For me it's the difference between Imperial propaganda, where marines are bright, bold beacons of the Emperor's might, and the actual reality of things where marines are borderline psychopathic killing machines. Both styles work wonderfully in the hands of a skilled painter.
Macca, it's been over a year now, but this video has been at the back of my mind ever since. I am working on a video of my own as we speak, focusing on the history of the Forgeworld style of painting. Thank you as always for the inspiration.
This difference shows also when viewing art in their books. In GW you have colourful over the top dioramas and in FW some black-white or sepia "photos" like they are actual WW I or WW II images. With ruins, smoking buildings and such. When I first saw the difference in GW's take on imperial guard and FW's one it almost blew my mind.
@@KuK137 It saddens me deeply that I prefer more toned down FW style, yet I don't qualify as a grognard, as my airbrush setup is worth barely 3 boxes of incestor marines. :(
What's wrong with preferring more colorful and vibrant colors? It's all about taste and preference, I don't want my Salamanders to look like Dark Angels
The simple answer is 40k models are painted solely with gw paints. Where forgeworld models are display pieces and the artist has had no restrictions on what paints they could use. The best example of this is the alpha legion as forge world have publicly said how it was painted to get that look and it involves a substantial number of non gw produced paints.
I use the old FW weathering powder on EVERYTHING...Whilst highlighting the sh** out of your models does give impact, I'm Grim Dark all the way. Even my Tau are filthy.
Seeing fw painting for the first time, I get semi realistic style vibes like how ww1-2 miniatures are done, with powdering and oils. Being self taught and learning from the old 05-10 white dwarves, I began to love and be inspired by how eavy metal does their miniatures. Along the way I began a deviant from the eavy style more tone down "Grim" style of painting.
I get a weird vibe from _SOME_ of the Forge World painted stuff. Like that discolouration on the exhaust looks very unfinished to me (I don't see any hints of metalics behind the gradient). Stuff like that happens sometimes on their model that are not the main display pieces, like a particular detail that doesn't look like it was finished, a pouch or a gun that doesn't seem to have received anything but a base-coat... that kind of stuff. It always seems to me that they're more concerned with getting whatever they made out of the door quickly and don't even bother painting it all. Especially when you're outside of the HH range.
Maybe it's to be a bit closer goal? Majority of us propably won't paint with same quality as 'Eavy Metal, but it's pretty easy to get inspired by it. Edge highlighting is hard if you want straight lines like in display models, but as a concept, it's simple. Just draw a lighter lines on edges. It's easy to catch on it and improve quality of your miniatures. And it's also cheap, all you need is the paints you would already have, and a light grey/white paint to make a lighter version of the color. Now, Forge World. They are gorgeous, but in a lot of cases I have a hard time of figuring out how to get the effect. They use pretty complicated techniques. Some will require additional products like weathering powders. All in all, they can be pretty intimidating. Intimidating your costumers may not be the best marketing move. And box art/display miniatures are ALL about marketing, after all how they will actually look like depends wholly on you.
I prefer the cleaner and clearcut GW style to the forge world pseduo realism style. Much more straightforward, and less nonsense weathering (seriously, stop chipping and weathering and dirtying up absolutely everything, the imperium can afford a bucket of soap and an extra bucket of paint if needed). It just looks nicer. But you can't over detail it. Like the sculpt for Guilman is so much better in FW than GW. The clearcut style works exactly because you do not overburden the model with a lot of extraneous crap.
@@KuK137 That's a fair point, though I still think the model would look better with less trim. Honestly lore wise it is a bit weird that he is on the front lines at all, he should be waaaaaay back behind friendly lines commanding the entire ultramar war effort, not beating up individual stuff in random battles. Though I understand that would make it difficult to sell a model of him to be used in games. When I first heard he had returned to 40k I thought they were gonna put him in a dreadnought.
I've been criticized at my local game store (only by young/new players for not having enough highlighting on my models to make them more like GW. Its kinda weird how people can come to the idea there is only one way to paint a model that is any good. I prefer the FW style and always did. Remember when 40k was in it's 2nd edition? Every photo had guys posed on lush green fields. That never seemed right to me. 40K is too dark a universe for such bright and cheery scenes.
I think the gold FW does on their Custodes (and even Sanguinius) is far too dulled and dirty. A real Custodes would be ashamed to let their armour get to that state - especially that verdigris all over the new Venatari jump pack guys. Getting dirty mid-battle is one thing, but letting such tarnish and corrosion take root in between? Not right.
