|
starkebn posted:This is the greatest modelled army in the history of mankind I'm pretty sure that's a goon, too. I remember seeing him post it two or three years ago in one of the warhams threads.
|
#
¿
Aug 29, 2014 19:16
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 2, 2024 00:13 |
|
|
Finders keepers losers... vomit uncontrollably? no that's not it losers are purged by holy fire in the name of the Emperor? hmm yes
|
|
#
¿
Oct 10, 2014 06:09
|
|
|
Moto42 posted:Just leave it unwrapped on the presents table at the wedding. Wedding cake topper
|
|
#
¿
Nov 3, 2014 08:42
|
|
list.
|
Not a viking posted:Well, if all they sell is creepy poo poo then they will keep making that. Vote with your dollars. Kickstarters voted with their dollars, to the tune of two million dollars. They're going to keep making that poo poo.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 3, 2014 23:28
|
|
|
haha here let me fix that for you Moto42 posted:So, yea... is there a way to run a company anonymously? No, not really.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 4, 2014 01:10
|
|
|
Sydney Bottocks posted:The way I've always painted black was to start with black, then do highlights with various shades of gray (number of highlights & lightness of color depending on the effect desired), and I've always painted "pure white" as basically the inverse: focusing more on the shading and not so much the highlighting (like with the white armor parts on Biel-Tan Eldar, for example). That was my approach years before I'd even heard of Doc Faust's Painting Clinic, so while I see where you guys are coming from, I kind of agree with what he says, too. Different (brush) strokes and all that. v No, painting that way produces the same results only if your "highlights" for black actually get down to the point they're also providing the midtone, and only if your "shading" for white also gets up to the point where you're providing the midtone. At which point you've put in the same amount of effort as you would for painting any other color. The question is, should you pay just as much for highlighting/shading black and white as you would for color? And the answer is, unequivocally, if you want good results, you definitely should. Base white or base black with just a single shade/single highlight does not look good.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 14, 2014 20:48
|
|
v
|
Sydney Bottocks posted:Fair enough, and truthfully I don't tend to paint white or black very often these days, so I might have to give some other techniques a try next time and see how they work out. It's not so much the technique as the total amount of effort. I think you're right that there are different approaches that can look good! But low-effort will always look low-effort, there's not a cheap shortcut just because you wanted white or black vs. some other color. If you're OK with a mini that has just a basecoat and highlight or just a basecoat and shade, that's fine, it can work for tabletop-quality troops. If you wanted full base/shade/highlight quality, you'll want it for whites and blacks too. You're probably producing exactly that result, even if you're starting with a pure black or pure white basecoat; you're just pulling your shading/highlighting down farther on the concave/convex surfaces, using multiple shade/highlight passes rather than just one.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 14, 2014 20:54
|
|
|
No but you see, if I collect hundreds of toy soldiers representing the forces of Nazi Germany, but someone else finds that they personally would not want to, that means they're judging me and that makes me uncomfortable. And since I know I'm not doing anything wrong, it must be something wrong with them. How else can I resolve this cognitive dissonance? Heyyyy, so different people can have different feelings about a subject, and that doesn't mean one "side" is "wrong"? No, nope, I can't integrate that view, because I'm the one being an immature baby.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 19, 2014 19:51
|
|
|
Also no, it is not identical to play the nazis vs. playing, say, the french, or the americans, or the italians, or the russians. "Everyone did bad things" is a terrible whitewash/historical equivalence/utter bullshit, and completely misses the point. The point is that it's OK to be uncomfortable with some things and not others. There might be personal reasons. You don't have to get on someone's case because they are conflicted about certain things. Most importantly, a gamer who has preferences different from yours, is not a challenge to your own preferences. This poo poo: Regarde Aduck posted:I humbly suggest that such a person should not be playing historical war games then. Wanting to play war but then getting into a CARE-OFF about Nazis just means you're confused at best and a big gay baby at worst. And as you're all goons here i'm afraid it's likely to be terminal gay babyism. Is completely unnecessary. Yes, OK, if