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.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: For my Dark Angels?
The infantry seem too wee and perhaps too delicate for my style of dry brush. So I’m instead going to try a grey base/undercoat, Contrast Black. Then do the right shoulder pad in a dark red, with silvery bits for weapons.
I definitely think black is one of the hardest colours to get right at this scale, for the infantry especially so they don't look like tiny little ninjas.. a lot of the detail gets lost with that colour.
I'd be tempted to go a bit off-piste and use more of the accompanying colour in whichever legion - more white for raven guard, more silver or silver/blue for iron hands and more red for Dark Angels - it might not be codex-approved, but you want to be able to see the little guys.
Hence my high contrast black/white raven guard attempt.
I don't think it as bad for Dark Angels as the other two. The official schemes and color plates for Dark Angels show heavy use of white and red coloration in their schemes, some have almost as much white/red as they do black. Raven Guard and Iron Hands on the other hand are almost always presented as being borderline monocolor, with the whites and silvers in their schemes (respectively) often being dirtied down and muted so as to present as drab greys that almost blend in with the blacks.
Most of the photos and tutorials for Raven Guard (and to a lesser extent Iron Hands) I've found online follow that trend. Lots of people just seem to paint their raven guard black, pick out a few details in dark greys, maybe some red lenses or whatever, and call it a day. Its very boring.
Didn't say I want to layer, in fact my point about zenithal is that it doesn't seem appropriate at this scale because layering is how you get the best results with Zenithal, but would take too damned long to do an army at this scale.
Likewise, didn't say anything against contrast - I'm all for using them if I can. Its the slapchop method I'm against, because it will muddy up and mute the colors instead of making them pop, and it will add the graininess and splotchiness that I don't want to the finish of my models. If you're happy with the results it gives you, more power to you. I would not be satisfied with the way your minis came out, personally. Objectively they look fine, I won't say anything negative against them, they just aren't to my preference personally. The colors are not as bright or as pop-y as I would want them to be, and I can clearly see how the zenithal coat impeded the flow and settling of the contrast layer in a manner that has given it a finish that I don't particularly enjoy. Frankly, my experience with contrast is that you would get basically the same results just using contrast straight from the bottle (or mixed slightly with medium), except the color would be brighter and the finish/gradients/highlighting/shading smoother. I really honestly see no point to slapchop, as it (in my view) gives you worse results but requires more steps.
I will say you almost had me with the Imperial Fists - its not quite the right shade of yellow for me, but the results were really good for a color I have trouble painting, but then I saw that they were 12mm minis and understood why I was so impressed .
I don't think I'd use black contrast at this scale though (except for small details like weapons) as it just doesn't quite look right to me. When I get some free time off work I'm going to try some black schemes where I use grey washes or pigments to make the crevices lighter than the rest of the panel and see if that's a bit punchier at this scale.
Basilicum Grey (I think thats the darkest grey contrast) maybe? Follow up with targeted application of nuln oil into recessed areas?
For white though, a recipe I liked for my White Scars was to prime white (not zenithal) and then wash with a warmish grey wash/ink/contrast, then drybrush with white again. Fast and pops well for a white. Perhaps for Ravens I'd use a cold grey rather than a warm grey though.
Got any photos?
CoALabaer wrote: Wargamers hate two things: the state of the game and change.
I'm currently using a "two stage slapchop", if we can call it that, with my Imperial Fists: white primer, then very thinned down Xpress Pink, drybrush white and then 50/50 Xpress yellow with medium. After that I do a pale yellow highlight:
Spoiler:
(more on my 3d printing thread, in case you want to see closer up examples)
You could probably do something similar with black contrast, maybe starting with grey primer.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2023/12/19 18:08:39
Hmm, I'm still reading the grainy slapchop texture/graininess/chalkiness that drives me up the wall on some of those minis, most pronounced on the top of those rhinos and predators (which I think are 3d printed? I can see what looks to be layer lines on them) and on the xiphon (particularly on the nose and wings). I think really just the whole slapchop thing is not for me - the shading and highlighting looks great but I don't like seeing the graininess in the paint finish vs the smoother coat you get with straight contrast.
