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.

Simple question: how do you like the finish on your model to look? Do you prefer a cleaner, sharpy look or a grundgy, battleworn look or maybe a bit of both?

Personally I am more of a fan of a clean, sharpy looking paintjob (I style I try to emulate but it always ends in tears). Occasionally I will have a dirtier look for my Nurgle models but I still prefer the cleaner look.

What about you Dakka?

I like the in between where common damage would happen
like knee pads and hands and corners

not the entire body like the person got stuck in a sandstorm made of glass or they fell into a rock grinder.

exceptions to be made though

It entirely depends on the model and the feel I want them to give. Inquisitor stuff usually looks better in a mixture of dirty and clean. Orks I find do look a lot better when painted clean.

Yeah I think that it's both personal preference and what tends to suit a model.

Kriegers for instance really suit a grubby faded look, whereas I'd say Mordians would look better with crisp paintwork.

On the whole I'd say I prefer the dirtier side of things. War's a messy business, and troops rarely have time to keep their armour clean. Plus, it's really fun seeing models who are normally clean painted in a grubby grimdark INQ28 style Paradigm's thread over on P&M blogs is a favourite of mine for that sort of cognitive dissonance

I like the clean look, and when I paint I'm always painting my models to be viewed as part of the whole army on the tabletop. I want units to look striking enough that their features stand out from 2 or 3 feet away. A limited colour palette with no more than two stand out colours and neat enough that they stand up to close inspection. To achieve what I'm aiming for it just seems like extra work to paint dust, grime, scratches etc.

Dirty looking, realistic models can look fantastic, but I don't have the time for it

I much prefer a clean, just out of the factory look.

Whilst i can appreciate the love and attention it takes to battle damage a fully painted mini, i can't bring myself to do it.

For me, definitely a clean, fresh-and-sharp look.
So no rust or battle damage on my armor or even dirt on the feet of my guys(I always base them im a clean urban type of way as well).

A bit of blood on the weapon blades is okay though.

Even my Necrons looks clean and not rusty etc.

All my orks show signs of weathering. Rust, verdigris, dirt and grime, and scratched paint revealing the shiny metal underneath as well as the odd lodged ammo slug and resulting blast mark from bolter porn. Even my basic Boyz get this love and care.

I voted depending on the model. Typically I go for the clean look, but then I spent ten years playing Nurgle and then full on Deathguard. Just now starting to play around with battle damage. But for the most part I reserve my best skills for showcase models. Table top gets a decent once over. 3 colors, each color being shaded with 2 dry brushs. My deathguard took me a week to pump out 7 plague marines. A 10 man tactical squad about the same.

Depends. I go for a cleaner paintjob myself, but I've been impressed by some examples of looser, 'painterly' styles, too.

Since I've already been namedropped (cheers for the kind words, Ynneadwraith!), I suppose I'd better answer. And the answer is that in most cases, I like my models filthy.

Astartes especially, given that their armour will keep them fighting through the most intense firefights, it's going to take a hell of a beating the moment they touch down on the battlefield, Small arms might not ever get through the plating itself, but they're certainly going to mess up the paintjob. It helps that just in terms of the design, SM lend themselves to weathered finishes, it's a great way to break up large, flat panels and keep them interesting to look at.

Fantasy stuff I tend to take a slightly different approach to, somewhat cleaner paintjobs but still with a very muted tone, and plenty of gore and grime where applicable.

On the whole, though, it has to be judged on a case by case basis. Some models and schemes really lend themselves to certain techniques, and while you can always try and do something different, sometimes it's best just to go with what the model demands. For instance, most Infinity stuff just doesn't do gritty well as it's not designed to.

What exactly do you define as dirty? I don't do battle damage (mainly because I'm bad at it), but I do like to do a lot of dingy looking washes for my DA, some mud on the boots/tires, faded and dirty robes, etc. outside of things like standards.

The complete opposite, I like my guardsmen, in their snow camo, to look freshly deployed with their clothes pressed and their armor brand new, as they'll inevitably all die in the coming battle.

A quick look through my gallery should be an effective demonstration of my answer.

(DKoK with heavy weathering.)

 Paull wrote:


Whilst i can appreciate the love and attention it takes to battle damage a fully painted mini, i can't bring myself to do it.

This. I have little enough free time to get my models painted that when I have got the paint job right I can't bear to spoil it with weathering.

Plus some things, like marines of most chapters, I prefer to look very clean; it's just one way of setting them apart from other things.

Definitely a matter of personal preference, but I tend to go for clean looks on most things but with my nurgle stuff definitely a dirtier, slimy, corroded look. I think it's a lot to do with exactly WHAT the model is.

Clean, always clean and tidy. However if I was doing a Chaos army or that Von Carstein WFB I never got around to do then I might try for a mix of both clean and dirty on some of the models depending on what they were doing.

Depends on the model. My Skitarii are on campaign across a Dark Mechanicum forgeworld so they're absolutely filthy. But my Imperial Fists are parade ground standard.

I really like weathering, but only when it makes sense.

I don't want my vehicles to look like they're about to fall apart, I want them to look maintained, but lived in.

Overall depends on the model, but for my own armies I like clean finishes. I am generally too much of a perfectionist to do grimey models - every pit, discoloration, and flaw is often meticulously planned and adds a ton of time to the project. So, I tend to avoid it.