreciate the effort given probably more than the skill demonstrated.

Easily good enough.

A dry brush on the base, as mentioned before, and some grass tufts or similar would frame it nicely.

I think the point has been made by other commentators but I'm still going to say my $0.02

This is ABOVE tabletop quality, quickly approaching advanced. I have always defined tabletop quality as a base coat and a wash. Most models will look 5/10 with that little effort. Somewhere in between golden demon and I got to drunk and vomited on my model and based it.

The multiple layers, brush control, attention to details, edge highlights are all WELL DONE. Is there room for improvement? Of course. As is the case with everyone. But I would be EXCITED to play against a game against you if you put this on the table across from me.

Table top standard isn't a certain level of quality (not that one can assign levels to painting quality anyway).

Table top standard is the standard YOU PERSONALLY can paint to while still actually getting models on to the table (as opposed to trying to paint them as well as you can but never getting an army finished or being too concerned about getting them damaged to actually play a game).

My table top standard has changed massively over the years, every army I've painted has been "table top standard", but my standard has changed over the years.

So yeah, there is no universal level called "table top standard", when people say they've painted something to "table top standard" they mostly just mean "well, I didn't paint this to the best of my ability, but it still looks decent and I can churn them out fast enough to actually play a game in my lifetime". Commission painters just use the term to mean "This is not the best I can paint, but it's a level you are more likely to be able to afford and I can actually get the job done in a reasonable amount of time so I'm not spending the next 2 years painting your army for the cost of a new family car".

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
Table top standard isn't a certain level of quality (not that one can assign levels to painting quality anyway).

Table top standard is the standard YOU PERSONALLY can paint to while still actually getting models on to the table (as opposed to trying to paint them as well as you can but never getting an army finished or being too concerned about getting them damaged to actually play a game).

My table top standard has changed massively over the years, every army I've painted has been "table top standard", but my standard has changed over the years.

So yeah, there is no universal level called "table top standard", when people say they've painted something to "table top standard" they mostly just mean "well, I didn't paint this to the best of my ability, but it still looks decent and I can churn them out fast enough to actually play a game in my lifetime". Commission painters just use the term to mean "This is not the best I can paint, but it's a level you are more likely to be able to afford and I can actually get the job done in a reasonable amount of time so I'm not spending the next 2 years painting your army for the cost of a new family car".

Dang, I've never looked into commissions, but how much hyperbole is in there?

There's no universal tabletop standard. To me, a 'table top' paint job means that the painter has put in a fair effort to make the model look like it is supposed to, while still managing to turn it out in a decently short amount of time. So, basically:

Colors are blocked properly (shading optional)
Weapons are discernible
Significant details are painted (claws/teeth/eyes)
Minimal basing.

Your dreadnought certainly does far better than this (personal) minimum standard. It's a solid paint job I'd be happy to see across the table.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 3orangewhips wrote:

Dang, I've never looked into commissions, but how much hyperbole is in there?

Keep in mind commission painters generally are pretty good painters and have a 'minimum' standard they will paint, because reputation is important in getting more work. Most of them call this 'tabletop standard'.

I am not super picky with my painting as I know these models will be damaged over time, my goal is to make them look cohesive on the table and not too sloppy

At least TT 6/10 very very neat.

As you can tell from the responses, people define tabletop quality in a ton of different ways. Some go with the old school minimum for a lot of tournaments, meaning three colors and a base. Others go with "anything that isn't display grade."

I like to think of table top quality as being that level of paint job in which there is no environment in which the model will look out of place due to it's paint job. For me, that includes the following:
1) all details visible from a few feet away picked out. this means ammo pouches and aquilas, but not necessarily buttons or eyes
2) All colors are either shaded or highlighted, preferably both
3) Base is painted with some sort of flock or sand.

Tabletop does not require: unit markings, weathering, blending, or fine details.

Anyway, by nearly any objective standard, your work is tabletop quality.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
Table top standard isn't a certain level of quality (not that one can assign levels to painting quality anyway).

Table top standard is the standard YOU PERSONALLY can paint to while still actually getting models on to the table (as opposed to trying to paint them as well as you can but never getting an army finished or being too concerned about getting them damaged to actually play a game).

My table top standard has changed massively over the years, every army I've painted has been "table top standard", but my standard has changed over the years.

So yeah, there is no universal level called "table top standard", when people say they've painted something to "table top standard" they mostly just mean "well, I didn't paint this to the best of my ability, but it still looks decent and I can churn them out fast enough to actually play a game in my lifetime". Commission painters just use the term to mean "This is not the best I can paint, but it's a level you are more likely to be able to afford and I can actually get the job done in a reasonable amount of time so I'm not spending the next 2 years painting your army for the cost of a new family car".

that's some interesting insight. I'd always assumed there was some humblebragging when really top painters would show off something better than I can paint, and go "just a little something I painted to table top standard." For them, that is a pretty easy to attain standard.

When I first started, table top standard just meant blocking in the main colours and probably doing something with the base.

Advanced techniques like highlights and shading were reserved primarily did for command and centrepiece figures.

Note that didn't stop you from going back and touching up the line troopers once everything was done to a 'table top standard'.

These days GW tends to include shading and highlights as part of even the most basic levels of painting. Perhaps this is a sales thing (sell more paint). Perhaps this is in part due to the improvement in the paint they sell (fewer layers required for good coverage these days. Also the base / shade / layer system makes it a little easier for novices to take the step beyond blocking in the basic colours).

I've seen a lot of half assembled grey plastic in my time. It seems for many 'tabletop standard' means legs stuck to bases! As such I am happy to see even just base colours neatly blocked in. To see something such as your work on the table is an absolute delight!!