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 used the phrase "tabletop quality" to define the Dark Angel Scouts I painted
for my older brother, but I'm not sure exactly what that means. I'm sure people
have various definitions for the phrase, but here's my brief outline:

1. Assemble, then paint.
2. It's painted.
3. Colors are separated in some way.
4. There's some kind of base decoration, nevermind how much time it took.
5. Touch ups almost unrequired. Only clean mistakes if you can catch them
while the paint is wet.
6. Highlight or shade once or twice for skin or important areas.
7. Highlight once for weapons.
8. Paint 5-10 minis at a time, not always the same unit.
9. If I forgot to paint an area because it's difficult to see, then it's black
anyway and shadow.
10. There's probably more.
11. I don't wash or drybrush anymore. Drybrushing took long because I hated
drying out the brush. Washes too long because I could never get the consistency
right and they slow down painting as you wait for it to dry.
12. If you look at the scouts I painted the shoulder pads get a single highlight. The
skin and sleeves got more than one, but those recesses were painted in rather than
washed in.

The process above is actually pretty slow for me, but I'm not beset by
weekly gaming to light a fire under my chair. The killer is the touch up. If
I were to touch up every mistake I made, I'd be here all day.

But if I practiced touch ups maybe I'd turn into a neater painter the first
time. You can't win them all.

Sounds about right. I've always thought of it as: 3 colors, min. highlighting/detail work, clean lines, based, able to be done relatively quickly.

Drybrushing and washing I'd consider to be techniques useable for tabletop quality, because they allow you to 'detail' without the fine detail work, and tend to be quicker than wet blending or a more 'arty' technique. I dry-brush a lot, and then will do a 'sludge wash' (future/black ink/brown ink/water combined to produce a diluted color)  to mute the color and bring out details in the figure itself. Works nicely, actually.

Table Top Quality to me?
Minimum of 5 colors (that includes highlights and shades, just so its more "realistic").
Basing? When you have 60 models to base its a big "uh oh"
Clean lines

it's the same quality as the " tabletop" you're playing on?

i always took it to mean "basic" paint job.

Tabletop quality for me? 3 colors, fairly neat, base is painted (not necessarily "based"). That's what "tabletop qualtiy" was where I learned to play 40k.

My "personal" tabletop quality? 10 + colors, VERY neat, highlighted, drybrushed, shaded and maybe washed. Fully based with all appropriate army and squad markings. What can I say... I'm anal.

To me, tabletop quality is basic but pleasant looking. Nothing overly extravagent, but enough to give the army a coherent and consistant look that when viewed from a few feet away and have at least a painted base with maybe some flocking or sand. But still basic looking when up close. Things like Hero-Clix, Axis and Allies boosters and stuff like that is what I would put into tabletop quality. Basic washes and drybrushing also go into this category unless done especially well.

Most of my stuff I also try to keep to a better personal standard, with a couple of my favorite squads done up even better. But if I do eveything to a display standard, I'll never get ANYTHING done.

-Hans

table top quality to me is based on time and effort, not any set amount of colours or details. If i'm painting some table top quality minis i will make sure a single miniature doesn't take more than 2 hours to paint, this is usually down to the fact that i will be painting lots of them. With vehicles or other large things they are usually one offs so i would put the extra effort in to make them better than table top quality.

And the level of (table top) quality normally comes out as 5 or less base colours, with at least 2 highlights and some basic texturing for the bases.

Here's an example of my tt quality so you see what i mean (most of you will have seen this already)

Darkchild

What's with all the #s of highlights?? How could anyone really tell past 2-3 highlights how much shading, highlighting, drybrushing, etc. went into a piece? Seriously, some of you sound really anal retentive about TT quality (which, is cool for yourselves, but I hope you don't require that of opponents...)

To me, TT quality is a basic paint job. Frankly, I don't care what someone's minis look like (I've played with several people who've only undercoated) as, not everyone is a very good painter and/or modeler. Obviously there has to be some work gone into the piece but it doesn't have to be a work of art. It's a game, have fun...

ancient: We're not judging others. I'm trying to get a feel for whether or
not I'm spending too much time on something I'm never going to play. (DA
Scouts??? Just wait till you see my Warwalkers...)

For me, the lowest acceptable "tabletop quality" is 3 primary colors, and a basing material. Certain exception will of course apply... it is hard to fit three primary colors on tyranids or necrons, for example, without them looking fruity.

I however try to put more into MY "tabletop" minis, going with clean blocked out colors, shading, and sharp details, like teeth, eyes, etc.. For characters and certain other models I will highlight them, but have a hard time finding the time to do 2+ layers of highlights on well over 150 gaunts/genestealers.