someone is being aggressive about not only not wanting to own a Nazi army themselves, but like, attacking you for choosing to build a german force instead of/in addition to your other scenario-appropriate forces, fine, they're being an rear end in a top hat. But if all that's going on is them choosing not to own a particular force, for whatever personal reasons, but still participate in the game? gently caress you, that's their prerogative and who the gently caress are you to judge. It's not "terminal gay babyism" to have actual feelings about war and tragedy and let those feelings affect your choices in a game that you still are willing and interested in playing. It's just "being a human being." This is a terrible, hosed up derail, too. Why can't we just point and laugh at people plastering swastikas on their toys without going off on rants about how anyone who collects historical germans is either a secret nazi or a big gay baby? Leperflesh fucked around with this message at 20:57 on Nov 19, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Nov 19, 2014 20:54
|
|
|
JerryLee, I agree with all of that, and also don't have a dog in the fight (I don't play historicals). The closest I've come is playing the Russians in Axis & Allies when I was a teenager. What bugs me is a general lack of cutting people a bit of slack. We're playing wargames: right off the bat, we're simulating violence for fun. There's a long dark road to go down if you start jumping to conclusions about people's moral/ethical imbalances re: what faction/game/whatever they're choosing to portray or personalize or whatever, or judging people for choosing not to play a particular faction, for whatever personal reasons they may have. That doesn't mean we have to tolerate assholes who use their wargame toys to promote, obviously or subtly, offensive ideas. I put guys with really kind of a lot of swastikas on their tanks in the same bucket as guys whose forces include really kind of a lot of naked tits; it's offputting and I question their motives and feel a bit grossed out by them. Nor do we have to tolerate being attacked for our choices in which collection of killers we're choosing to collect, by someone who collects a different pile of plastic death squads. But there's an actual gray area and it does none of us any good to draw a bright line through it, camp out on one side, and call anyone on the other side a "big gay baby." That gray area is much larger than most of us would care to think about, especially once you look at tabletop wargaming from the perspective of someone who doesn't do it at all. Leperflesh fucked around with this message at 22:01 on Nov 19, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Nov 19, 2014 21:58
|
|
|
Casually damaging other people's terrain makes you a dick, regardless of whether or not the owner is a 40k-playing jackass.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 21, 2014 02:07
|
|
|
Because he's stunty?
|
|
#
¿
Dec 10, 2014 08:50
|
|
|
It's reasonably well-lit, and it's in focus, making it better than 90% of the miniature photographs I've seen. What's wrong with it, besides the passable paint job?
|
|
#
¿
Dec 16, 2014 22:02
|
|
|
If an employer is paying someone gross $10/hr, the cost of that employee to the employer is likely twice that. Unless they're paying them $10/hr on a 1099 basis, in which case, LOL, but also their per-employee overhead is less (but it still exists). If you are running a business, you must add additional overhead on top of your per-employee costs. Obviously marketing is one place where BTP spends money, but you also have to pay for things like your accountant, your business taxes and licenses, your workplace (even if you are working out of your home, you have to furnish some place or another with business equipment), and so on. And of course, paint and painting supplies aren't free. You pay for packaging and shipping, and labor time to pack and ship things. Someone has to be a customer contact, handling inquiries, booking sales, scheduling jobs, and so on. And uh... you have to pay yourself too, or what is the point? Running a company with 10+ employees and at least scores of customers is a full-time job. All told if I was going to try to run a miniature painting business with multiple employees, I'd probably be charging significantly more than BTP charges. The difference though, and the actual problem with BTP, is that they're dishonest. Their results are not up to the level they promised their customers, they're also inconsistent, badly designed (bad color combinations), utilize poor technique (drybrushing where it's not appropriate, for example), and have a business practices that are at least shady, if not illegal. They also as we have seen have terrible public relations practices; leaking customer communications, attacking critics, whining and making excuses and just being super unprofessional in every way. It's entirely possible that painting miniatures, in the US, is not viable as a business plan because customers are unwilling to pay enough for quality work to make it profitable. The correct business response to that situation is to try a different line of business; not lie and cheat and bitch and moan and rip people off to compensate for the bad market conditions.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 18, 2014 21:44