Maybe instead of starting from white I'll try starting from grey seer, do a preliminary targeted edge highlighting with white (and maybe a targeted light application of nuln oil for shading), and then do contrast over that to try to replicate the benefits of the slapchop method without introducing the textural spotting that results from the preliminary drybrush when doing slapchop. Instead of having to drybrush up to the midtone, you're putting down a smooth midtone with the grey seer, and then highlighting up to white in a manner that doesn't leave behind the graininess that the contrast will pick up, and likewise shading down more smoothly. It might take longer but it might also help avoid the issues I have visually.
Another thing I could try is to start from white, do a "medium/thin" contrast coat, targeted edge highlight white and recess shading with nuln oil, and then do a second "medium/thin" contrast coat over that.
My only other thought is to try the "damp drybrush" (aka the artis opus drybrush method) technique that I've heard about but not actually seen in use. It seems to resolve the issues with chalkiness and might be key to fixing at least one of the issues I have with slapchop. Still won't fix the washed out color issue, but I can probably work around that when it comes to paint black and white lol.
Also, why use pink? Does that give you a warmer undertone to the yellow or something? It looks like it probably helped a bit with making the yellow a bit more vibrant, as the color doesn't look as muted and washed out as what you see when slapchopping with grey. Maybe the trick is to not do monochromatic slapchops but instead complimentary color slapchops? But that might get a bit more time intensive.
CoALabaer wrote: Wargamers hate two things: the state of the game and change.
If you are wanting clean highlights on vehicles, you are probably best off with edge highlighting with colored pencils. Just line the edge of armor plates with the side of the lead and keep going until it is done or you can't take it anymore. Use something like Lahmian Medium or a matte varnish to seal areas you have already done as it will smudge if you aren't careful. You can use a clay shaper or a detail cotton swab to erase stray marks or just paint over them. If you want to get really fancy, you can get watercolor colored pencils and wet-blend a midtone and then do a lighter highlight on top.
chaos0xomega wrote: Also, why use pink? Does that give you a warmer undertone to the yellow or something? It looks like it probably helped a bit with making the yellow a bit more vibrant, as the color doesn't look as muted and washed out as what you see when slapchopping with grey. Maybe the trick is to not do monochromatic slapchops but instead complimentary color slapchops? But that might get a bit more time intensive.
Yeah, the pink is mainly to give it shadows and a vibrancy to the yellow, and yes, the idea here is to use the transparency of the contrast-y paints in your benefit, using them as a sort of filter.
If you want to avoid the grain, you could try Artis Opus method (which I used, partially) or go directly to the airbrush.
Take a look here, maybe you can get some ideas:
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2023/12/19 22:10:10
chaos0xomega wrote: Didn't say it was cheating. In American vernacular to say that you will "cheat it" in this manner means that you are using a process or technique, etc. that isn't quite intended or ideal for the purpose you are using it for but will produce serviceable results. In this case, drybrushing is not specifically an edge highlighting technique, but can be used to achieve an edge highlighting if you are careful in your execution.
I'm not sure that it is a "perfect" technique at this scale though. I can get very good results doing what you suggested at 28mm, I think doing so at 8mm may be more challenging, especially if I'm trying to reproduce a similar scheme with the infantry.
The LI vehicle models are ideal for drybrushing - they are small, with a lot of raised detail. Even easier on the infantry. Done properly (in conjunction with some thin washes), drybrushing keeps the layers of paint to a minimum, and will also avoid the lumpiness that can result from other techniques. I wish I could demonstrate this with some photos, but I don't intend to buy any LI models.
This probably should be a separate topic. Now that the models are finally available (sort of), I think a lot of people will be asking similar questions about painting them.
Build a man a fire, and he'll be warm for a day. Set a man on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.
For white though, a recipe I liked for my White Scars was to prime white (not zenithal) and then wash with a warmish grey wash/ink/contrast, then drybrush with white again. Fast and pops well for a white. Perhaps for Ravens I'd use a cold grey rather than a warm grey though.