I do like to put a good amount of effort into my bases though... my imperial guard will all have interor industrial bases, with every single base having diamond plate floors, and other gribbly details (pipes, containers, I-Beams, steel struts, etc), and my lizardmen will have a mayan temple + lava theme... I have 20 skinks so far, each one with a sculpted green stuff base that has a small lava flow going through it... my saurus and kroxigors will all based on foam carved to look like the steps of a temple. My big tyranids also have more detailed bases, with a "dead ultramarine" theme, with each monster killing an ultramarine in a different way... or just disrespecting the marine's dead body by stepping on it

I would say that basic tabletop quality is base coated with a painted base. As far as GW goes, it's a minimum of 3 colours but as long as you have the whole mini covered then that is what I would call tabletop quality. As an example, Ultra-Marines: Body: Blue, Gun: Black, Base: Green and if there was a major issue with lack of colours, Trim: a different colour.

No highlights or shading required.

Posted By Darkchild on 04/29/2006 7:59 PM

table top quality to me is based on time and effort, not any set amount of colours or details. If i'm painting some table top quality minis i will make sure a single miniature doesn't take more than 2 hours to paint, this is usually down to the fact that i will be painting lots of them. With vehicles or other large things they are usually one offs so i would put the extra effort in to make them better than table top quality.

And the level of (table top) quality normally comes out as 5 or less base colours, with at least 2 highlights and some basic texturing for the bases.

Here's an example of my tt quality so you see what i mean (most of you will have seen this already)

Darkchild

'tear'

makes me want to quit and play magic instead....

For me its:

absence of mould lines,

4 colours

Lenses

drilled out weapons

highlights(basic one coat)

inking where it needs(my gore red is done over codex grey so its a little light->red ink over it and its done)

basing is original(not just dry-brushed sand)

minimal freehand somewhere

My miniatures I would describe as TT quality, they exceed Malfreds qualifications in some regards, lack in some. My Space Marines lack highlights but are blacklined and inked in places (at least 5 colors) and have a base, but my new LATD have almost no highlights but are dipped. I haven't really done anything to the bases yet, I might just paint and gloss them black. The only guys really above TT quality is my commander and my vindicare assasin.

Also I find drybrushing very satisfying, it is fast and easy. (Especially usefull for bolters.)

For me, the definition of "tabletop quality" has always meant that the paint job looks good/clean
from a comfortable viewing distance. . .something in the range of 3 feet away.

However upon closer inspection (picking up the mini or looking closely), the quality of the paint job
doesn't quite hold up.


So for me, there are no minimums on numbers of colors painted or lack of highlighting, etc.
Just does the model look good at a reasonable distance? If so, it is of at least tabletop quality.

I make no differentiation.

I play what I paint.

Personally, if I'm pround of the work I have done on the model, then, and only then, it can be fielded. (Except for the occasional non-painted playtest-piece)

For my opponents, I would say level 4 of GW's 6 levels of painting shown here and here with something on the base (even solid green is fine).


For me, this is my "tabletop" quality for troops and units:

There are a number of important qualities to consider when examining a tabletop. Note that depending on the intended function of the surface, some qualities are more desirable than others.

• Texture: the smooth surface texture of most tabletops is generic for a reason; tabletops should be smooth enough to shift objects on the table without abrasion or shear, but rough enough that objects find purchase and will not slide about if the table is agitated. There are a few special cases where these rules are ignored, such as the artificially smooth "tabletop" used to play air-hockey, but these are the exception.
• Finish: matte or gloss? For the most part, this is a simply a matter of appearances, but do consider that if the surface is glossy it will often attract more attention then less glossy objects upon it. Display tables and card tables should be matte for this reason. Note, also, that a glossy surface does not always mean a smooth surface.
• Hardness: very important, and varies by function. Most household tables should not be terribly hard, and card tables should be notably soft. Surfaces for accurate or heavy work, such as saw tables or metal shop stations, should usually be as hard as possible to resist damage.
• Level: how level the surface is. Apart from drafting tables, levelness is almost universally desirable. This is particularly true in regards to billiards tables.
• Colour: this is a matter of personal taste in virtually all cirumstances. Note that white surfaces are better for working with fine materials, as it is easier to see small components against a bright background (jeweler's bench).
• Rigidity: related to hardness; the degree to which the table retains its shape (in aggregate) under load. Rigidity is universally desirable.
• Reactivity: important in scientific and industrial surfaces, reactivity defines how chemically reactive the surface is. Scientific surfaces should be as unreactive as possible for obvious reasons, and industrial surfaces that are meant to have long life and/or contsant harsh cleaning benefit from unreactive materials as well. Commercial-scale food preparation surfaces should be unreactiive as possible- "food grade" stainless steel being the material of choice.
• Penetrability: penetrability in the chemical, rather than mechanical sense; will the surface absorb chemicals upon it? Penetrable surfaces, such as those made of wood, are easier to stain both intentially and unintentionally. If you want your table to be unreactive, you will probably want it also to be impenitrable.
• Conductivity: often overlooked, conductivity (electrical, but more importantly thermal) is an important aspect of any surface. Electrical conductivity is important in some scientific and industrail applications where there is a risk of electrocution. Thermal conductivity should be minimized for virtually all tables; the higher thermal conductivity of the table, the colder it will feel.
• Density: obviously, density will affect the weight of the table, but it will also affect the stability. A heavier tabletop will increase the table's moment of inertia, making it more difficult to shift or upend. However, it will also raise the table's center of mass, which leads to diminishing returns in stabiulity gains as density increases. If given the option, choose to increase the density of the legs rather than the tabletop, as this will increase stability without rasining the center of mass. Note, finally, that the weight of the table affects its perceived value; heavier tables are often seen as more desirable than lightweight constructions, which are percieved as being made of poorer quality materials.

