Quote:
Originally Posted by PrettyBoy
Yeah, I can see how the painting isn’t as important as the gameplay itself. Mine are for display only, so it’s imperative it has to look right. I’ve been doing figures since I was 19 so I’ve gotten pretty decent at it. I’ve seen some terrible dioramas and models, though.
What’s up with the detail not accurately showing the weapons? Isn’t that cheating? So the weapons the figures are holding count as points, too? All this time, I’m thinking it was about the size of the armies and weapons like the tanks the Imperial Guard has.
That’s a nice setup. When I get home from work, later on tonight I’ll check out that YouTube video.
|
It really depends on the people. I know some competitive people that are the best players in the world, and can produce museum-quality paint jobs for their models, and others that do the bare minimum. In the current ruleset for Matched Play, 10 of the 100 possible points come from being "Battle Ready" a standard of painting which is usually three distinct colors, and the model base with some sort of landscape on it achieved through textured paints (read: acrylics with some sort of grit or sand in them).
My concern with the accurate modeling of weapons is to limit people being "That Guy". Rarer than the internet would like you to believe, That Guy will remove a model that has a heavy weapon as a casualty, but actually he forgot it was the OTHER model that had the heavy weapon so he can still use it. Most organized tournaments follow the rule of What You See Is What You Get, or WYSIWYG, so your mental load is slightly less. For a casual or practice game I don't care, as friends and I will restart games quickly and change the army list or weapons to try and quickly test new ideas without having to have a million of the same models ready for the table for a strategy that may not work.