Got any photos?
Not any good ones, there's this one from my gallery, but my ancient camera phone washes out the whites a lot, it looks a hair darker and more contrasty in real life but the camera brings all the whites closer together and makes them look more like a pure white.
The bases come out splotchy because my technique is to apply too much wash/contrast and then pull the excess down the model onto the base.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
tneva82 wrote: 160e worth of marines&sa. Then warhound and rulebook. If you think warhound and rulebook cost only 51e combined...
I was comparing plastic prices, the other sets come with stuff beyond the plastic too.
And I was looking at US prices, US the boxes are $50 each, and I think the Warhounds were $65, so $200 for the starter that comes with $265 worth of plastic.
I had all the numbers and assumptions in my previous post, maybe if you'd actually read it instead of writing me off as a "random forum complainer" you would be more enlightened. Maybe if you're not going to bother reading someone's posts, just don't reply? It'd save us all some time.
Discount is totally normal for gw starters so anything added would add price to the box. Simple as that.
Except it's demonstrably worse discount compared to AoS and 40k starters...
This message was edited 5 times. Last update was at 2023/12/20 10:25:28
I think you have to acknowledge that any box that offers a saving is inherently better value than it not existing, even if the savings are lower than some other offerings.
This one is only so divisive because it's really hard to get max value from all of the contents without explicitly splitting it with someone.
Albertorius wrote: I'm currently using a "two stage slapchop", if we can call it that, with my Imperial Fists: white primer, then very thinned down Xpress Pink, drybrush white and then 50/50 Xpress yellow with medium. After that I do a pale yellow highlight:
Spoiler:
(more on my 3d printing thread, in case you want to see closer up examples)
You could probably do something similar with black contrast, maybe starting with grey primer.
Pink, eh, that's interesting. I really like how they came out so if I decide to go with Imperial Fists I might steel that idea, haha.
Maybe instead of an Xpress pink, a pink wash would mean that you wouldn't have to drybrush white (or the drybrush could be lighter) and therefore get away from the graininess a bit? (not that I particularly mind the graininess myself, but offering a suggestion for chaos)
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Dudeface wrote: I think you have to acknowledge that any box that offers a saving is inherently better value than it not existing, even if the savings are lower than some other offerings.
Of course, that's why I bought it myself
But the lack of what I'd personally consider good value I think is going to prevent it being a game that my group picks up.
This one is only so divisive because it's really hard to get max value from all of the contents without explicitly splitting it with someone.
I think it's partly that and partly because it's too close in value to just buying separately, so it doesn't take much to turn the starter into a bad deal (e.g. want an epub rulebook instead of the giant arse tomb and don't care about Warhounds? Not worth getting the starter).
Compared to the HH starter which is tempting because it's basically a ready made army, or the 40k starter where as a Tyranid player it is worth getting for the Tyranids alone even if the Marines just get thrown in the pile of shame.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2023/12/20 10:49:19
AllSeeingSkink wrote: I was comparing plastic prices, the other sets come with stuff beyond the plastic too.
And I was looking at US prices, US the boxes are $50 each, and I think the Warhounds were $65, so $200 for the starter that comes with $265 worth of plastic.
I had all the numbers and assumptions in my previous post, maybe if you'd actually read it instead of writing me off as a "random forum complainer" you would be more enlightened. Maybe if you're not going to bother reading someone's posts, just don't reply? It'd save us all some time.
I can see numbers for LI but not how you're calculating 40k discounts. Between three tiers of starter sets, combat patrols, and individual releases (not all of which are out yet) it's harder to draw a direct comparison to LI.
Also claiming "only plastic counts!" is a fairly ridiculous way of twisting facts to your advantage here. A discount is still a discount, even if you arbitrarily decide that a $60 rulebook doesn't count for some reason.
Dudeface wrote: I think you have to acknowledge that any box that offers a saving is inherently better value than it not existing, even if the savings are lower than some other offerings.