I model both 40k and historical. I mix my paint styles on my 40k mini's mild edge highlighting but weathering to the max, streaking and dirt and grime. Hell I do very light edge highlights in my historical mini's. The key is do the best you can and bring what feels right for the mini. I love the classic retro 90s 40k style bright and mental, but I also really enjoy that Grim Dark Realism. Bloody good episode Macca.
I know I'm overstepping the subject a bit, but god damn the basing on Forge World miniatures is atrocious and makes me want to gouge my eyes out every-time I see it, and I'm not talking about the sculpted bases. Games Workshop style: "Ha my model with extreeeeeeeme edge highlights and monkeyface syndrome is done, time to work on a nice multi-textured base with a few tufts and tasteful dry brushing, maybe a few rocks and a skull for good measure." Forge world style: "Ha my miniature with an upside down bolter muzzle and strands of shit for fur is done, time to slab 5 kilos of coarse sand and spray an uniform coat of shit on top of it, oops it went all over the feet and legs of the model? Nevermind!"
I'd have to somewhat disagree with you. The over done basing style of FW seems to be trying hard to get a stupidly gritty and dirty aesthetic of a brutal brother-on-brother war which for the setting seems to be at the least theamatically fitting. Though in the end it's entirely subjective
As a person that prefers the GW style of painting, I have to say that the custodes land raider and GW Guilliman sculpt are the most hideous things I have ever seen on GW's webstore. While the realistic style of painting looks better in close up photos, or when you have the model inches from your nose, I like the way GW style of painting makes the details pop on the gaming table, which is where I spend most of my time looking at them. It's not about making them look cartoony, it's about cranking up the contrast so you don't lose details at distance.
Hey Macca, I have two questions. Firstly, could you do a video on how to do the 30k style and what materials you use? Also, what's your opinion on the GW Corvus Blackstar style? Cos even though it's got strong highlights, it's got scratches, burns, soot, and heat effects. Is that a good compromise between the two?
Would you be willing to do a painting tutorial on how to achieve those more ‘muted’ colour tones? Such as the metallics and what I’m guessing are blended colours with washes mixed in or layered/blended in with an airbrush?
Have a google mate there's tons of good tutorials about. ua-cam.com/video/VepXVggrfiE/v-deo.html is a pretty great channel for example if you want to get good at painting although I cant remember if they cover exactly what you're after.
I personally think 'eavy metal style looks better than forgeworld on the tabletop, the high contrast highlights make detail easier to see from far away.
Yes, the 'realistic' style with weathering, scorching, chips and scratches can look great close up or in a high quality photo but look a total mess on the tabletop. You have to bear in mind what the purpose of the paint-job is when you plan your scheme, I think.
FW: "Hey guys, did you know paint exists?" GW: "Did you guys know that combining 'ard coat with a shade, then drawing towards the end of an appendage gives a nice transition?"
Something additional i think is worth mentioning that relates to a conversation I had with a mate of mine whos building an old metal sisters of battle army I was questioning his logic in not waiting for the newer better sculpted presumably plastic models, but be argued that the ones you see on the gw site look bad because they're painted too detailed for the low-detail sculpt. This in a way applies here, not so to the weathering aspect but when you have a lower detail non-resin model it can help to put less detail into the paintjob too achieve a nicer result
I think neither is more afvanced really, just a different emphasis. GW's style is lots of mid-tones and (particularly edge) highlighting, whereas FW leans less into varying the base colors but creating visual interest with wear and tear. Weathering oil paints and such is the name of the game here.
I think 1 thing to take into account is that the cartoonish style of games workshop is definitely more inviting for people that have just heard about 40K and are interested in getting into it whereas the forge world might put some people off, I'm not a great painter but I think I can do something approximating the games workshop style whereas all the blending and effects in the forge world examples might be a bit intimidating for newcomers.
GW Style. Comic book /Cartoony exaggerated outlines on everything FW Style. Source lighting, Realism, lots of blending, Subtle color shifting etc I paint minis in FW style for commission in my city :)
Thanks for the video Macca, I didn't realise there was such a difference with FW/GWs painting styles until you've pointed out, at which point it seems rather obvious. I much prefer the FW style and it shows if you go that little bit further you can really bring more realistic life to the models
I find somewhat of a mix in style. I use quite bright colours, but use my airbrush to acheive zenithal highlighting with no edge highlights. I do slight chipping on the armour, dusting and dirt on the legs/ firearm. They're bright and pop on the table, but look good close up too. I think it's a good balance for me.