I hope this little primer gives you what you need in regards to tabletop qualities. If you need more information, please PM me. I aplogize, by the way, for the other members of the board; we tend to be jokers around here, and often times a serious question will be met with gibberish responses about miniatures. Normally, however, they don't carry the joke this far. They're good people, if you meet them in person.

I've always thought of it as: 3 colors, min. highlighting/detail work, clean lines, based, able to be done relatively quickly.

That's how I think of it, too. The result is what yakface said: from three feet away it looks nice enough, but when you get closer it's a little ragged. That's also what I would assume if anyone were selling "tabletop quality" painted figs.

Funny that people here think of paint jobs over basing. IMO the single best thing you can do to make your figures look good is to base them. Nothing fancy, just a sand/gravel on the top and a consistent neutral color on everything. That does more for an army than freehand swirls or seven-level highlighting.

Posted By Clayman on 04/30/2006 7:17 AM

 

drilled out weapons

 

 

This is going a bit to far.

I agree. Basing is muy importante.... Capt K

that's an interesting view, why do you think this? For me, basing means nothing at all, i take most of my pictures before basing my minis, and when i do it's usually some plain sand, gravel, flock or a mixture.

Darkchild

that's an interesting view, why do you think this?

Basing ties the army together. It also takes a model from being toy-like to being part of an environment. It's pretty easy to do too so I'm surprsied at how many people don't base their minis.

It is like the difference between setting up a train set on your kitchen floor or setting it up on a fully detailed table with trees, flock, buildings, etc. There's just something much more appealling about the later.

I also agree with what others have said. To me, a table top quality army should look good on the table while playing the game and shouldn't take so long to paint that you never really finish it. What looks good and the time it takes will vary from person to person so TT quality varies. In general, I'm just happy to see something other then primer or bare grey/metal. Even 1 or 2 colors with no detail is exponentially better to play against.

that's an interesting view, why do you think this? For me, basing means nothing at all, i take most of my pictures before basing my minis, and when i do it's usually some plain sand, gravel, flock or a mixture.

Consistent basing ties the unit or the army together, and from three feet away makes it look like all these dudes belong together on the same side. I think basing is even more important for people who aren't a good painters. A couple of hours sanding and drybrushing bases does more for the look of an army than about anything else. 30 drybrushed skeletons on black bases look like a work-in-progress; 30 drybrushed skeletons on sanded, painted and drybrushed bases look like an undead horde.

So, basically what winterman said.

well i think uniformity in a colour scheme ties the unit together more.

Darkchild

Basing is extremely important to tabletop quality.

Also, I don't mind most paint jobs, but I do get annoyed when people field armies that look like they just rushed through it. You can tell when somebody really cares for their models and it is reflected in their minatures. I figure, as much talent that I lack, at least I am trying to make them look good and it frustrates e when I don't see that.

Gotta agree with Hubcap. No matter how nice the paint job, a model with just paint on its base looks fundamentally unfinished.

Whereas an army with a decent basing job looks pretty nice even if the models have a very basic paint job.

I've talked to many players at many tournaments, and this is virtually universal. Nothing beats a decent basing job for making an army look 100% better with a minimal amount of effort.

Completely agree on the basing sentiment.

Basing "frames" a model just like a frame "frames" a picture/painting.


An army of great paint jobs with no basing will look more unfinished (IMO) from 3 feet away than an average paint job army that is uniformly based.

And, generally, the basing should also blend in with the theme of the army as well. A Cadian force in winter camo that is based with desert looking sand doesn't cut it. Nor would Tallarns on ice. (great, now I have a mental picture of desert nomads skating around in a Disney production). Just a quick job of gluing some sand, painting and drybrushing, and maybe some static grass takes very little time once you get into a groove with it. Sure makes a BIG difference though.

Then, on the special characters you can go back and do something more elaborate that makes them stand out properly. This is especially true with anything on 40mm or 60mm bases.

-Hans