|
|
|
Anthropomorphic animalistic figures are as old as human mythology, and are not inherently creepy. See: hindu gods, egyptian gods, pagan gods, etc. Humans taking on animalistic characteristics are at least as old as the werewolf myth, and are intended to be creepy, as a form of body horror. The bite of the werewolf is a rape analogy, the taint it infers a (christian?) allegorical condemnation of sex/promotion of virginity as a virtue/etc. "Furry" fandom is the new thing of people wanting to either become animal-like, or have sex with animal-like people. That's creepy, because it's an attempt to normalize bestiality. It's also creepy because it co-opts children's cartoon/live TV show iconography and costuming designs, importing a paedophilia subtext. The worst part of furries and their fandom is the way it corrupts actually-good fantasy/SF works that involve aliens/fantasy races with both human-like and animal-like characteristics. It ought to be OK to want to play a Watership Down-inspired RPG, but you can't do it any more without someone probably assuming you're a furry who wants to gently caress rabbits or something.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 24, 2014 04:55
|
|
|
The listing is already gone, unfortunately. Perhaps someone explained to him how business sales work. The trouble with starting your own painting studio, or with buying BTP, is that the business model doesn't work. Painting miniatures to a high quality is skilled labor, and skilled labor costs too much compared to what customers are willing to pay. customers aren't willing to pay enough for high-quality painted figures for a variety of factors... a lot of people do it for free for friends, a lot of people just do it themselves, the cost of painted vs. unpainted is too high of a delta, the opportunity cost of well-painted figures compared to just being able to buy more figures is a huge delta, etc. etc. The only way to make a business like this work is to find much cheaper semi-skilled labor, and that almost certainly means outsourcing to a cheap labor country like china. If you don't feel like running a small chinese miniature-painting sweatshop, you just don't have a viable business model. Yes, some folks do this as a hobby business. But once they figure out what they're charging vs. their time costs, they typically discover they're paying themselves minimum wage or less, and absorbing all other costs of doing business as well.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 5, 2015 19:12
|
|
|
Sorry but that thing has flukes. It is a whale. Shark tails are vertical. My immersion is ruined.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 19, 2015 06:47
|
|
|
That's true! That whale appears to have six appendages, though. It is a Land Whale, and not a bad one, I just meant that my immersion into a world where there are Land Sharks in the tabletop wargame is ruined.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 19, 2015 08:11
|
|
|
Scrunt shark
|
|
#
¿
Apr 19, 2015 19:13
|
|
|
Sharks are also chondrichthyes, meaning they mostly have cartilage instead of bones.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 19, 2015 19:29
|
|
|
Shark's teeth may be evolved adaptations of the little scales that cover their skin. A shark evolved to live on land could probably evolve a toothy, flexible exoskeleton to help support its body shape. I mean, it has to evolve lungs or something anyway, and of course the legs, so why not?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 20, 2015 20:55
|
|
|
Renfield posted:And then it'd have to keep warm, so fur.. loose the surplus fins and you have a bear ! fish don't have to keep warm, silly
|
|
#
¿
Apr 20, 2015 21:12
|
|
|
Grey Hunter posted:40K or other GW derivitives. You play blood bowl 
|
|
#
¿
Jun 2, 2015 00:01
|
|
|
Len posted:Why did Fantasy seem to have an actual story while 40k is kind of deadlocked right where it is and has been for years? If they advance the Warhammer 40k story past the end of the millennium they'll be forced to rename it Warhammer 41k.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 14, 2015 06:19
|
|
|
Reynold posted:This is just a reminder to those of you not in the know, you can still purchase chestnut ink. You can also buy it from this one online retailer in the US: scalecreep.com (link goes directly to the page with chestnut ink on it) It's $3.25 a pot. Currently out of stock but they do get stock in from time to time.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 10, 2015 21:02
|
|
|