I didn't like the bright yellow used in the NMM of Raldoron either, it definitely looks cartoonish and out of place in FW's style. I will add, however, that GW's style is aimed at both showing all the details (which FW can obscure) for a clear image of the model, and presenting an achievable result that a new, most probably young, customer can achieve. When I think of the first military model I painted when I was a kid, and before I got into 40K, it was a Spitfire painted in flat colours. When I found GW at age 11, I was introduced to shading and highlighting and aimed to replicate the 'Eavy Metal examples of the time. FW, on the other hand, are aimed towards experienced modellers and painters, most probably with experience of realistic military model making and painting, and their painting reflects that - they know who their customers are. When it comes to this Raldoron model though, I think they've tried to exemplify the shining gold of Sanguinius' armour, but have gone too far into the yellow spectrum, when a realistic gold would have been better.
there`s a bit of edge highlighting on the FW minis too, but as I see it, there are two major stylistic choices that differentiate them, which tends to pull me towards FW: saturation and contrast. There are tons of ways to balance those elements, my preferred choices are: 1-) to have a high shading contrast, specially with cold shadows, making the lighter parts pop. 2-) weathering. FW style tends to go that way, but I see it on GW too. Nice oil stains and rust, may some mud, they help with the contrast. GW's "EavyMetal" style is not easy, but it's easier then pulling a good FW style. It's easier to teach and easier to achieve good results. From a marketing point of view, it's the best possible choice.
FW resins seem to have a thinner/sharper look which is harder to edge highlight so needs more attention to the light and extra techniques like weathering to stand out, so in a sense GW methods don't work on them, whereas all methods are viable on GW models. Also the realism isn't always commendable alongside plastic kits and unlike FW which has always specializard in collectors pieces most of GWs line is made with tabletop viewing in mind.
Younger painters tend to like the more muted and dull style. My suggestion is that if you like weathering then you should try doing historical modeling. I am old school and tend to think that fantasy space giants from the year 40,000 should look eyecatching. Trying to make something that is clearly not realistic, look realistic is just silly. C'mon guys, buy some Sherman tank models instead.
A lot of historical modeling is actually done in a more cutesy/colourful style instead of extreme realism as well :p I think it really depends on the type of painter at the end of the day. I'm someone who is also into historical stuff as well and me and people around me tend to give our dudes colourful uniforms, clear skin etc. instead of being covered in dirt and blood all the time.
Just because something is science fiction or as you say “unrealistic” does not mean it is just silly to paint them realistically. It makes sense that marines in the books that go through the deepest darkest intense shit storms get dirty and damaged. Have you not read any of the books from the black library? Also, being eyecatching, what does that mean to you? It seems like a subjective word that doesn’t exclude something being pointed realistically. All you’ve said is “I don’t like it, you shouldn’t either. Go paint WWII tanks...” nice one
@@627hjc Exactly on the mark about the lore. Lore and artwork are two things I personally draw inspiration from, and with 30k/40k it's blatantly gritty. Battletech is also something of a similar sorts, but that 'clean' style fits in my opinion something like various Fantasy miniature games and for example Infinity. - Your hobby, your call, no need to pull punches about doing it wrong, and I'm also in to WW2 aircraft model kits and Bolt Action/Flames. Hitting above thirty five soon, and to me, it seems the young'uns only know about the clean paint style with emphasis on edge highlights on top of edge highlights, as it's all you hear at GW and LGS painting competitions. Those super-edge highlighted models also tend to win those competitions.
Not fair at all. You do what you want, but it's unfair to encourage people not to paint whatever models they want however they want. Your artistic tastes aren't objective dogma for the rest of us to follow.
Did you really just say “youngins” when you’re 35? Come on. Even ignoring the fact that trying to type cast a whole group of people based entirely on their age is silly...acting like you’re somehow old and wisened at 35 is worthy of an eye roll. Paint however you want and stop trying to make up silly type casts about others based on how they paint.
Hey Macca, do you have any resources for painting models in a FW style aside from the masterclass books? Even stuff from the WWI/WWII wargaming community if you think it would be useful. Could be an idea for a video if you could be bothered. Cheers.
I found the image of the 40k blood angels and the forgeworld thunderhawk next to each other quite jarring because of how different the paint schemes are. To me the difference between the two styles shows what I can currently achieve with my limited painting skills (GW style) to what I aspire to be able to achieve ( with the FW style).
Can someone point me to some good tutorials for the forge world style? I never liked edge highlighting but it was the only thing I knew and I want to change my paint style.
Great stuff! You ought to start a series about this where you go a little more in depth and compare, say, 40k Iron Warriors vs 30k or the same with Ultramarines. You clearly are an immensely talented painter and I'd love to hear what you have to say.