This one is only so divisive because it's really hard to get max value from all of the contents without explicitly splitting it with someone.
I'd argue this box is much easier to get max value from compared to a 40k or AOS starter. You can't run SM & Tyranid models in the same army, so your options there are to either swap / trade half the models in a 40k starter, or begin collecting two armies. If you do expand either collection then you need to add the cost of at least one codex to go beyond the Combat Patrol rules, while LI includes rules for a wider range of models (such as AI/AT kits) in the box.
Meanwhile in a standard sized 3k LI list you can play up to ~1500pts from the LI starter set at once, with options to swap between the remaining 300pts if you decide to keep all the models. You can't decide to swap out a terminator squad for a psychophage in a 40k Space Marine list.
AllSeeingSkink wrote: I was comparing plastic prices, the other sets come with stuff beyond the plastic too.
And I was looking at US prices, US the boxes are $50 each, and I think the Warhounds were $65, so $200 for the starter that comes with $265 worth of plastic.
I had all the numbers and assumptions in my previous post, maybe if you'd actually read it instead of writing me off as a "random forum complainer" you would be more enlightened. Maybe if you're not going to bother reading someone's posts, just don't reply? It'd save us all some time.
I can see numbers for LI but not how you're calculating 40k discounts. Between three tiers of starter sets, combat patrols, and individual releases (not all of which are out yet) it's harder to draw a direct comparison to LI.
I tried to estimate prices where I could which is why I gave more approximate values for 40k rather than exact prices, but I was using the biggest starters for those (you can tell from the prices I mentioned).
The Combat Patrols are a bit more mixed, but from what I can see the crappier Combat Patrols are roughly similar to LI on a per-plastic basis, the better Combat Patrols are quite a bit better than LI on a per plastic basis, but of course you need to add the value of the rulebook.
Also claiming "only plastic counts!" is a fairly ridiculous way of twisting facts to your advantage here. A discount is still a discount, even if you arbitrarily decide that a $60 rulebook doesn't count for some reason.
I think comparing plastic is a starting point and is the most objective, even if you add on all those ancillary components you don't reach the discounts of the 40k and AoS sets, and the 40k and AoS sets come with their own ancillaries.
Also I never actually claimed that plastic only counts... I was very careful in stating the prices were based on plastic but separately listed the non-plastic additions. e.g. I wrote LI "In a $200 starter you get about $265 of plastic (if bought separately) then the rulebook, the world's crappiest counters, and some dice/rulers/templates. ". Compared to 40k where I wrote "$210 for the box, it's hard to get exact prices because not everything is released and there's some push fit stuff, but even a conservative estimate is roughly $400 of plastic, probably more like $450, the rulebook (in my preferred small form factor!) plus a handbook and a small gaming board. "
I purposely didn't include it in the pricing though because I think people first and foremost look at the pricing of the plastic from a value perspective, and the ancillaries are secondary. The rules and counters and templates are much more questionable on how much value they add and people can make their own call rather than me estimating the value of the rulebook.
Do you value a weighty hardback rulebook that is incomplete more, or the small form factor rulebook + handbook + small gaming board that comes in the 40k set. For me I prefer the latter, but you are welcome to want the LI rulebook more (maybe you keep it next to your bed instead of a cricket bat to use defensively for home invaders? ).
Personally.... I think the LI rulebook is massively overpriced. It's $60 but a large chunk of that is the army list rules which are incomplete and I assume will be replaced when wave 2/3/etc come out and they release full rules for those factions. To me personally, the small form factor rulebook that comes in the 40k and AoS starters are actually more value, because that's the sort of book I actually want to take to a game.
But people can make their own call on the ancillaries, that's why I listed them even though I didn't add them to the dollar comparisons.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2023/12/20 11:47:03
chaos0xomega wrote: Most of the photos and tutorials for Raven Guard (and to a lesser extent Iron Hands) I've found online follow that trend. Lots of people just seem to paint their raven guard black, pick out a few details in dark greys, maybe some red lenses or whatever, and call it a day. Its very boring.