JcDent posted:Tell me this wasn't in the GW Death Thread. It was in the Warhammer Fantasy thread, amazingly enough! A looot of folks in there, including me, are open to pretty much any different game that hasn't been Sigmared and is good instead. I just got my new box of trollbloods and they're pretty cool. Next month when I have some time I'm gonna make some trolls and probably buy some cajun alligators for them to be pals with.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 16, 2015 18:29
|
|
|
We can guess that GW plans to gradually release more and more kits specifically for AoS, and that with those will come scenarios, probably in books you have to pay for. The online warscrolls for existing miniatures appear to be - and according to Serious Gaylord who says he spoke with a GW rep at a con, are confirmed to be - a thinly-veiled farewell to the entire existing Fantasy line and the entire 8th edition and earlier Fantasy fanbase, complete with joke rules intentionally made to embarrass them out of wanting to play their now-obsolete units in public. Hilariously, GW is clearly committing to this thing bigtime. They're actually supposedly spending money to promote it at cons! They put a big Sigmarite statue out front of their headquarters, replacing the iconic space marine that's been there for, I don't know, at least a decade? They're heavily promoting the game to independent stockists and pushing it hard in their stores. It may yet be salvageable, from a rules perspective, since there are already fan-made mods to add in points, throw out the stupidest parts of the ruleset, and sort of half-assedly create a game that has some semblance of balance and gameplay. What probably isn't salvageable is the total lore-ectomy and replacement of the longstanding and interesting Fantasy old world with this new reality-balls soulless ripoff of Norse mythology and Space Marine iconography. The basic underlying mechanic of the game, despite being greatly simplified from Warhammer Fantasy, is still also dumb and repetitive and completely ignorant of how other tabletop wargames have solved various problems. So tl:dr, it's being panned online massively, but there are always GW apologists and for that matter, plenty of people who will "reserve judgement until I've tried it" and probably a fair number of sadly-resigned warhams who will grudgingly play AoS anyway because that's what their local gamers are doing. As for balance, GW still won't acknowledge that balance is actually a desirable feature of a game.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 16, 2015 20:05
|
|
|
If you think about it, that's somewhat similar to some army today putting cave paintings of bison and stickmen with spears onto their livery.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 16, 2015 20:55
|
|
|
Antivehicular posted:It looks like the rainbow-vomiting is canon? "I apologize for the quick writing, we will fix this shortly! ( Poots )" I want to kick Poot's rear end. It takes thirty seconds to proofread this poo poo and fix all the incorrect punctuation.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 5, 2015 23:35
|
|
|
TheCosmicMuffet posted:most of us are sick of hearing about totally mundane hatred for lovely minis. Hello, TheCosmicMuffet. You seem to be lost. You are here: The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Games > Traditional Games > Best of the Worst: Painting and Modelling Unspiration
|
|
#
¿
Aug 6, 2015 18:52
|
|
|
Why would Humans paint a naked elven woman on their vehicles? e. lol 
Leperflesh fucked around with this message at 22:29 on Aug 14, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Aug 14, 2015 22:26
|
|
|
You guys do know that, right there throughout the fluff, is executions of guardsmen for cowardice like... constantly? They're led by literal nazis in black trenchcoats and nazi hats whose jobs are basically to wave a sword at the enemy, and shoot their own troops at the first sign of maybe thinking about retreating. The unrealistic part of that diorama isn't the guardsmen being shot, it's that someone bothered the space marines to do it.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 27, 2015 16:19
|
|
|
Yeah I guess you guys are right, there's hardly any resemblance here.   vs     ...although in all seriousness, I'll grant you the russian commanders also wore similar hats and trenchcoats. please don't take this too seriously
|
|
#
¿
Aug 27, 2015 22:03
|
|
|
Apparently that's canon though, like radagast had hosed up legs and feet or something. TBH I don't even remember him from when I read lord of the rings but it's been a long time. Did you know hedgehogs are also called urchins? That's why sea urchins are called that, because they look a little like a hedgehog. Also why children are called urchins, becuase they come running out of hedgerows along b roads and get squished by cars.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 2, 2015 19:08
|
|
|
The most impressive part of that army is the incredible graffiti painting on the background buildings.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 11, 2015 22:13
