A few months back, I acquired a can of Quickshade (product link here). The store owner was raving about how good a product it was and how much better it was than poly stain for dipping miniatures. I'd done a dipped army before and was comfortable with it's use, so I dropped 30 bucks on a can and decided to give it a try.
A squad of my marines volunteered. I had painted these guys up in 1999 for the Chicago GT, and they were an all-drybrush job, so they seemed like good candidates to try a varnish wash treatment on. Here they are before the treatment.
Using the medium strength color, I brushed the entire miniature and dabbed off the excess. I let the varnish dry for 36 hours and then sprayed the minis with dullcoat to remove the gloss effect of the varnish. The result was a noticable yet subtle shade-and-ink of the miniatures. It doesn't subtract from the look of the miniatures and darkens the colors only slightly, but it does fill in the joints nicely, giving them the depth they were missing in my haste to get them done for the GT years ago.
The Quickshade product is indeed superior to poly stain varnishes. It is quite brushable (unlike the poly stain), does not bubble, flows like an ink, and is thick enough to stick in all the places it needs to go in a single coat.
Unlike an ink, however, the quickshade requires a dullcoat afterward if any additional work is to be done to the miniature. that breaks up the paint surface and makes blending look funny. the quickshade also sticks to flat surfaces unlike inks, resulting in certain surfaces having a pool of darkness that really needs to be retouched. (only because of the dullcoat requirement, that's kind of difficult) The 30 dollar price tag is a bit of a bummer too.
In summation, Quickshade is a great product to do an entire army quickly and have a force that looks great from 3 feet away. It's up close you'll notice the shortcomings of the shortcut, so you won't be winning any painting awards by relying on this product. For that, stick to regular inks.
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!
I haven't offered many finished painting pieces recently, concentrating more on conversions or straightforward articles. So, just to prove I haven't put up my brushes here is my latest effort -- a new model for our regular Saturday night D+D game.
He is a Reaper Warlord miniature. Overall I don't think the Reaper does quite as good a job as GW, but they do produce many great models -- and at lower prices. Many of their efforts (especially their Warlord line) are of the same basic scale as Warhammer/40K and could be used as stand-ins for some armies rather easily. The knight above would work well as an Empire or Bretonnian character, for instance. They also have the virtue of providing models for potential ideas that are harder to do using just pure GW.
I've been on something of a conversion frenzy since returning from Gen Con. My latest is this Dreadnought conversion using one of the Black Reach Dreads I got on the cheap and some bits from the recent Aegis Defense Line.
I call this the "Rifleman Dreadnought" because it looks a lot like the old Battletech Rifleman mech. Of course, in this case it packs a pair of twin-linked autocannons. It's a dreadnought design that only works in the new(er) Space Marine codex, not for Dark Angels, but since I already have three painted dreads and a few others not yet finished I figured a something unusual was called for in this case. I certainly think it looks cool. If nothing else I can use it in Apocalypse battles.
As I mentioned before one of the appeals of Gen Con is the huge dealers' room -- and the great deals you often can get there. One place was selling the plastic miniatures of the now defunct Mongoose Starship Troopers game for a song. This included the bug "Hoppers" squad which are essentially the same idea as Tyranid Gargoyles. Seeing this gave me an idea...
The result you see in the pictures above is what you get when you mix Tyranid gaunts with a few choice bits from the "Hopper" box sets. Even the base is from the latter, although it matches exactly those that Games Workshop uses. It makes for a more insectoid sort of flyer than the bat winged GW versions, but either fits the basic Tyranid theme. Best of all, for the cost of around $60 (and a fair bit of work) you get 15 complete gargoyles. The price for a similar amount of metal gargoyles from GW would be $120. 50% off is a pretty good deal if you ask me.
Here is a quick and small down payment of our new policy to cover more Games Workshop games besides 40K.
This is an Warhammer Empire wizard I painted up a while ago. I painted it for another game, in fact, which is why the base isn't flocked. I really like the paint scheme; the gold and green go together well.
...is a hard question to answer. To that end we here at 40KOrigins labs created a questionnarie for Origins to help us find out. We got back a fair amount of results, although nowhere near enough to suggest it somehow represents the interests of the Games-Workshop player base as a whole. But, the results do give use a springboard for deeper discussions on the matter.
This is important because 40kOrigins is going to widen its view to take in all and any games related to Games-Workshop (note the new header). This is partially because we want to paint and play more than just 40K, but also because the other games are just too interesting to ignore. Don't worry, the primary emphasis will remain 40K. However, I've been itching to talk about Warhammer and Warhammer Historicals (my degree is in history) while GBPrime is a Battlefleet Gothic fanatic who'd love to post some articles. We both are interested in trying new things.
Nevertheless, we want to present stuff people care about so here is the results of the questionnaries from Origins. The scale is from 0% -- Everyone hates the idea completely to 100% -- Everyone wants this more than even beer!
1) What Games Would You Like to See Covered on 40KOrigins?
Some interesting observations here and some obvious ones. It's hardly surprising that players playing 40K would give the game a high score. More interesting is the high score for Blood Bowl -- a dear old favorite apparently -- and the almost as high score for Lord(War) of the Rings. Warhammer Fantasy received a lower total than I expected, but Warhammer Historicals did rather well considering I feared it would be at the bottom. Interestingly the individual scores for Historicals was very up and down -- people either loved it or hated it. However, that love part suggests a small, but devoted interest in the game that might warrant organizing an appropriate event.
2) What Types of Material Would You Like To See on the Website?
The only minor surprise is that Product Previews was last on the list. By comparison, web material on 'How to do X" was an winning desire. Most everything else caught good interest as well.
3) What Sort of Games Whould Like to See Us Run as Formal Tournaments, Special Scenarios, and so forth:
-
Warhammer 40K: 85%
-
Apocalypse Battles: 76%
-
Space Hulk: 75%
-
Skirmishes: 67%
-
Introductory Games: 62%
-
Warhammer: 50%
-
Historicals: 47%
-
Battlefleet Gothic: 32%
-
Epic Armageddon: 28%
Battlefleet Gothic and Epic Armageddon got little joy here, but 40K, Apocalypse, and Space Hulk seemed to draw everyone's interest. Real question is how this relates to interest as a whole.
So, here is your chance to respond and start a good discussion in the comments section about what 40KOrigins should concentrate on in the future, both in terms of web material and planned events (we aren't limiting ourselves to just Origins). This post will remain first in line for the next two days to encourage people to speak their minds.