Actually RG can be surprisingly bright when they want too (see this RG captain and his entourage from Damocles campaign). Though yeah, most of the time it's boring all black, all the time:
That is a rare case of a good looking Raven Guard.
Myself I'm looking at Iron Hands for my next HH legion for their lore but I'd hate to ruin expensive models with just a black spray and silver edge highlight.
The old meta is dead and the new meta struggles to be born. Now is the time of munchkins.
On WH+ there's a video about weathering where they weather up an Iron Hands predator to help bring out the detail. Looks pretty good.
The trick is, yes, do the simple stuff, but also take some time to pick out the details. The more metal you can pick out for Iron Hands the better, imo.
I just wish their supply/demand ratio was better at GW. I am just trying to pick up LI bases for AT titans I already have (I think they look better than the ones I did) and I keep getting notifications that they are back in stock at like, 3am local time, and by the time I see it at 8am, they are out of stock already.
They're bases, for Peter Turbo's sake, they don't even have a box, or a assembly sheet, or included transfers. Just make some more of them!
I can't believe that being OOS indicates that the bases are massively popular and huge bestsellers, so I suspect they just aren't making enough.
Da Butcha wrote: I just wish their supply/demand ratio was better at GW. I am just trying to pick up LI bases for AT titans I already have (I think they look better than the ones I did) and I keep getting notifications that they are back in stock at like, 3am local time, and by the time I see it at 8am, they are out of stock already.
They're bases, for Peter Turbo's sake, they don't even have a box, or a assembly sheet, or included transfers. Just make some more of them!
I can't believe that being OOS indicates that the bases are massively popular and huge bestsellers, so I suspect they just aren't making enough.
Could be folks doing what I did as a kid. Sod putting five models on a base. Just put one and streeeeeeetch that boxed set.
Fed up of Scalpers? But still want your Exclusives? Why not join us?
Well gw can't produce enough of anything on 24/7 production. I doubt bases are priority.
Flgs got their starter sets but all marine inf boxes were sold out before flgs got theirs. So i have to get by 2 infantry sets untrl gw produces more maybe in 3-4 months.
Da Butcha wrote: I just wish their supply/demand ratio was better at GW. I am just trying to pick up LI bases for AT titans I already have (I think they look better than the ones I did) and I keep getting notifications that they are back in stock at like, 3am local time, and by the time I see it at 8am, they are out of stock already.
They're bases, for Peter Turbo's sake, they don't even have a box, or a assembly sheet, or included transfers. Just make some more of them!
I can't believe that being OOS indicates that the bases are massively popular and huge bestsellers, so I suspect they just aren't making enough.
Could be folks doing what I did as a kid. Sod putting five models on a base. Just put one and streeeeeeetch that boxed set.
He wants bases, not modeis he has titans. Not bases.
If i had spare bases i might temporarily do that until i get 2 boxes...but i don't want to make temporal bases and cut models off and gw doesn't sell 25mm bases for legions
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2023/12/20 18:55:42
Albertorius wrote: I'm currently using a "two stage slapchop", if we can call it that, with my Imperial Fists: white primer, then very thinned down Xpress Pink, drybrush white and then 50/50 Xpress yellow with medium. After that I do a pale yellow highlight:
Spoiler:
(more on my 3d printing thread, in case you want to see closer up examples)
You could probably do something similar with black contrast, maybe starting with grey primer.
Pink, eh, that's interesting. I really like how they came out so if I decide to go with Imperial Fists I might steel that idea, haha.
Maybe instead of an Xpress pink, a pink wash would mean that you wouldn't have to drybrush white (or the drybrush could be lighter) and therefore get away from the graininess a bit? (not that I particularly mind the graininess myself, but offering a suggestion for chaos)
Since you mention it, I've actually spent the past day or so trying to figure out a technique that I call "Slapdash" (because why not?), which is like "Slapchop", except you start with one of the contrast primers (white scar/grey seer/wraith bone) and use inks/washes/shades (still trying to figure out what the best approach here is) to greyscale/grisaille the miniature (or whatever color it is you prefer if you want to use pink or whatever), and then go back and either do a very targeted edge highlighting or very light dampbrush (again, artis opus drybrushing technique with the dampening pad) focused on hitting edges with a very specific (but not yet well defined) type of paint.
