Fluff vrs Flash

[Dr Death]

I was reading the \"Anyone got any cool Khorne bezerkers they would like to share?\" post and found it inadvertedly raised quite an interesting issue- Which is more important to you- Fluff or Flash?

In the gameworlds of Games Workshop which i so regularly inhabit everything you hear is how grim and unforgiving the worlds are, how scantily equipped the soldiery are and what they must face, it does not endear itself well to extravagant painting such as you see on figures such as confrontation fiennas. But does that at all halt you from doing Sky-Earth Non Metallic Metal or the next great painting technique? Which do you choose, fluffy or flashy painting? Is there a balance?

Thoughts, examples and debate all very welcome.

 

[james9487]

Pretty much technique for me. I don\'t give a toot about the fluff because I\'m too lazy to read any of it.

Also, I try to paint whatever I think will make the figure stand out, but not so much so that it doesn\'t look realistic. For example, if I wanted to practice painting pink for some reason, I probably wouldn\'t want to paint a space marine pink because it wouldn\'t be fitting to the model at all.

 

[dauber22]

Oh, I don\'t know, James. Ever check out this one:

A Classic Space Marine



On the actual topic:
I suppose if you\'re a gamer, the fluff tends to be more important than technique and it does add to the experience. However, it doesn\'t necesssarily have to be a hugely limiting factor. CHeck out Cyril\'s work. I don\'t think he goes against the fluff, but his technique is absolutely impeccable. :wow:

 

[GraveRobber]

K I want to explain this a little better since I was the one who brought it up.

First, its important to clarify the dif kinds of people into the GW( im saying GW because to be honest this is the only mini company with this semi set of rules ) hobby ( I am somewhere in the middle for the record ), you have the pure gamers, these are the guys who dont give a crap and show up with 3 colors on a fully painted army and who just play for the tactical power gaming aspects, then you have the enthusiasts, these are the people who both play and enjoy the modeling and painting aspect as well as the backgrounds etc of the GW world of games, lastly you have the pure modeling people, who are not gamers they simply collect the models to paint and convert and enjoy, im going to say flat out that there is nothing wrong with any of these kinds of people, but it is important to note these kinds of inviduals compared to alot of other mini game companies who tend...to not have the same kinds of ideals or rich history for the part im about to explain.

Fluff: this is the sorta background and \"official\" stuff on each army that GW has created, if you have played the games or read the books ( 40k as an example ) then you would know that say...the ultramarines follow an extreme and strict \"codex\" color scheme for their troops, its far more then color though it also deals with command structure etc, also you could say take the empire from warhammer, each \"state\" of the empire has a color scheme that their troops wear, take nuln who is a blackpowder industry and those colores are black with a bleach bone inlay ( in the poofy sleeved areas and colar etc ), however there is variety with it too, as you can create banners with dif colors and use these on their plumes or whatnot.

Now you dont have to 100% follow these kinds of things, but that said...when I decided to make a serious army for 40k ( and after spending a few hundred $ ) I wanted to really take the time out and give the army as much detail both paint job wise and pose, fluff etc as I could.

This included me buying index astartes III for the World Eater background, color schemes etc, also in theme with Khorne was to give each WE a chain axe and to make the squads 8 men ( 8 being khornes \"magical\" # which also grants game stats ), now you dont have to go this far but if you play wh/40k and take as much time to paint and collect your army then its not hard to figure out why some of us like to do these extra steps, its what we call a \"themed army\" and some of us really enjoy this part of the hobby.

There is nothing wrong with painting models to some of the godly standards that are on here or branching away from the standard \"official\" color schemes, however I was pointing out that looking through this whole site I have yet to see a single \"official\" style painted World Eater, and I would love to, Im working on painting mine up in that style as we speak but I am not a master painter or GD standard painter like so many of the people on here.

 

[Spacemunkie]

Fluff?.... More like guff

GW are a bunch of leeches. Themed armies are cool, but the ones that work best and stick in the mind are the ones that stand out. That means deviating from all the second rate guff they spout.

Best ones I\'ve seen have had guardsmen on hoverboards or Orks on monster trucks.

As for the GW \'hobby\' - what a load of old crap. As if they invented toy soldiers. As if they even invented half the races and background they sell! Tossers.

Give me \'bling\' (another stupid expression...):bouncy:

 

[Dammekkos2]

Fluff all the way for me!

I remember when Boltman first posted his khorne guy on B+C. Amazing as it is, I couldn\'t help but feel it was a bit OTT. What type of bezerker would look as pristine and luminescant as that?