I've always been bad at edge highlighting, and even now I'm still learning. I don't think I could go through and painstakingly highlight every raised edge on power armour, twice, the same way most GW painted models seem to have done it. It just looks so incredibly tedious and time consuming, not to mention requiring a lot of patience and an incredibly steady hand. Drybrushing is fine, and edge highlighting to make sure certain raised points stand out or areas that can't be taken care of with a drybrush, that sort of thing. So the highlights tend to be subtle and limited to one or two colours. Dark Angels and Crimson Fists for example have a fairly deep armour colour so one highlight is all they really need. I really want to go for the FW style paintjobs, and from now on that's what I'll get my inspiration from. For ages I've been meaning to paint Emperor's Children with the use of GW's tint set to create a metallic pinkish-purple armour. I tried it on the new plastic Noise Marine and now I just need to save up for a while (thanks to my Crimson Fists getting the priority and FW's price structure). I want to learn more of FW's painting techniques, ways of making my 30k and 40k models look more realistically textured, more "gritty" and less cartoony than the way they're usually presented. Also on Custodes I was really inspired by the FW style of painting, especially on their photos of the Achillus and Galatus Dreadnoughts. That sort of old, weathered and worn gold like something out of the movie 300. I don't know if it's exactly the same but basecoating them with Warplock Bronze and doing an all-over drybrush of Golden Griffon worked really well, I was pretty happy with the results. And to neaten up around any of the filigrey and such with Agrax. And obviously Khorne Red looks a lot better next to it than Mephiston does.
You don’t mean games workshop you mean ‘citadel’ games workshop is the company - forgeworld is a part of games workshop as is the main (citadel) design studio. So you mean ‘citadel vs forgeworld’ as both are games workshop
Games Workshop = super clean / Forgeworld = Been fighting for 10,000 years Generally I like Forgeworld better, especially as a Nurgle player, but on the tabletop, you need a little bit of the GW pop. A very dark grimey model on the tabletop won't stand out at all, so it's all about getting a happy medium in my opinion.
Nope. Forgeworld frequently uses whatever they need to get a certain look, while GW uses Citadel exclusively to make sure you can always paint the style they show you.
While I’m probably preaching to quire here GW vs FW. One is going for high contrast, highlighting the sculpt, and as eye popping as possible while being beginner friendly in order to market to said beginners.The other is going for grim realism. While at the same fruit stand, apples and oranges are being compared. Both are far beyond the Base coat, dry brush, wash style I started out with.
How can people say they dislike the 30k Guilliman when the 40k Guilliman looks like a dollarama toy? I almost puked when I seen his stupid face. I agree 30k Guilliman is Romanesque and totally badass. 40k version looks like a world of Warcraft character made into a kids toy.
@@karn6356 I`ve seen it in person with the helmet. Garbage quality sculpt. Proportions are god awful. I actually like most smurf characters, 40k guilliman is not one of them.
@@KuK137 Enjoy your dollarama toy. The head is disproportioned to his arms as well as the legs. And the detail on guilliman is dull, The FW model is far more realistic. Valdors face is still a million times better than 40k derp face guilliman. Valdors face is proportioned properly unlike the constipated looking dollarama toy. The entire GW 2nd/3rd ed range are worse sculpts than Valdor in every conceivable way. What kind of meth are you smoking? You want to tell me Khorne Berzerkers look better? LMFAO
@@ProjectRevoltNow well lore wise he's in a big specialised healing armour so it's basically a med ward inside of armour of course it's not gonna be in proportion, the head is a bad sculpt though.... Very bad.
To be fair, GW is for the casual player/painter, while FW is more for the advanced player/painter. Most people willing to spend FW money tend to spend more time on their models.
Funny that in the scale modelling world, they have the exact opposite problem. Aircraft look like they've been left in the rain for eons. Operational tanks look like they've abandoned for years. The good thing is that any shoddy paintjobs can be covered up with weathering. In fact, things like colour modulation (shading) and pre-shading has been catching a lot of flak in the scale modelling world for "not being realistic" Plus, heavy weathering will completely obscure it at the end of the day. Personally, I play with weathering mainly for scale modelling - lots of nice flat surfaces to push the limit with things like oil dot, hairspray, etc. I only apply lighting effects (colour modulation/zenithal/shading) to 40k models, as the scale is smaller, so it shows more realistically, with minimal weathering. Not worth weathering if you do light-source painting, it obscures your hard work, and the benefit is very marginal for the effort put in. Plus the techniques applied will be extremely minimal beyond using pigments. Hairspray weathering doesn't look good in that scale.
