Three colour minimum?

I've seen a fair few posts on various platforms decrying the move by Games Workshop, for events that they sponsor and organise, from the old staple of a "three colour minimum" to a "tabletop standard" for the minimum level of painting required for the forces used.

"Tabletop standard" is an ambiguous phrase, since, on a lot of tabletops the standard is the grey plastic horde. That aside, my tabletop standard is very different from someone else's, since i love adding the details, heraldry, etc., by hand which many players add with decals or leave off altogether. That, however, is not what this post is about.

Struggling to find sleep this morning i came to a realisation: the more models a force requires, the more complicated it's paint scheme tends to be.

Let's take GW's 40k for an example, since they are in the trigger.

Space Marines, Necrons and Knights are all relatively expensive per-model in terms of points, 16-200 or so minimum, so you need far fewer of them for a set points total, and they are the forces for whom three colour minimum is understandable, since they have very limited "zones". For marines: armour, trim/markings/details, joints/weapons, skin (occasionally). For necrons: bulk of model, weapons, eerie green glow. For Knights: armour, trim/superstructure, lenses.

On the other end, we have Imperial Guard, Genestealer Cult, Orks and similar, where points per model start in the 4-8 ballpark, meaning 2-4 times the models, and a far wider range of zones. For all three: skin, clothing, footwear, body armour, eyes, weapons, webbing, and other details. Add to this the fact that these guys will often have the more complicated zones, such as the ribbing with trim of Genestealer Cult body armour, the complex, slapdash armour of the Orks, or the camouflage fatigues of the Guard, and you're looking at a much more complicated scheme, applied to significantly more models.

This can be taken far beyond 40k, of course. In 20th century games, armour can be fielded using a simple base colour, with the tracks and details picked out, and you'll need far fewer tanks than infantry, with their fatigues, boots, skin, hair, webbing, helmets, weapons, etc. In high mediaeval, the same can be said if we compare knights and artillery to men at arms, since knights can be painted with grey armour, a flat colour for surcoat, shield, lance and other details, and a flat colour for the horse, compared to skin, weapons/armour, livery, clothes/footwear, etc., for the levy.

I don't have a point, I'm not arguing anything, I'm just making an observation that it seems fairly uniform across most settings that the more models required by a force, the more complicated the paint scheme required.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Crossing the Rubicon

There's been a lot of fuss made over the past couple of years about 40k's new Primaris marines, about existing characters being upgraded and the doom of the traditional space marines.  There's some validity to it all, but, something most people forget, or simply don't know, is that a similar change happened almost 30 years ago.  Back in first edition, in Rogue Trader, marines started with profiles barely advanced from the humble Guardsman, with power armour that gave a 4+ save. A 4+ save was a big thing back then, and the other means of getting it - Carapace armour or layers, such as mesh and flak - came with movement penalties and other downsides. Back then, the S4 of the bolter made it an enviable weapon. Marines were a  powerful force. The miniatures, dating from before or around the time that marines became superhuman giants, were small by modern standards, about shoulder height to a modern traditional marine, mostly single-piece (except  for backpack) and wearin...
Read more

How to build: Imperial Guard Landspeeder

It's a bank holiday in most of the UK today, but not here in Scotland, where it was 3 weeks ago. It's very hot and very sunny, and most of my neighbours have taken the day off. As such, I'm finding it hard to get motivated. My mind keeps drifting back to Saturday's post on reclaiming the Land Speeder for the Imperial Guard of 40k. The biggest issue, beyond getting the relevant guns (multilaser, lascannon, plasma cannon), is the crew. The majority of surplus crew that collecting Guard produces are designed to be poking their heads out of or standing in tank cupolae. There are 8 that i can think of that aren't: the artillery deck crew from the Accessories sprue/Basilisk, the 2 deck crew from the Hydra/Wyvern, the commander from the Baneblade, who has legs allowing them to be assembled as a separate model, the commander for the Deathstrike/Manticore, the 2 crew in a Taurox and the crew of the Sentinels. The 3 standing models and the squatting one are completely unsui...
Read more

Imperial Guard Assault Squads

The idea of the 40k Imperial Guard/Astra Militarum having dedicated assault troops seems ridiculous nowadays. Since 1996, the basic structure for the Guard has been well established as the 10-man rifle sections, 5-man command sections (now 4-man with the officers split off), and 6-man support units. This makes active sense, and has strong real-world parallels: in modern military, few units are armed primarily for hand-to-hand combat, and such has been the case for nearly 300 years.  Despite this, close combat has always been a significant part of 40k. Back in first edition, the game launched with the assumption that ranged combat would be the norm, as can be seen in the early army lists, but, over time, some time around the start of the 1990s, that shifted. Close combat had moved out of the shadows, and the Craftworld Eldar had the cutting edge of this, with Guardian Storm squads (with laspistols and powerswords), and Howling Banshee and Striking Scorpion Aspect warriors.  On ...
Read more