OK, I lack the skills (or the motivation to learn the techniques) to create truly grubby, ******d up warriors, but if I could I would, and would avoid technicolour rainbow minis.

 

[GraveRobber]

Originally posted by Spacemunkie
GW are a bunch of leeches. Themed armies are cool, but the ones that work best and stick in the mind are the ones that stand out. That means deviating from all the second rate guff they spout.

This all very debatable, I personaly dont like alot of GW\'s practices however saying a deviated from codex theme and colors army is cooler or better then the other is totaly up in the air and comes down to each persons tastes. Personaly I enjoy alot of the backgrounds they have created, even though some of it may have been ripped off so to speak from elric and LORT, but then again I never liked that garbage ( oh knoes i can hear the moans now ! ) anyway, so I think they made some crappy highly overated stuff into something cool, something IMO the original authors could not do so well.

As far as the double posted so called khorne warrior goes, I will be honest here that YES its a highly detailed and amazingly painted model, however in theme the only remote Khorne thing I can spot here is the back mask area, to be honest it looks like some deathjester masked samurai, not the slightest bit Khornate.

Its a cool model none the less

 

[WurzagUdUraZahuba]

I am the kind of person that is in this hobby because I enjoy painting and fielding an army painted to the best of my abilities and doing as well as I can with it on the table top. An \"enthusiast\" as grave robber would say. I don\'t see how the fluff diminishes the hobby at all. It is entertaining to read, and you can ignore it if you want to. I find the fluff often provides inspiation for conversions and paint schemes, and doesn\'t limit your possibilities in any way. Just because a model isn\'t flashy doesn\'t mean it\'s worse than a model that is flashier but painted to the same standard. it\'s just personal style and taste (wich is fine). Fluff I say \"bring it on\"! It just adds fuel to my creative fire!

Crave Robber that thing oozes Khorne, The severed head, the axe,the red and gold armour. He even has a khorne symbol on his belt buckle .

 

[Spacemunkie]

Didn\'t say \'cooler or better\', I said \'stick in the mind\'.

Just don\'t see the point in fielding identi-kit armies...

So Gw have improved on Tolkein??lol

Have you seen their LOTR minis??!!

And Wurzag is right. That model is one of the most \'Khorne\' minis I\'ve ever seen. I can feel a \'naturalistic\' RLobinske-ism coming on!!! The headress fits perfectly with Khorne. He\'s Khorne colours. He has a severed head. He has skulls. He has a BFAxe. He has a Khorne logo!!!

Read the fluff!!!

 

[GraveRobber]

Like I said I never was a fan of LOTR, although I did watch the old cartoon as a kid and found it mildly enteraining, but that was mostly for the blarog and undead riders.

See for me I have always loved the \"dark fantasy\" style compared to the \"high fantasy\" style ( you know the damsel and dragons and goodly crap god i cant stand that stuff heh ), so when I orignaly got Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay back in the late 80s I imediatly fell in love, here was a this world with all the D&D/LOTR typpe monsters, only with this awsome similarity to european middle ages human like populace and nowhere was safe and you could die very easily and you could trust nobody, anyone who is familiar with WFRP knows what im talking about, GW literly created this dark fantasy style, with only moorcock before them but that was elf based ( and god do I hate pansy elves ! even tho elric isnt a pansy ), it was a dark gritty ugly universe and I love it to this day.

As far as GW\'s LOTR take, yea I have seen the models I think they are totaly garbage but on a money making lvl hey I guess they are milking all the fan boys right ? so they did something right I guess heh.

I find GW\'s take on orcs ( especialy the old Marauder line ) too be much cooler and violent and more stylish. I think their interpretation of chaos is probably my fav right now but their undead style is also pretty killer, im not big on TK but the old undead and vampire counts is very fun stuff, I suggest reading Necromancer its a very evoking read and an interesting take in the eyes of a practicioner compared to the witch hunter like pespectives, anyway im getting off track...

 

[Spacemunkie]

Hmmm. WFRP just oozed generic fantasy characters and settings for me....

Best things GW ever did were Slaves to Darkness and Lost and the Damned. Fantastic books with loads of great artwork inside. So good they\'re still living off them nearly 20 years later!!

 

[GraveRobber]

Meh to each their own but its hard to say WFRP is generic, I sure havent seen any other rpg\'s anywhere close to it, in terms of background and style.

Yea the old Chaos hardbacks were amazing for sure, they reallly went the extra mile with detail with those two. Somewhere over the course of 4th ( I think that was the high elf orc box ? ) the started getting away from the more adult content like stuff from the chaos books, shame really cause they also started getting more cartoony with their models and colors, yuck.

