|
Pierzak posted:What's the problem with Caterans? Realistically modeled lack of underwear or something? I prefer minis that are not bunched up behind scenery on the base. Like, your whole army is standing/posing, and that one guy is in a permanent sniper position behind his buddy tree. what the flying gently caress...? Somebody has a bee fetish? Also, what's with the funky Necrons?
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2014 02:49
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 23:54 |
|
|
JcDent posted:
That is clearly a Mantis Warrior 
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2014 03:18
|
|
|
WINNERSH TRIANGLE posted:Yo it's interesting to talk about Nazi wargamers, but unless you have images, can you please go and have this chat in the historicals thre- This is wonderful.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2014 03:20
|
|
|
ThNextGreenLantern posted:That is clearly a Mantis Warrior Mantis Warrior Captain of course. JcDent posted:Also, what's with the funky Necrons? Yeah, I don't know. I just thought that the Fatcrons looked silly.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2014 03:32
|
|
|
Fat skeletons are just weird. Add "robot" to that and here we are.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2014 03:43
|
|
|
I actually like these Fatcrons, but that's more because ancient alien robots looking exactly like metal human skeletons in a setting where every goddamn faction already has human skulls everywhere is really dumb and boring and pretty much anything is an improvement.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2014 04:19
|
|
|
WAZZPINATOR HAZZ PLANZZ 
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2014 04:46
|
|
|
if this thread is any indication it's that people have a lot of weird issues about stuff other people may or may not do
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2014 05:01
|
|
|
Silhouette posted:WAZZPINATOR HAZZ PLANZZ Yet the space marines had ELBOW DAGGERS. They way they're set up, he can never set his arms straight. Might be useful in a space moshpit, but really silly everywhere else.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2014 05:33
|
|
|
Numlock posted:Meanwhile I actually overheard some warhams guys talking about how painting was a waste of time because learning how to thin paints properly was too hard. The funniest part is that the actual amount of paint thinning you have to do in order to not obliterate detail is very small in my experience. If you're using Reaper or Vallejo you can almost use it straight from the dropper bottle, and even the thicker GW pot paint is more a matter of 'wet your brush and swirl it around some' than 'painstakingly keep track of paint-to-water ratio.' You almost have to be trying in order to get the sort of caked-on monstrosities people usually show as examples of THIN YOUR PAINTS.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2014 05:55
|
|
|
Fatcrons own, would field.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2014 06:21
|
|
|
WINNERSH TRIANGLE posted:Yo it's interesting to talk about Nazi wargamers, but unless you have images, can you please go and have this chat in the historicals thre- I Think I painted his mate last year in the Oath thread....... 
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2014 06:33
|
|
|
JerryLee posted:The funniest part is that the actual amount of paint thinning you have to do in order to not obliterate detail is very small in my experience. If you're using Reaper or Vallejo you can almost use it straight from the dropper bottle, and even the thicker GW pot paint is more a matter of 'wet your brush and swirl it around some' than 'painstakingly keep track of paint-to-water ratio.' As far I have seen (...on 4Chan. Man, this is getting old), historicals are not only well painted, but played on a stunningly beautiful terrain to boot. The ugliest terrain I saw was used in late cold war - modern battles. Napoleonics, ECW, ACW, stuff like that - things (tables) of beauty.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2014 07:02
|
|
|
JerryLee posted:The funniest part is that the actual amount of paint thinning you have to do in order to not obliterate detail is very small in my experience. If you're using Reaper or Vallejo you can almost use it straight from the dropper bottle, and even the thicker GW pot paint is more a matter of 'wet your brush and swirl it around some' than 'painstakingly keep track of paint-to-water ratio.' The nice thing about Vallejo air is that you could actually brush them right out of the bottle. It's extremely helpful for when I don't have my thinner mix.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2014 07:29
|
|
|
JcDent posted:Yet the space marines had ELBOW DAGGERS. They way they're set up, he can never set his arms straight. Might be useful in a space moshpit, but really silly everywhere else. This is canon in 40k for one chapter, I forget who they are. They have bone daggers coming out of their arms that they coat in metal.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2014 07:41
|
|
|
Black Dragons, IIRC. why do I know this
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2014 07:46
|
|
|
