What would you rate this at?

[War Griffon]

Whilst browsing my weekly visit to GW UK Web in the conversion corner article I came across this

Yes the conversion is a nice idea but the actual paint job left me wondering as to the fact is GW losing their minds?

Sorry Tammy if you are reading this it is not aimed at you or anybody specific but given the work normally produced by GW this just seems to go in the opposite direction.

 

[War Griffon]

Ummmm link didn\'t seem to work so here it is again in a different format.

http://uk.games-workshop.com/download/popupwhite.htm?/news/conversion/assets/cadian-rough-riders-1-large.jpg

 

[klute_in_the_valute]

Looks pretty god awful to me.Theres a color scheme and it looks to be painted to look dirty but its shot from the wrong angle.I think that you should only take \"battle worn \" so far.I dont know but is this a submitted pic or a shop gallery one,cant imagine the latter.

 

[kittykat23uk]

Judging by the write up, this is a conversion and paintjob by a guy in their direct sales department. It is therefore not done by one of their professional painters, i.e the \'eavy metal team. I would probably rate this a 5, (6 if I was feeling more generous). The conversion is OK, it\'s nicely based but the painting is very rough IMHO, especially the left hand.

Regards

Kat

 

[frenchkid]

yeah I\'d probably say that kate is right, it\'s not rare too see some conversion articles in WD wich features some not so well painted minis. I\'d probably give it a 6

 

[Flashman14]

ya .. that article is mosly about the converting as opposed to the painting...

Frankly the figs in their \"get your army on the table quick\" articles are also not noteworthy either. (the same often seen in their How To Paint Citadel Miniatures book)

The conversion here is an 8 but the paint is a 4: 6

 

[finn18]

I think we are forgetting a basic fact...

As I have said on a number of occasions (sorry for being boring) there are two main types of \'mini people\' out there: those who primarily game and those who primarily paint. This is why we keep getting the argument about what qualifies as \'tabletop\'.
I suspect us painters are hopelessly outnumbered by the gamers. I also suspect that while there will always be an aspect of GW that focuses on the very highest quality painting, to place too much emphasis on \'Eavy Metal\' standard painting may serve to alienate GWs main customer base. There are an awful lot of people out there who couldn\'t give a sh*t about the painting quality as long as they can get their pieces into play and I suppose they need articles too. Hell, it makes a wonderful change to look at a mini in WD or whatever and think \'Hey! I can do as well/better than that\'. After looking through the CMON Annual, I just want to burn my brushes

 

[Dragonsreach]

The term \"Rough as a Badgers Bum\" is coming to mind there. It\'s a good conversion into a Rough Rider, but surely it should deserve a better paintjob. (and if the originator of the piece is reading this I\'m not intending to cause offence. Just my opinion).

 

[supervike]

my two cents....

I agree with the Finn18 (I wonder if he is related to that other Finn?) This seems to qualify as a \'tabletop quality\' mini that somebody wanted to game with.

I like the conversion quite a bit though, and think it looks very cool.

 

[vincegamer]

5

because he\'s got good effects in there, just not well executed (mud on tire, goggles etc)

As to the conversion, it looks like Junior stole daddies Hog.
(English translation - slight size discrepency between rider and bike)

 

[Valander]

Originally posted by finn18
As I have said on a number of occasions (sorry for being boring) there are two main types of \'mini people\' out there: those who primarily game and those who primarily paint. This is why we keep getting the argument about what qualifies as \'tabletop\'.

Agreed. But, when I\'m judging minis here, I consider \"tabletop\" to be just that: what I usually see on the tables in game stores or cons. In other words, for me, the \"5\" is what the average *gamer* paints--not what the average *painter* paints.

Because of this difference in focus, it can be hard sometimes to figure out what the figure (sorry, had to take the pun) should be rated. Is this a gaming piece for a massive army? Or is it a character for an RPG (which has far fewer figures typically)? Or is it a contest entry or display piece? To me, each one of these should have a different \"average\" level of painting. But, unfortunately, it\'s far too difficult to categorize everything on this site that way and give a different rating scale to each (not to mention how would you compare a \"gaming\" piece against a \"display\" piece?).

So, with that in mind, I\'d most likely give this a 5.5. The painting is typical of what\'s on the table, but the conversion is better done than most.

 

[SHG]

Would get a 4.5 in my books - to me it\'s a good conversion, but the paintjob just isn\'t gaming standard (again, IMO).

If he had kept to basic colours and not tried to do highlights, instead focusing on keeping it neat I think it would probably look 10 times better. It\'s just comes across as messy simply because the highlights seem to have been applied haphazardly (sp?)

Sean

 

[asphyx]

it\'s strange... it\'s a low painting quality, especially for GW... I wonder why they use this picture on their website =)

 

[finn18]

Possibly...

Originally posted by asphyx
it\'s strange... it\'s a low painting quality, especially for GW... I wonder why they use this picture on their website =)

...because it is a lot better than the vast majority of their customers can achieve, but attainable. Unlike the \'Eavy Metal stuff?

 

[Errex]

5.5. The conversion alone is well done, and most paint falls inside the lines, hence the half point.