Hahaha Rblinski ? I met him back on the GW forums, we had a bit of a head 2 head a few times. I know all about his \"realism\" and painting styles (wink).

I am sorry guys but that model is just not khornate in the slightest, the head is a nice touch and the painting is very well done but he needs some more skulls, some more khorne like armor and detail for me to say hes oozing it.

For one the body armor is all wrong, its not even very bulky or detailed with skulls or brass plating, secondly the axe is purple and imo looks pretty generic, I think maybe if the shaft had some more detail ( like with mini skulls ) or an axe of khone blade it would fit the part more, also what is up with the purple chainmail and nurgle like cloak ? I think brass or normal metal would look alot better, and the NMM eek...is that supposed to be gold ? the GD juggy nmm at least looks gold ! I cant really tell what the metal is supposed to be on this, it looks like some putrid brown stuff with highlighting.

 

[Spacemunkie]

You\'re just talking bollocks now

 

[GraveRobber]

This

And this ( this is the best one on here I could find that is super fluffy )

And finaly an official shot, but man i love the deep dark evil looking red and awsome brass use

These my friends, these OOOOOOOZE KHORNE!

 

[Spacemunkie]

But they\'re crap! EM rush jobs. A bit of scab red slapped over a black undercoat, with a red gore highlight. Poo.

The Hot-Lead one is spot on, but I still prefer Yellow One\'s. It\'s unique. You\'d expect that from a chaos champion surely....?:moon:

 

[QuietiManes]

For me it depends. I can appreciate a figure who looks like it\'s realisticly been in a war (RLobinskeism) and I can appreciate a figure who looks like it\'s been hiding under plastic wrap shining up his armour instead of fighting (BobbyWongism).

Although when you get to an extreme on either end I tend to dislike them also. The ones that look dirty and war torn can go too far and start to look like an excuse to use muddy colours, sloppy paint job and drybrushing. The ones who look like they belong in a show room start to look like a bad japanimation type character, power rangers. No matter how many times they fall in the dirt, they\'re still bright pink/yellow/green suits look spectacular.

Which is why I dont like much work from either of the \"ism\" artists I mentioned above. Clearly there\'s some talent there, but it\'s hidden under their \"technique\". IMHO that is.

RE: following the GW fluff. I dont see how painting a khorne figure red means my paintjob must be crap all of a sudden. I mean, yellow, it\'s not original Spacemunkie, sorry to tell you, it\'s been done. They\'ve all been done. All the colours of the rainbow and a million more have the space marines been painted. *points and giggles at the barbie one* I\'d admit the blue ultra marines and red khorne figures are getting a bit boring but the only colours that havent been done to exhaustion are colours that most people dont like. Which goes back to the \"it\'s all been done\" part. Nothing\'s original. Getting to my point, a good paint job shows through, fluffy or not, right?

 

[vincegamer]

Originally posted by GraveRobber
K I want to explain this a little better since I was the one who brought it up.

... then you have the enthusiasts, these are the people who both play and enjoy the modeling and painting aspect as well as the backgrounds etc of the GW world of games...

I don\'t fit any of your categories. I come closest to this one because I game and I enjoy painting. I love gaming more than painting, but I can paint alone and gaming takes more time and people.
So, my ideal is to game, and if I\'m gaming I want to use a good looking army. However, I hate the fluff. Well, not all of it is so bad. What I really hate is that it changes drastically ever 6 months. For me, personally, the fluff adds nothing to the game experience and I ignore it whenever possible.

 

[Spacemunkie]

Originally posted by QuietiManes
For me it depends. I can appreciate a figure who looks like it\'s realisticly been in a war (RLobinskeism)...

His minis weren\'t \'realistic\'. Apparently they were just shitly painted...

 

[Spacemunkie]

Originally posted by QuietiManes
I mean, yellow, it\'s not original Spacemunkie, sorry to tell you, it\'s been done.

What are you wittering on about??!

You\'ll notice from the capital letters on \"Yellow One\'s\" along with the possessive apostrophe, that it is a proper noun.

I was referring to a person, not yellow minis.....lol

 

[freakinacage]

i think that bezerker is as khornate as they come - dark, red and gold, angry (almost bezerk, you might say!). love his face.

also that hot lead daemion prince is lovely

as for my views, i like them to be different and preferably in line with the fluff. but it\'s not the be all and end all. after all it\'s science FICTION.