PDA

View Full Version : Wear and Tear



Consadine
20-12-2009, 04:46 PM
Hello Astro! The topic of battle damage modeled and/or painted onto your minis came up in my WIP and I thought it would be all kinds of fun to gauge what you all think of it.

So, do you like weathering and battle damage on your minis? Why or why not?

To start us off, I'm in the "No" camp. Bullet point time!

-Suspending realism is fine since it's sci-fi
-If I'm going to go through the trouble to paint up a figure well, why (effectively) muck it up?
-Battle damage looks too cartoon-esque.

NathanS
20-12-2009, 04:51 PM
I do not do not like it either.

It is just to much.

I spend the time on a mini to make it look really good to then take a knife to it to make it look trashy after.

Logic say no don't do it stupid it is perfect leave it alone.

As in the walking in dirt and grass they do not always transfer to your boots at the most when walking through wet grass your boots are a little shinier and cleaner.

Honsou
20-12-2009, 04:51 PM
I'm sort of on the fence on this one. As a general rule, I tend not to actively damage my models (although I will quite happily make use of chips, etc if I get a little too vigorous in chopping >.>).

This is partly because of all the reasons you listed Cons. However, I would also point out that, as a general rule, military equipment does not stay mucked up for long- there is a reason that most military formations have strict rules and punishments to ensure that equipment is kept in good order...

That said, I do like the look of some battle-damage, and do include it from time to time- particularly on diorama pieces, or on the bases, buildings, scenery, etc.

I would tend to disagree with your statement that battle damage looks cartoonish. Yes, if done incorrectly it certainly can, but it can be equally impressive if modeled and painted correctly. Sadly, one of the main issues is that alot of people "overuse" it- they'll absolutely destroy it, or cover the entire tank in mud, or whatnot... which just makes it look silly.

So, fazit: for me, as a rule, I don't do it... but I have no issue with well done battle damage per se.

Ossai
20-12-2009, 04:52 PM
I too am in the "No" group. Unless it is a tank.

Smaller minis are a lot harder to do battle damage on unless you go poking holes in them and when you do do the BD then it is either way too noticeable or not at all.

Tanks on the other hand can be weathered and battle damaged quite nicely.

Nomad
20-12-2009, 04:53 PM
I like to put a fair amount of wear and some damage on parts of alot of my orks, simply because it fits with the theme. An Ork's equipment is battle damaged and worn even when brand new because it's scavenged from the battlefield.

I will not paint blood onto a figure or it's weaponry.

I won't paint battle damage onto anything other than Orks, unless I am doing a display model that requires me to.

LAZtheinfamous
20-12-2009, 05:11 PM
Personally, I'm not a fan of it. Alot of times it is used as a 'cover' for bad painting, which isn't that great. I like my minis to look parade ground for the most part. I do that to try to paint to my best ability.

Silent_P
20-12-2009, 05:39 PM
I have to concur with the rest of you. My guardsmen should be ready for inspection at all time. My tanks are kept in good condition and ready to roll. As Trygon mentioned, military equipment is kept clean to insure it functions properly. I can understand a little bit of weathering to represent being in the field for an extended period of time, but rust is simply unacceptable.

NathanS
20-12-2009, 05:44 PM
Psst SP thats Honsuo not Trygon.

Honsou
20-12-2009, 06:00 PM
That's been happening an unusual amount of late... :sad:

Orkgasm
20-12-2009, 06:36 PM
I like to put a fair amount of wear and some damage on parts of alot of my orks, simply because it fits with the theme. An Ork's equipment is battle damaged and worn even when brand new because it's scavenged from the battlefield.

I will not paint blood onto a figure or it's weaponry.

I won't paint battle damage onto anything other than Orks, unless I am doing a display model that requires me to.

100% agreed.
Though I do believe that well done BD can really put a model in the upper echelon, I can never bring myself to do it to my Boys...much for the same reason Laz mentioned. Sure, I'll add in a few scratches to a painted plate of plate armor as an accent, but that's it. Vehicles may be a different story for me, however. Though they'll still be somewhat pristine jalopies, it would be easier given that they're a larger "canvas", if you will.

Captain Castus
20-12-2009, 06:42 PM
A little is good... Adds character...

But many who do it tend to over-do it...

So... I can't really give a yes/no on that one!

CC

kharn the betrayer
20-12-2009, 08:41 PM
I voted yes because of the following....

As long as it is subtle and not over done it can add to the model.
A long campaign without resupply would mean damaged armour.
It gives you the option of customising your marines. Yes they are Dark Angels but they are mine because they have damaged armour.
Not every chapter cares about the prisstine look, some suits are so old that they have personalities and souls which may not like the paint job.

Scoppio
21-12-2009, 01:16 AM
You dont need battle damage or old/rusty armours unless you are a quite good hobbyst and know how to properly use oil paints, weathering technics, etc.

