It's been turkey time with me off visiting the relatives. But, now I am back so expect a resumption of regular postings.
This week I plan on giving a review of the new Fortress of Redemption (just have to get to the game store to grab my reserved copy) and a review of some alterative models that one can use for Warhammer and, to a lesser extent, 40K.
Stay tuned.
Games Workshop has released a picture of it new Chaos sorcerer figure for Games Day in 2010:
<Click to Embiggen>
Nice model. Too bad that the scuttlebut is that the will be only one Games Day this year in the US, with more on the offing if you want to travel across the globe for your games day fix. A lot will be riding on this single GD. If it reaches the general level of stinkiness as seen at some previous events the fall out could be brutal. Given GW's resources is leaving the promotion to their hobby in the hands of untrained recrutes doing their own tournaments a really a good business strategy for the long term? Sure, promote independent games, but without a sizeable GW presence it won't even feel like it is their game being played. This in turn creates a great opportunity for a company that could produce a compatable set of game rules into which GW miniatures fit well -- along with the own original ones. In other words, a game that allows all the old stuff not to wasted while providing the excellent customer service we want to see,
Remember what I said before about taking customers seriously? This is not the way to do so, at least given the event information I've see as of yet. Hope things improve or otherwise "GW" is going to become just the label on the box in which your miniatures arrive -- until you start receiving real service from another company, that is.
Generally speaking I have taken the price hikes of Games Workshop over the years in stride. Yes, they have always been pricey, but the models are great and the costs for similar forces from other companies roughly the same. Yet, looking over the new Skaven models recently I have to admit that I've experienced real sticker shock.
Take for example the new Skaven Battalion. For $105 you get what amounts to one and a half infantry units (rats tend to go around in large groups, after all) and maybe half of the rat ogres and giant rats you need for full units. In other words, for over a cool hundred dollars you get, what, a fifth or so of an army? Sure, you don't play Skaven to have a handful of models, but still...
Then there is the cost of Stormvermin -- $50! That's $2.50 a model for plastic. Yes, I know I have spent $50 (well, usually not as I always try to get a discount) for a group of five terminators, but seeing a mere 20 models of an army that can require hundreds cost so much frankly made me go bug-eyed when I first saw it. I shutter to think what Tyranids are going to cost when they arrive in a few months. Yikes! Thank goodness my bug army is basically done.
I read forums all the time where people drone on about how obscene the costs of GW figures are and I am usually willing to write it off to mere griping (and the odd, even masochistic need for some fantasy/sci-fi geeks to find something about the hobby to be offended over) but for the first time I am really beginning to wonder myself. How far can the Games Worshop form of the hobby go with prices going so high?
Compare the new Skaven Battalion with this army deal from Warlord Games for a Royalist English Civil War force:
For the price of (using current exchange rates) $82.5 you get 120 pike and shot troopers. Admittedly, the models are nice, but certainly not to the quality of Games Workshop. They also don't have the options that GW kits usually do. But, you nevertheless get a lot and you don't need another five or so sets for a complete army (unless you want to play at very high point totals). You get more from GW, but at what point do players just balk at buying their kits no matter the cost and go with a less expensive game no matter how inferior? Actually, in this case we are even talking about the same basic system. Is playing with rats and magic really worth that much more money?
That is naturally a personal choice, but the fact I even have to ask that question is depressing. I really think GW has to do something about prices or at least the negative perception they have with many players thansk to the practical death of grand tournaments and similar support. People don't like to think they are being taken for granted. More and more GW comes off (fairly or not) as a sort of ivory tower business remote from the average player who believes it can jack up prices as needed without consequences to the bottom line (and support from its fans). That doesn't make for a good long term situation. Showing players that they actually give a damn would give people a reason to accept rising prices, but as it is...
Hmm, maybe I should take a closer look at those new ECW cavalry models...
I have been going through the new Skaven codex -- rats, big rats! -- since I got my copy last week. It's interesting and intriguing to be sure. Here are my first impressions.
1) Thank Goodness for Plastic: I understand that GW has been moving toward all plastic anyway, but for a huge army like Skaven it's an especially welcome development. For one it makes things (somewhat) cheaper considering that you can easily have rat armies of 200+ models or more! It also makes conversions easier. The only problem is that it makes for a lot of shaving to clean the models!
2) Great New Big Models: The new Screaming Bell and Plague Furnace kit is just amazing. It's large with an equally large amount of detail. Likewise, the Doomwheel is just as good and far superior to the old metal version. They are impressive enough to almost make me get them on general principles.