|
|
|
Reset by Peer posted:Trollminator: Trollminator owns.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 15, 2015 22:08
|
|
|
When I was 16, Nurgle was the most awesomest because it was gross as heck. Gross was the best. It's exactly the same motivation that leads a boy to put a slug in his sister's sock, or to make jokes about poop. I don't think that necessarily explains why in-universe people would seek out Nurgle but that's because Nurgle seeks out you, because you're a fat disgusting sack of poo poo and you've given up trying to clean yourself up. Your smelly folds of flab repel every other person you encounter every day, but you can still find that safe place in your friendly local game store where people tolerate your stink because hey, they gotta play Warhammer with someone, and you're always there, you have an encyclopedic knowledge of the game, and the fact everyone tolerates you makes the rest of the crowd feel pretty secure about themselves. You're gross but you're amiable and easy-going and you have six different fully-painted armies and from four feet across the table, the reek doesn't really make your eyes water too bad. Nurgle embraces you because nobody else will, and papa nurgle loves us all, including the 90% of the cells in our bodies that aren't human cells. Nurgle's guys are the only guys in all of Warhammer who are universally happy. All of them. They're past the point of worry or even pain. They're loved, and they want you to know that you're loved too, especially by their parasites. Leperflesh fucked around with this message at 00:35 on Oct 15, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Oct 15, 2015 00:32
|
|
|
Kilo147 posted:Your dick is in 28mm scale? since that's a titan, if his dick is in 28mm scale, he's going to have a hard time reaching unless she like, lies down for him and even then it's gonna be like a hotdog thrown into an airplane hanger
|
|
#
¿
Nov 2, 2015 06:42
|
|
|
It's amazing how many old sculpts like those have absolutely zero effort on the faces. Like, they're barely faces at all. You can do your best with paint but you're still basically painting a muppet head.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 10, 2015 23:18
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 2, 2024 00:13 |
|
|
There were plenty of gorgeous miniatures in the 1990s. It's just that they were swamped by vast numbers of horrible poo poo miniatures too. But I have miniatures from as far back as the late 1970s that are OK to middling, and plenty of stuff from the likes of Grenadier in the 1980s that have nice crisp details and good proportions. I think a lot of it came down to technology and price. Tons of outfits were still spin-casting metal minis using aging two-piece spin molds as a way of being economical, and those minis mostly sucked. Bigger outfits like Citadel, Grenadier, and Ral Partha had better metal molding processes and GW pioneered high-detail hard plastic injection molded stuff, which was already starting to be available by 1989 or so. If you went into a Games Workshop you saw those nice minis; but if you went into an independent game store, you probably saw racks of minis from a dozen different companies, most of which had been there unsold for years, in addition to small displays of the better but more expensive metals and plastics from the big companies. But the lack of the Web was really the big thing. You saw minis in magazines and in your local store and that was it. And I think people were still thinking of them more as game tokens than as literal, exactly-as-depicted realistic representations of characters and fighters and monsters. When we played D&D with figures, you just used any dwarf to represent your dwarf, and when you played a wargame unless you were a greybeard fat grognardy historicals guy (who were in a tiny minority even in 1990) you just fielded five or six smallish units of basically similar dudes and it was fine. If your unit of 30 goblins were all identical sculpts, nobody batted an eye or even thought it looked bad, because they'd probably only ever seen one to three other units of 30 goblins in-person anyway. Unless you were lucky enough to go to one of the big conventions, that is: attending the second annual Golden Demon Awards in the UK as a teenager was quite eye-opening for young Leperflesh, just from peering at the contest entries, doing a quick painting workshop with a GW staffer, and trying to shove through the packed crowds surrounding every gaming table to see the fully painted terrain and scenery and armies fighting it out. But for the most part we were slopping thick craft store acrylic paint or sometimes model shop enamel[/] paint onto blobby 1980s third-party miniatures with #3 paintbrushes and being really quite proud of our results because at least the drat things were [i]painted at all.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 12, 2015 00:06
|
|