Spoilered for those so inclined:
Spoiler:
You would want to use the contrast formulated primers - I know a lot of people think they are overpriced, but you do see a noticeable difference in the flow and behavior of your contrast paint over these primers vs other options - you will get a much better edge highlighting effect over them owing to their "smoothness" vs the relative gritiness of other primers and basecoats which will otherwise "hold" more contrast paint. With the contrast primers that means that more paint flows off the raised edges and into the pools compared to what you see with non-contrast primers. Its subtle but its present.
You would want to minimize the extent of the drybrushing because thats where the chalkiness that I hate comes from. Even the best drybrusher (like artis opus) can't really avoid adding that unwanted texture in with the process, while their approach does make a noticeable improvement over others I've seen, its still there. Its just an unavoidable outcome of the drybrush process. That means starting from black, and doing a two-stage drybrush process to grey and then to white introduces a lot of texture spos that will bring that chalkiness in. Instead you want to wash down to your darks to minimize the addition of that texture - preferably using something with as fine of a pigmentation as possible so that you aren't adding additional grit in. I've actually been speculating on whether or not you can use a dye or an alcohol ink here, as they don't use a solid pigment unlike other paints, inks, shades, washes, etc. and instead are, well, dyes (i.e. liquid pigmentation). That means you're not going to add additional grit or texture to your mini and you will maintain the flow properties of the contrast in a theoretically close-to idealized state. Dyes have some downsides though, in that they sunbleach/fade over time when exposed to UV. I'm not sure that this will be an issue once you cover it with contrast later, as that should act as a bit of a filter, and anyway we should all be using a UV protective clearcoat over our minis once we're done painting anyway... you guys do use UV protective clearcoats, right? Right??? Anyway, I'm not sure if an alcohol ink or dye will bond with a primer coat on a plastic mini - I've never tried and I can't find anyone else who has though from what I could find about alcohol inks they do work best on non-porous surfaces like plastic. I'm also not sure what the effect of using contrast paint over this will be - if it reactivates the dye then you have a mess on your hands, though you might be able to use a clearcoat over it to prevent it? (probably requires gloss for added smoothness over matte clearcoats). Theres also the fact that alcohol is a solvent to acrylic, so the question of what it will do to your primer coat needs to be considered as well (will it pull up/destroy your primer layer??). Once dry the alcohol evaporates so it won't necessarily be an issue to anything being put on the mini afterwards, just whatever is there before.
Anyway, once you've shaded down, you want to highlight up. Unfortunately there is not (to my knowledge) a "reverse shade" paint that will suck paint up to the highlight areas and leave the recesses uncolored, so you either need to go through the painstaking process of manually edge-highlighting your mini white or cheat it with a drybrush technique which will go faster but potentially introduce too much of that chalkiness back in. Depending on the level of coverage of your shading method, you might have to do some more work to create a more distinct midtone between shade and highlight, but for now we'll assume thats already done. Heres the other potential pitfall here - if you recall GWs explanation of the contrast primer, white pigments are very very very large particles which result in too much "tooth" for the contrast to latch onto and ruins the flow. If you're using white paint, you're basically shooting yourself in the foot if your goal is to avoid altering the behavior of the contrast flow. This will probably require a good bit of experimentation, but in theory you can circumvent these issues by using a very lightly colored/white semi-gloss or satin paint, as the clear binders used to alter the sheen fill in the gaps between pigment particles and increase smoothness (and thats almost certainly how GW worked out white scar - finest white pigment available + toying with the binder levels until you got something that was smooth enough to work without having undesirable levels of gloss sheen to it). My experimentation with gloss + contrast is that it might be *too* smooth and the contrast almost rolls right off of it, so I'm guessing that the key is to find a semi-gloss or satin instead which will provide enough tooth for the contrast to stain and discolor it but not enough to truly pool. Without going too deep into the science of how finish/sheen works, the glossier it gets the more binder is there - the binder is an ultra-fine molecule that fills the space around the pigment particles and smooths out the surface finish of the paint layer at a microscopic level to create a more uniform light reflectivity. A full gloss sheen, as a result, is often mirror or near-mirror smooth as the binder is essentially fully-encasing the pigment particles to produce a uniform surface with uniform scattering and reflectivity. Satin and semi-gloss sheens are usually slightly rougher surfaces that aren't quite mirror smooth, while flat and matte finishes are usually quite rough and have minimal levels of binder and thus provide the most tooth. You can see some visual approximations of what I mean here (wouldn't necessarily take it literally, but it helps to understand): https://emeraldpropainting.com/know-your-sheen-levels/ So you're looking for something that isn't completely smooth but only has just enough grit to hold enough contrast paint to stain it a different shade of color without pooling up and darkening it to eliminate your highlighting.