3) The Missing Great New Big Model: By comparison, it's disappointing to see that the Vermin Lord model has not been updated. It was fine for ten years ago, but is now clearly outdated. If I had a Skaven army with him as a member I'd do an entirely new conversion.
4) The New Plague Army: It's nice to see that you can take a reasonably well-rounded Plague Monk (Pestilens) army now, although you need to take Skrolk in order to make it work. At a massive 470 points he is such a huge part of a force I wonder how effective a Plague Army would be in the end. Still, it would be a very colorful. It would also be smaller than the average rat force making it less of a daunting taste to construct and paint.
5) Expendable: You have to like Skavenslaves (at least as units) nowadays. They still have a toughness of three and at a mere two points each (why add equipment) you can have a lot for a little. The new "Cornered Rats" rule is rather handy as it allows the slaves to (if you time it right) conveniently disappear when it is time to attack with your real troops.
6) Orky Without Being Orks: In some ways Skaven are just orks with whiskers. You see that in all of their strange and wacky inventions that can all too easily hurt them as much as the enemy (what is more orky than that?). The new book provides a number of new selections (even if you can only take one weapon team) and they are always the sort of things that attract one to playing an army. My only real question now is how well some of these new rat toys may actually work. I look forward to reports on their effectiveness.
More thoughts as I continue through the book...
Okay, here are some select examples from the 2009 Chicago Grand Daemon that I want to use to illustrate the various skills that go into great (and not so great) miniatures painting (It also makes for a new record for pictures in a blog post here).
First, the Slayer Sword winner himself:
What you notice first here is the fine level of detail combined with neatness. Examine the points of transition between various colors or portions of his outfit. They aren't muddled, but rather distinct as you would expect the real thing to be. Likewise, the levels of blending are outstanding with the glint of reflection off the metals or the subtle transitions from darker to lighter areas both clear and natural. I have seen better, but this is fine work.
Now check out the two examples above. I list them to help illustrate what for the most part works on the model. I think that the gems are especially nice, but the robe shading is actually not quite as good as I've seen elsewhere. The best figures would have an even more subtle transition between layers, so much so as to make the shadowing effect seem completely natural. Still, it's worth noting how difficult it is to achieve this level of excellence.
The next example is the 40K single miniature winner. What is interesting here is how the model demonstrates just how powerful the "5 foot effect" can really be. By that I mean painting with the notion of "How good will this model/army look at normal playing distances?" In this case the effect is excellent -- notice how in the first picture the armor shines like actual metal. Yet, when you examine the second close up image you can clearly see individual brush strokes. This is only a mild criticism -- ideally you don't want to notice individual strokes even up close, but the overall effect here is nevertheless excellent.
This next example is of the winning 40K Unit. What I really like here is how nice and vibrant the greens are. It is easy to look at this and think "So, what? It's just the basic colors being applied" but look at how solid they are. It is harder than you think to get that "like if a machine sprayed it on" appearance on models. The basic technique is to water down your colors to get an even application, but the solution sounds easier than it is to do in real life, especially when you are talking about the small areas on individual models.
This next example is the winning Warhammer monster and what's most obvious is the fine job done on the skin. Ironically, whereas the last technique is a bit harder than it looks this is a bit easier than it looks as the natural contours on the model help define the areas of lighter and darker skin. It is then just a matter of making sure you transition between them as naturally as possible (with the more complicated textures being the easier to do). Its work that requires a lot of extensive, even tedious, work, but the end effect can be quite nice.
Continuing on in this vein...
Here are two more examples of color/shading transitions, one much better than the other. The first -- the Large Model winner -- has a nice layered face, if not perfect (the transitions between grays and browns are a bit abrupt, but then again it does give a sunken, gaunt appearance). If you compare this one with the giant you can see the advantage of having a more complex/muscled skin -- smoother skin means you can't use the rough edges as a 'cheat' to help produce shadowing. That is something to keep in mind when judging.
In comparison to the last two, the second model in this row -- the third place diorama -- has some really average blending. The transition on the tunic is especially heavy-handed, the sort of result anyone can get with moderate effort. This doesn't mean it is a terrible job -- it would still be well above average at any typical gaming shop -- but is rather surprising for a placing Grand Daemon winner.
These next two are Young Blood winners so they shouldn't be judged as critically, but you can nevertheless tell that they are quite a bit less advanced that what you saw before.