Chill la Chill posted:Really? I thought that with them being older and being more anal about details they'd have better results. Or is it that they're anal about colors but beyond that gently caress it my goopy faced Napoleon is fine? Now I want a scrunt Napoleon give me a scruntoleon Oh, there's some really good painters in the historical genre. But there are also some really, really bad ones. So my comment was more that you will find some of the worst painted miniatures in that genre, and especially people who have painted badly for a very long time without improving. At least with warhams, a lot of the worst here are done by teenagers, who might improve drastically if they keep painting. The first group is the people who fetishize old tin soldiers from their childhood in the 19th century. Who will spend tons and tons of money on stuff like this:  Then there's the "gamers", who often paint up large number of miniatures. Many of these started the hobby before GW was a thing. Say what you want about GW, but they did a great job at pushing painting tutorials in their magazines and books, something that didn't really exist in the same way in the historical gaming community. So they paint with pretty much none of the "standard" techniques, it's just flat paint. The frustating thing with these people are that they often simply say that they can't paint, so they don't want to bother with it. But painting miniatures is not a pure talent but a skill, and I'd say that 99% of those who try to get better will reach a point where they can paint a decent miniature. This is something that I want to give credit to GW for, that they pushed this idea in the 90's that it was a natural part of the hobby for everyone, not just "painters".  One the other end of the spectrum are the painting and building hobbyists, who are often incredible and has blown the Fantasy and Sci-fi part of the hobby out of the waters for a long time, until they are finally starting to catch up. I don't even know where to begin with them, but they generally just paint historical miniatures and don't play historical games:  Browsing Pegaso Models will either make you super stoked to paint, or throw your brushes away forever. lilljonas fucked around with this message at 08:53 on Nov 21, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2014 08:42
|
|
|
That's pretty cool and inspiring. I don't get the people who see really good paint and resolve to continue being bad cuz they'll never reach crystal brush standards anyway.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2014 08:55
|
|
|
Sometimes you just suck (like me at Wargame), and you have learned from experience that effort doesn't always lead to improved skill. And you can bet the road to success is going to be littered with miniatures that look like poo poo in comparison to the really good stuff. Plus, you know, Simple Green expenditures.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2014 09:42
|
|
|
Went looking for Spore Mine alternatives, found something... different. Maybe it's from the same guy who did the infamous baked Tyrannofex? Warhammer 40k 2 large Tyranid monster conversions 
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2014 12:38
|
|
|
I like the idea of the one on the left, shame about the execution.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2014 12:45
|
|
|
The one on the right seems to be dieing of shame as we watch.......
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2014 12:59
|
|
|
It would be great to model an entire nid force bursting out of the ground, with some of the infantry burrowing into it so you get an impression of a force that burrows in and out like dolphins at the surface of the ocean.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2014 13:13
|
|
|
lilljonas posted:
Although even Pegaso has a lot of boob models.... E: Not just boobs, completely detailed anatomy in a large scale. They have a whole section called Pegaso Girls: http://www.pegasomodels.com/products_en.asp?idcat=7 
3 Action Economist fucked around with this message at 14:24 on Nov 21, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2014 13:56
|
|
|
Phoon posted:I like the idea of the one on the left, shame about the execution. After the trygon was released, but before the model for the tervigon we had a tournament where one person brought 3 trygon. All were cut in half and glued to the base... and that is it. There was no effort put in to make it look like they were bursting out of the ground. It was done for the sole purpose of limiting line of sight to it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2014 14:03
|
|
|
LordAba posted:After the trygon was released, but before the model for the tervigon we had a tournament where one person brought 3 trygon. All were cut in half and glued to the base... and that is it. There was no effort put in to make it look like they were bursting out of the ground. It was done for the sole purpose of limiting line of sight to it. Is that how line of sight works in 40k? They base it off the model not the base size? Weird.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2014 14:07
|
|
|
Len posted:Is that how line of sight works in 40k? They base it off the model not the base size? Weird. Been a while so I may be wrong, but for height, yes this is how it is. Because you have various units of different heights using the same bases. However, I thought for tourney play you had to still "silhouette" the original shape, in that, some significant part of the model must still show the original height and width of the model it is representing.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2014 14:55
|
|
|
Len posted:Is that how line of sight works in 40k? They base it off the model not the base size? Weird. In 40k, they use the "true line of sight" rule. This means if you can see any volume of the model, you can shoot at it. In fact, back in fourth edition, it was common for people to not put a base on their models unless they could not stand on their own (another rule stated if your model could not remain upright on any sort of terrain, it died). This was because the base of the model was considered part of the model, and therefore made the volume larger.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2014 15:02
|
|
|
I've never heard of that happening, and as far as I can remember it has always been the case that models must be based on the slotta supplied. But yeah, 40k currently goes on LoS to the head, arms, torso, legs. Wings, antenna, guns etc do not count.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2014 15:05
|
|
|
That is what I really don't get. What if someone models all his Tau Fire Warriors with the kneeling legs?