Once done with the highlighting, Your finished slapdash greyscaling should produce a mini that has a distinct midtone, a very very dark shade tone, and a very very light highlight tone. Contrast paint has surprisingly good coverage, which is why many early attempts by the community at doing pre-shading techniques with contrast didn't produce significant results - the shading and highlighiting that results from hitting your mini with nuln oil (for example) before hitting it with contrast is insignificant to produce a dramatic enough difference between your shade, midtone, and highlight to produce a meaningful result vs just putting contrast on a mini with primer-only. The "grit" added in by the pigments in nuln oil would also reduce the flowiness of the contrast which altered its behavior. Likewise, zenithal techniques are subpar compared to slapchop because theres often too much highlight and not enough midtone/shade, so you don't get the same dimension in your finished mini that you would if you used slapchop instead. The extent to which you would have to work at the mini to get the right shading, highlighting, and midtones would really depend on what materials you're using. I initially theorized that you could maybe use Grey Seer as your base, shade down with an ink or wash or whatever, and then highlight up to white - BUT grey seer is already so light that you will lose the highlights when you put your final contrast coats over it because there isn't enough of a... er... contrast between greyseer and white for it to be meaningfully noticeable. Now, your shading would certainly darken up that greyseer a bit, but the question kind of is how much - the result of using nuln oil would probably be "not enough" unless you did multiple very heavy coats - you need to get areas of the mini down to close to a solid black and have large swathes of the mini in a solid medium-grey. Using a Dark Tone Army Painter quickshade dip might do the trick, but you might need to do a double-dip to really get the results you want (though from what I recall this is a fairly glossy product, so might be too smooth to give you the results you want). What you don't want though is to make the majority of your mini black or very dark grey and then have to spend time re-lightening and in the process add back in the texture you are otherwise trying to avoid.
If you can get the right alignment of product and technique, you should have a very nicely shaded greyscale (or pinkscale, or whatever it is) miniature with distinct midtone body, dark shading, and bright highlighting. Then, you hit it with your contrast coat and you should be basically done sans whatvever post-contrast layering and highlighting you might want to opt to do. You will have eliminated the majority (if not totality) of the chalkiness from your finished result. The only outstanding question that remains is how muted and washed out the color is. I don't know if its possible to get a good slapchop or slapdash finish that doesn't wash out the color, because i think in order for it to work your midtone needs to be sufficiently dark enough to read through your contrast layer vs your shade and highlight - subtlety doesnt seem to work (and if you compare the same contrast on white scar vs grey seer, you'll see that theres not a lot of distinction between the two in terms of end result). In reality, you can probably get away with a lighter shade and a lighter midtone than what I have imagined here and which produces enough "contrast" with the highlight to not get lost but still provides a distinct gradient in color without significantly washing out the contrast, the real trick though is that your shade coat can't be so light that the contrast overpowers it - you still want to have that dark shading prsent.