The first example (the marine) has a lot of empty black spots. Now, using (usually) black lining can be a handy technique for distinguishing different parts of a model (and saving on the effort), but you can't take it this far without losing points. The rope is especially glaring as only the forward top is really painted at all.
The second example (the vampire) only has two layers most everywhere -- which is a bare minimum. You just aren't going to get much depth with only two. Likewise, it isn't that hard to do as it only requires a single round of drybrushing.
Well, I don't want to make this too long so I will end here, but in the future I will do similar evaluations and comparisons when the opportunity comes.
One of the things I’ve learned over the last few years is that it is actually harder to judge good miniatures painting than I had originally thought. I think that is partially because the best way to become a good judge is to actually paint yourself – by going through the process you learn what is easier and what is harder.
However, I think just as important a factor is that most people haven’t really sat down and figured out what good painting looks like. Sure, they can see a particular miniature and instinctively come to the conclusion that it’s “good” or “bad”, but they often can’t deeply explain the exact reasons for their decision. They just “know”. The problem is that without a clearer, more conscious understanding of the process of painting you can get fooled into thinking some effect was hard just because it is “spectacular” or, at the other extreme, that another job is mediocre because it strikes them as “uninteresting.”
Such misunderstandings can be potential issues for two basic reasons – One, it can negatively impact your assessment of your own abilities (I know from experience that it is easy to think you are a better painter than you actually are), and; two, more rarely, if you are ever asked to judge miniatures painting in a contest you may produce results that will leave those in the know scratching their heads.
So, with this article I want to get into the basics of judging miniatures painting. To help me do so I am going to grab some examples from the recently posted Chicago 2009 Grand Daemon painting competition (you can see them at the Games Workshop site right here).
One proviso before I begin – while there are general benchmarks most anyone will use grading painting when it comes to miniatures is something of an art rather than science. So, consider this to be my own personal opinion as to what matters the most. With experience you might come to subtly different conclusions, but I doubt there would be a significant divergence between those and what you’ll read here.
The Basics of Miniatures Painting and Judging
Generally speaking I would say that there are five different aspects to pay attention to when judging a painting job:
1) Color Selection and Application: What colors did the painter use and in what patterns? Does it fit the model and draw your attention to its most important aspects or does the painter seem to be color blind?
2) Neatness: How orderly and neat is the painting job? I don’t mean whether or not the overall scheme is blocky or unimaginative, but rather does the painting make the model look “real” or is there bleed over that makes different aspects of the model muddled?
3) Layering and Blending: How many layers did the artist apply? Do they transition well or seem jarring? Are the curves and edges of the model distinct, yet natural looking? Does the shading on the model transition nicely from light to shadow or is the lighting haphazard?
4) Conversions: Is the model just straight out of the blister or has the individual converted it into something different? How complicated are the conversions and how naturally do the fit into the overall concept of the model?
5) Basing: What sort of base is the model on and has any work been done on it? Is the work well done and natural?
Another consideration when judging squads or entire armies is how well the individual models fits into an integrated whole. An army should, well, look like a unified army and not some odd polyglot of colors and shapes.
Not everyone will see these five (maybe six) criteria as all being worth same. For instance, conversions are often seen as being less important than the actual painting and may only be used to determine tie-breakers between different otherwise similar painting jobs. So, when it doubt spend time on painting rather than conversions.
Likewise, there is a degree of personal taste involved. For instance, many people are impressed with a complicated and detailed base on the model, but I personally dislike anything fancy. It's a strictly personal quirk, but when I see a figure on an extravagant base I can't help but think it is a bit silly -- what, does that knight bring that rock with him on which to pose wherever he goes? Does that Sentinel has that dead ork glued to its foot so he's always stepping on it when he moves? Especially cinematic poses also break my suspension of belief -- that's not a Space Wolf in the midst of vicious battle with a Tyranid genestealer, but rather a stiff bronze statue in the middle of some village square.
More to come -- including numerous examples!
As I hope you haven't noticed comment spam has been plaguing this blog. I've been watching like a hawk to delete the stuff as fast as I can, but the number of bogus comments has been going up. So, I installed an extension that uses the Akismet (free) service to scan comments before they post. This should remove the spam, but there is a small chance it might accidentally register your post as a false positive. Sorry in advance if that happens.
However, there is a bit of irony about this I wanted to pass along -- the spam comment that finally tipped me over the edge to load the new extension was from a site selling LARP (Live Action Role-Playing) foam weapons.
So, now gaming companies are spamming. You want gaming to be taken seriously, but sheesh!
That's just depressing.
