Thursday, April 28, 2011

Weathering and Battle Damage - Is it necessary?

To All,
I'm proud of my Dreadnought.

Looking at the rubric from the Colonial GT there were points awarded for weathering and battle damage. My question is: do I really have to mess up what I believe is a nice paint job to represent mud and rust? Wouldn't Ultramarines, or any other force, take care of the weapons and armor that keeps them alive?

Do other painting rubrics at GTs award points for weathering?

I need some guidance here.

The Stout Smurf


  1. While I have no idea what other GT's might do, in fact I don't have the first idea what GT paint scoring looks like at this point. I really find myself torn on this idea of 'forced weathering' On one hand it seems to be a one step further point(s). Reward those who have taken time/effort to go one step further. But on the other hand... What if your army is set up to be pristine and in parade formation...

    stout I would have to say if you don't feel like weathering then don't. It is your army in the end, and if the one, or two points from weathering are going to be what pushes your placement up to a prize finish then you can revisit your decision for the next event.

    Just my 2 cents...

  2. i think painting should be a completely separate award. it should not affect your GAME scores. if you win all your games and no one else does, you should win the tourney even if the guy in second place painted his army better.

  3. Is it necessary? No. Does it help the model look better? In some cases, Yes.

    I agree that the Astartes take care of their armour and enter battle looking rather pristine. However, throughout the battle their armour will become damaged. It's just a matter or personal preference. It's your hobby, your models. Do what you want and don't allow stupid things like painting scores dictate how you do your hobby.

    As for other events awarding points for 'weathering'... I have no idea.

  4. I am not a fan of soft scores determining the winner either. I think a lot of tournaments give extra points on painting that "goes the extra mile". This might be battle effects or conversion.

    I have some battle effects on my models, but only on a few of them.

  5. Points or no points, you should paint your army how you want it. I have no weathering/battle damage on my Eldar, as in my minds eye wraithbone should be all shiny and brand new looking. I wouldn't weather it just because of a few points in a tourny!

  6. Maybe I'm just not competitive enough to care, but I've never liked battle damage, so I never paint it onto my models. If that means taking a hit on the painting score, then so be it.

    The thing is though, I can understand why they would give extra points for weathering; it can be a bit difficult to pull off well. You have to almost blend the mud from the bottom up, and paint chips require painting a blob of silver then a matching-but-slightly-smaller blob of black on top of the silver so that only the outline of the silver shows. If you're really dedicated to chipping, you'd also paint a lighter layer of the model colour under the silver. Doing this all over the model is rather time consuming and shows the TOs that you put a lot of effort into painting it up.

    Like I said though, I think it should ultimately come down to personal preference. If you don't want to weather your models, then don't.

  7. Seems a silly thing to be judged on, especially with some armies (like yours) being known for everything being shiny and "parade ground ready"... By and large, elite strike forces like Marines should not be used for long drawn out "grind" campaigns, that's what the IG is for, so you could easily argue that most people would never see a dirty/muddy/damaged unit from your army :-) But, I just play the game, I'm not really a good enough painter where I'd be concerned about the points there...

  8. It's easy. Paint for you. Paint what you enjoy and makes you happy. Pleasing others will hollow out the experience of your hobby.

    I used to not paint battle damage, now I sometimes do. Feels like it depends on the model sometimes. And your basing. Mud on guys running on lava?

    That just gave me an idea. Snow bases and snow *on* the models as if it is snowing. See, it's all about making those little blue painted pieces of plastic yours and to make them tell a story.

  9. I agree with many of the people here.
    The pride you gain from getting an award is significally less lasting than an army you are completely proud of.

  10. Let me start by saying I fully agree with everyone on the 'its your army paint it the way you want' mentality.

    With that said I do have some thoughts as a newbie. I was very happy to discover that tournaments included (well generally) paint scores along with the game scores. I know this does negatively affect some people who choose not to either paint their models at all or only to table quality. I feel this is a good decision because this isn't a strategy game, its a war-gaming hobby. I think the word hobby sums Warhammer 40k up perfectly.

    Personally (please keep it mind it IS your army don't listen to me) if I didn't want to paint my mini's I'd just play heroscape or another table top strategy game.

    Anyway...on the topic at hand, I like weathering / damage. This is personal choice but I plan on painting all my models in pristine quality (as well as bare, no purity seals or banners) and as they score great victories or take a big hit (lascannon to the front hull) I plan to add battle damage.

    To me that is the important thing, damage for the sake of damage doesn't really do anything. I want there to be a story behind the damage. I'll post something on my blog when I start doing this.

    "The Initiate"

  11. I love my ultra marines clean an ready to parade, is a detail I like about them but once in a while a bit of weathering strikes my heart and is applied as I see fit no because others think it should be like that.

    On the other hand my orks are a mess and no one of them has a clean part but they are like that in the fluff so once again is how I like my minis no how others like them. keep with the great work.

  12. Servvs: Dude, I like that idea - give the army/unit/vehicle the damage it actually gets as you fight the battles. Great idea - I may have to steal that!!

  13. woroxon: I'm not commenting on Orks here - of course they have a different way "maintaining" their equipment. It should look "Orky."

  14. I have no issue with painting score rubrics so long as they are published in advance of the event. Otherwise, did some local guy from the organizing committee win with a well weathered army? I prefer tournaments with a painting, performance, and other score, to give a best painted, best gladiator, and best general prize path...

  15. bkbutlerme: First I want to say that this post is not to comment on any past tournaments I have been to - I'm just trying to get a feel for what others do. (The last tournament I went to, the Colonial, did publish their rubric and weathering/battle damage was on it - although I don't think it effected anyone's standings. Even if it did I'm not griping about it at all.)

    I think I'm going to paint my army to the best of my ability and then see how I feel about weathering/battle damage. I do like Servvs idea about giving the units and models actual battle damage - I may go with that. Of course, based on its performance at the colonial, I should just smash my Land Raider to pieces with a bat and move the broken bits on a tray.