I'm hoping to experiment with the technique IRL in the next few weeks, we'll see if I discover anything in the process.
CoALabaer wrote: Wargamers hate two things: the state of the game and change.
tneva82 wrote: Well gw can't produce enough of anything on 24/7 production. I doubt bases are priority.
Flgs got their starter sets but all marine inf boxes were sold out before flgs got theirs. So i have to get by 2 infantry sets untrl gw produces more maybe in 3-4 months.
Da Butcha wrote: I just wish their supply/demand ratio was better at GW. I am just trying to pick up LI bases for AT titans I already have (I think they look better than the ones I did) and I keep getting notifications that they are back in stock at like, 3am local time, and by the time I see it at 8am, they are out of stock already.
They're bases, for Peter Turbo's sake, they don't even have a box, or a assembly sheet, or included transfers. Just make some more of them!
I can't believe that being OOS indicates that the bases are massively popular and huge bestsellers, so I suspect they just aren't making enough.
Could be folks doing what I did as a kid. Sod putting five models on a base. Just put one and streeeeeeetch that boxed set.
He wants bases, not modeis he has titans. Not bases.
If i had spare bases i might temporarily do that until i get 2 boxes...but i don't want to make temporal bases and cut models off and gw doesn't sell 25mm bases for legions
1) you don't cut models off.
You simply add more models later when more boxes become available.
If you insist on finishing the bases before you have all the models you just leave unfished holes to slot the models into later.
2) it's an Xmm base. Square, round, oval, plastic, wood, with/without a lip.... Surely SOMEONE out there on the web makes what you need.
1) you don't cut models off.
You simply add more models later when more boxes become available.
If you insist on finishing the bases before you have all the models you just leave unfished holes to slot the models into later.
2) it's an Xmm base. Square, round, oval, plastic, wood, with/without a lip.... Surely SOMEONE out there on the web makes what you need.
Sure if I want mismatch of bases.
If I want MATCHING bases that actually look like they are fighting same battlefield I kind of need same type of bases ;-)
Sure if I don't mind some fight arctic and some mars and others city I can do all sort of bases. But since I prefer united look...
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2023/12/21 09:06:44
1) you don't cut models off.
You simply add more models later when more boxes become available.
If you insist on finishing the bases before you have all the models you just leave unfished holes to slot the models into later.
2) it's an Xmm base. Square, round, oval, plastic, wood, with/without a lip.... Surely SOMEONE out there on the web makes what you need.
Sure if I want mismatch of bases.
If I want MATCHING bases that actually look like they are fighting same battlefield I kind of need same type of bases ;-)
Sure if I don't mind some fight arctic and some mars and others city I can do all sort of bases. But since I prefer united look...
This is why I wish I could rebase all my models on clear acrylic bases.
P1: "Hey Joe, let's do a city battle"
P2: "Can't, all my troops are on Arctic bases. I can only play in snowy tundra battles."
Remember a Flames even I went to, a winter themed Finish force fighting a winter themed Russian force, in the deserts of North Africa..
mind you my DAK were not that please with the snowy wastes of Finland..
I like the idea of clear bases, trouble is they are way too reflective and glossy, sort of by design.
doing mine on plain discs here, Zandri Dust, a nice neutral sandy yellow that could be sand, some sort of industrial waste etc, but since my XIV and Solar aux are in the same semi-desert theme its good
it also makes them really easy to see on the typically grassland table used
leopard wrote: Remember a Flames even I went to, a winter themed Finish force fighting a winter themed Russian force, in the deserts of North Africa..
In same army though?
Wouldn't it look bit odd of having some of your army in desert and some in winter bases
Haven't seen anybody deliberately do different basing on same army.
I have some with rubble bases and some with more grassland, though its quite specific on the units with artillery stuff like mortars being grassland, but a muddy grassland and infantry who would get up close in rubble. edge case though
seen armies where some units are on reasonably tidy concrete and others with rubble that worked, similar colours though
.
Maybe if you're not going to bother reading someone's posts, just don't reply? It'd save us all some time.