After reading through the latest White Dwarf where Jervis states his general disapproval of pre-painted miniatures and his confidence that GW won't ever be going down that route for extra sales I came away with a few conclusions. Then, over time I realized that the situation was potentually more complicated for a bunch of reasons.
But, first, here are some examples from Rackham -- the minis producer that has been making the biggest jump from high qualiy metal non-painted figurines -- long the common standard -- to the new prep-painted units of mediocre plastic designs with equally mediocre paint jobs. For the differences compare the first picture of an elven sorceresss of the old style which I painted myself against the next one coming up.
This is a confrontation model I did as to reprecent a character in my RPG who essense merged with that of her special familiar, one later reveal to be an actual angelic being. The metal was a purchase from Rackham's old metal ranges that are now being sold off at discount almost where you go.
Here is a pre-painted Confrontation warrior pic I grabbed off their website. Take a close look at the two.
First thing that catches my sight is that pre-painted Lion isn't half bad. Some basic high-lighting and shadying have been done. The end result is fairly flat, but is certain better than the hordes of bare metal players can bring to games.
While the pre-painted aren't terrible they don't compare to the paint job on the one I did above (although my camera skills are insufficient to get across all the differences -- but, note that the first is done using my own limited photography skills while the second is a professional photo). What's more is that the level of detail on the model is more limited as well. Perfectly serviceable, but otherwise uninspiring.
It would be easy at this point to climb up into my ivory gaming tower and denounce the whole idea of pre-painted models as heresy that offends the one true miniature gaming faith. However, the more I think over this subject the more conflicted I become.
For one thing pre-painted miniatures do concievably allow people an easier entrance to miniatures gaming. Painting takes a lot of time and, moreover, takes a lot of time to even learn the basics. While you won't see it at big tournaments in my experience local gaming groups are awash with large amounts of bare metal and plastic, even after months or years of use. I am sure that in some cases the players in question just don't care, but one does have to wonder how much of those "naked" models are the result of people just being intimidated at the idea of painting them.
The flip side of this is that pre-painted miniatures are something of a "cheat" in that they allow the player to have a "painted" army without actually putting in time and effort. Come on -- one of the appeals of going to the trouble of finishing an army is to show it off to your friends. Accordinfly, there is apt to be an understandable let down to find out that the guy you are playing bypassed all that work by purchasing pre-painted material. It's easy therefore to scoff at such armies as somehow being "forgeries". Yet, people have been paying other people to paint their armies for a while already and, as long as they don't try to pass them off as their own work, are generally accepted without much grumbling. The worst you face in such instances is being disallowed to win the Best Painting category (if there is one) while still getting full painting points overall to put toward your final tournament score.
One negative aspect of the Pre-painted models out there is that they all tend to be clones -- in twenty years of miniatures gaming we've gone to unpainted clones to a wide sellection of kits that can be assembled and painted anyway you like and then back to clones, just painted ones this time. Hard to see that as an improvement, at least as a long term strategy.
I'd argue that it is all that hard work and effort that goes into turning a mere hobby into a true attempt at excellence. It's what allows tho hobby to transfigure into the realm of true art. Now that takes a heck of a lot of effort and struggle that in turn generates a lot of drive and energy into the whole miniatures experience.
The danger with pre-painted is that it might instead bring things down to the least common denominator. Why struggle with painting and converting if it doesn't get you much in the long term? There are already calls for regular GW tournaments allow non-painted armies or just qestions of why there should be a paint score at all. It's in fact easy to see standards fall and painting miniatures seem to be just a waste of time -- after all, who cares about how pretty your troops look when the real fun is shooting them up?!?!
So, in a sense pre-painted models could alter the whole miniatures landscape even with games that don't use them. It sets up a two-tier system where pre-painted can easily win tournament since painting is not judged only to fatailly doomed when used in other games where painting matters. It's easy to see people complain about having to GW armies when other companies provide pre-painted stock -- why should the bother with 40K or fantasy if another game allows them to get away with no painting at all?
In short, it can setup a division between the warriors and craftmen. The first just wants to fight and win, while the second wants a more hollistic situation where all the various skills long associated with miniatures gameing are celebrated and rewarded.
So, what do others think? Pre-painted armies bad? Hired painters for your army bad? Or, is it rude and elitist to insist that only accomplish painters should, in practice, be the only ones allowed to win (since having a bad score in painting can make a critical difference in scoring)? Perhaps we should have different leagues, different awards for pre-painted and own painted?
What do you guys think?