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2014 15:24
|
|
|
He'll have trouble drawing LoS to hit anything unless he's standing in the open. It's swings and roundabouts.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2014 15:37
|
|
|
Apollodorus posted:That is what I really don't get. What if someone models all his Tau Fire Warriors with the kneeling legs? Convert all your close combat troops to be lying prone. No in-game disadvantages, harder to be seen by enemy. Just handing out pro 40K tips here for free, enjoy.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2014 15:40
|
|
|
Apollodorus posted:That is what I really don't get. What if someone models all his Tau Fire Warriors with the kneeling legs? There are a lot of what ifs without particularly good answers when using that rule. At this point, in 40k specifically, it's probably some mixture of the concept being a holdover from past editions and there being enough variety and unconventional profiles with the models to cleanly implement a base size = specific volume system similar to Warmachine or whatever else.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2014 15:41
|
|
|
I kind of like the fat-crons and the butterfly marine.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2014 15:47
|
|
|
lilljonas posted:Then there's the "gamers", who often paint up large number of miniatures. Many of these started the hobby before GW was a thing. Say what you want about GW, but they did a great job at pushing painting tutorials in their magazines and books, something that didn't really exist in the same way in the historical gaming community. So they paint with pretty much none of the "standard" techniques, it's just flat paint. I also think the figures you're showing are smaller scale here. Think 10-15mm, vs. "heroic" 28mm (closer to 32mm) that's used in GW or Privateer stuff. A lot of the techniques used on bigger figures don't work as well on smaller stuff. I'll also say that dipping came in from the historical side IME-- I'd seen and used it there on stuff well before it became en vogue for alt figures. The move towards 28mm wargames has improved painting dramatically in ancients, and you now see much nicer armies. The one thing that this thread really shows me is how much "tabletop standard" has increased in the last decade. It's sort of sad to see people showing that Mantis guy or the fatcrons as awful, since to me they're both interesting conversions with average painting. The kind of stuff you'd want to encourage people to do, not mock people for. These aren't bad boob conversions or nazi stuff, they're your average guys doing stuff.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2014 16:59
|
|
|
Chill la Chill posted:The nice thing about Vallejo air is that you could actually brush them right out of the bottle. It's extremely helpful for when I don't have my thinner mix. On that note, what's a good thinner to use? The terminology of this poo poo is confusing. Why does paint thinner destroy paint instead of thin it?
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2014 17:12
|
|
|
TheInvisiblePooka posted:In fact, back in fourth edition, it was common for people to not put a base on their models unless they could not stand on their own (another rule stated if your model could not remain upright on any sort of terrain, it died). This was because the base of the model was considered part of the model, and therefore made the volume larger.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2014 17:21
|
|
|
rkajdi posted:I also think the figures you're showing are smaller scale here. Think 10-15mm, vs. "heroic" 28mm (closer to 32mm) that's used in GW or Privateer stuff. A lot of the techniques used on bigger figures don't work as well on smaller stuff. I'll also say that dipping came in from the historical side IME-- I'd seen and used it there on stuff well before it became en vogue for alt figures. The move towards 28mm wargames has improved painting dramatically in ancients, and you now see much nicer armies. I posted the Fatcrons and Mantis Marine more because they look really goofy rather than because of any technical issues. I'd field an army paintes up to either standard (hell, they're both better than many of my models) but I don't think I'd use either conversion. I'd post the Fatcron destroyers, which actually looked pretty good, but I'm phone posting.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2014 17:31
|
|
|
Gumdrop Larry posted:There are a lot of what ifs without particularly good answers when using that rule. At this point, in 40k specifically, it's probably some mixture of the concept being a holdover from past editions and there being enough variety and unconventional profiles with the models to cleanly implement a base size = specific volume system similar to Warmachine or whatever else. In WMH and Malifaux, they tie base size to "size profile", and generally tend to be sculpted accordingly, with figures on similar sized bases being similar in size or height on width (well, some of the new 2e Malifaux plastic models are a little notorious for being oversized for their base size). With 40k, I get that there might be a holdover effect, but it seems like it really seems to limit creative stuff people could do, and makes some of the new kits a little strange. Maybe instead of going with the base size = size profile, they could have a couple of iterations of size profiles and then just note which size profile a model is, in their rules? I'm thinking some size profiles where the width is equivalent to the base size, but some widths you measure out from the base an additional half-inch or up. Height works much the same for all of them.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2014 17:48
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 23:54 |
|
|
Improbable Lobster posted:I posted the Fatcrons and Mantis Marine more because they look really goofy rather than because of any technical issues. I'd field an army paintes up to either standard (hell, they're both better than many of my models) but I don't think I'd use either conversion. I'd say their biggest problem is a very "Go-Bots" feeling they give. Like they're a cheap Chinese knock-off that a parent buys their child because they don't have money for the real deal. Disappointing for all parties involved.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2014 17:49
|
|