For my self I do prefer making the BOOTS of my models dirt if they are walking over sand, and mak'em totally clean if they are walking over a proper floor. Some kind of weathering I see as necessity as "burning" the metal tip of the flamer (making it more black). Giving battle damage to one or another space marine is also cool, I have 1 with half helmet smashed, one terminator with several tears on its armour and a bike with bullet shots).

You dont need to go "8 to 80", I prefer iy simple, with the "enough realism its needed for making it seen logical", we may be playing 40k, but if you are walkin in mud your boots will be stained with mud no matter how awesome is your armour save.

Brother_Chaplian Raimo
21-12-2009, 01:25 AM
Cleverly-executed battle damage can enhance an otherwise mediocre paintjob to a fantastic degree, and once you get the technique down it's damn fun to boot.

So yeah. If I had to chose, I'm all for battle damage. Must be the Ammobunker in me coming out.

barny
21-12-2009, 01:38 AM
really depends on the army, it looks great on armies like imperial gaurd and orks. But on eldar, dark eldar, i think it would look a little silly because there supposed to be advanced and stuff. being an eldar player. i vote no

Hephesto
21-12-2009, 03:02 AM
I'm pro, but then again I do like to model my minis in the midst of battle. And let's face it, power armour attracts a ton of fire ;)

Silent_P
21-12-2009, 05:44 AM
First off, sorry for the mix up, Honsou. No disrespect was intended.

Second, I think there's a big difference between weathering something and battle damage. Sure tanks are going to kick mud up in the treads, but I don't think they're going to keep pressing forward with a hole blasted through the turret. When a vehicle takes a heavy enough hit to crumple the armor I think it will be rotated to the rear for repair.

Nomad
21-12-2009, 05:48 AM
First off, sorry for the mix up, Honsou. No disrespect was intended.

Second, I think there's a big difference between weathering something and battle damage. Sure tanks are going to kick mud up in the treads, but I don't think they're going to keep pressing forward with a hole blasted through the turret. When a vehicle takes a heavy enough hit to crumple the armor I think it will be rotated to the rear for repair.

That would probably depend on availability of replacements, parts and the situation on the field at the time.

arceus1018
21-12-2009, 07:24 AM
I like weathering and some battle damage on my tanks (those things didn't just roll of from the show rooms) and maybe some on my elite units of my army, like Storm troopers to help show signs of veterancy within the ranks. Wear and tear also helps to add character to the model too.

But for my normal troops I like to keep em nice and simple, the most kind of wear and tear I'd put on them is probably a scar here or there and some muddy boots, just about it.

grimdisco
21-12-2009, 02:05 PM
I like battle damage but you have to do it over the entire army otherwise it looks sloppy.

Faileas
21-12-2009, 06:57 PM
I'd have to go with the yes camp....I think battle damage adds character to certain models, I like the idea of my men at arms having old chipped armour, or the odd bit of dirt on the clothes etc. it also mixes up the models a bit. as for tanks and the such....well I think they should have some else they can look quite plain.

I also read that it should only be done by Pro's.......I know my models won't be the best painted....but is that going to stop me having a go and trying things.....erm no....as long as they look tabletop good and I happy with the piece I don't really care!

however on the flip side...it should be used with a final image in mind, there is no point doing it on every unit/model unless your planning on fielding a veteran type army.

So in short...I think it looks fine!

*grins*

domdan
21-12-2009, 08:35 PM
i gotta say, i think it depends not only on the race of your army; (orks being obviously more mucky and damaged than SM) but it also depends on the feel you want your army to have. im going to use SM's as an example:

space marines who have just visited the homeworld for example and are going on a campaign will have had their equipment all repaired, clean and shiny. however if they have been on a campaign or even a short mission, their suits and equipment are going to attract a lot of fire and should look at least a little battle damaged.
personally, im all for having a light dusting of dirt on boots and the hem of capes, but would never go as far as damaging a perfectly good model. so im voting no :)

KaizerVonAwesome
22-12-2009, 07:50 PM
I like it. I like nice bright models too, but realism is my preference.

Space Marines go into such hectic messes against such overwhelming odds that they would be bound to be heavily damaged. I think once they get stuck in they go hell bent for leather and get the job done first, no matter how long it takes. I highly doubt they would stop to make their armor look pretty for the parade ground. Clean a gun? Yes. Polish armor? No. They would not be all sharp looking. On campaign I doubt they'd do anything more than was necessary to maintain suit/weapon function. I also don't think they'd bring everything they need to fix the suit up perfectly planetside either.

I think the only races in Warhammer that would manage to look clean in battle are Eldar and Necrons. Necrons because they are living metal, Eldar because... well because they're Eldar and dirt is yucky.

The Vulture
22-12-2009, 07:55 PM
I do not like battle damage on my guys. I have a very Mordian mindset, spick and span is the best. For some reason I can't stand it because they have battle damage at the start of the battle and that says to me that my lot can't repair their own power armour between battles. Besides I like my armour shiny. :D