I think the forgworld paint job is more realistic. No tank will ever look like it is fresh out of the paint shop, during a conflict, chips, dirt build up and marks from small arms fire do happen.
I agree with you at certain things GW has changed the way they paint like the example you give of the storm raven you look how that is painted to the newer models produced by GW, I have gone off 40k with the 8th Edition rules, much prefer Horus heresy
40k is less realistic to make it easier for entry level painters and younger audiences, making it more attractive as its easier to get close to the website picture than compared to the more detailed and realistic forgeworld
Great, thanks a lot for this episode. I was going to suggest a topic like 30k vs 40k painting after you've mentioned it in one of the last vids. As for suggestions, you were talking about old vs current Golden deamon, can you please expand on this subject in similar comparison style video? Anyways, greetings from Poland, where GW store prices are 1/4 higher than independent hobby stores. You're not alone ;-)
You also have to take into account the price difference. 3 models for $120 is going to look a lot better then the 10 models for $45. If i was an advertiser I would make sure the stupid expensive shit looked amazing so it could sell
GW painting style is meant to look good but be feasible to a novice to moderate level painter. Base, shade, highlight(edge or dry brush), is a very easy way to transfer those bunch of boyz to the tabletop for play. It’s meant to get the new guy on the table playing and enjoying the hobby. FW has some infantry stuff but let’s be real. People buy from FW for the big bois. Tanks, characters, Titans, etc. Big show pieces that bring the army together or catch the eye and envy of fellow hobbyists. A lot more time is going to be spent on a FW model so they utilize more advanced techniques on their display pieces. Layering, blending, OSL, NMM are all techniques that require practice and time to do well. And given the time commitment, will be done one at a time on a hobbyists showcase model.
I personally prefer the GW style. I like the bolder look of the GW style, I think it pops more. Although I acknowledge that a part of this is because I can't paint anything close to FW models.
This was actually straight up stated by GW (if I recall correctly, both Duncan and Peachy stated as such). GW's models, specifically those on the website and on the box art, are specifically designed to be simple, straight forward, and reliably easy to reproduce by the average user. Basic layer or two, wash for shading, and edge highlighting is super-easy to produce by anyone within weeks of starting the hobby and watching a few videos from Duncan and Peachy. Because they don't go down the path of weathering and wear, the models come out looking cartoony. Forge World is not. Forge World models are clearly painted by people who use advanced techniques and may even use non-GW supplies and techniques to produce the effects they do. I've been in this hobby since 1999, and I can comfortably tell you I have yet to try sponge-based weathering or using weathering powders. Like, at all. I look at GW models and I'm like "Yeah, I can almost do that. Shaky hands are really the only thing holding me back and I'm happy with my painting." I look at Forge World models and my response is, "I'll never be anywhere near that good, ever, and honestly, I'm not willing to put the effort in to even try." So which paint scheme is going to motivate me, more? The GW one. That's why they do it.
I always found the fw painting to be really good due to the realism. But I play 40k and mainly do it in the cartoon style only because it's I just think it matches to more unrealistic parts of it.
GW style I see as 'cartoony striving for realism' whereas FW style is 'yeah, I am a miniature but I will do anything to appear real.'. Having said this for my 40K minis I don't like that 'clean' straight out of the factory (vehicles) and straight out of Space Marine academy look entirely that you see on the outer box. I like to dirty up my white decals with army painter washes and paint scratches and dirt on my 40k minis with zenithial priming. It's more effort but the results can look amazing
To be fair to GW, i feel although their art style is more basic than FW, I feel it is dont intentionally so that it gives the average hobbyist a fair and achievable guide to copy. Although they are no where near as cool looking in my opinion, GW painted models do still look quite nice on the battlefield, whereas FW gives guides to those who are prehaps more experienced or skilled.
I personally prefer Games Workshop's style. Certain armies really lend themselves to that style, and a lot of people tend to use the "its gritty and realistic" excuse for plain sloppy paintwork
I see your point. I prefer the 40k style. And to correct the golden demon is now a painting competition not anymore a conversion/sculpting/free hand competition. It's the execution that prime on the other stuff. And the level is so high now compare to 10-20 years ago it's scary ! Even Slayer sword winner like Bruno Grelier in 1999 in a FW style demonwinner.free.fr/france/1999/slayer_sword.php?p=3&lang=fr or victoria lamb cannot compete to actual slayer sword winner IMO. Highlight are clean perfect, damaged minor but perfectly executed. The difference know it artist form beaux art school that compete, in the old time it was hobby enthusiasm. And miniature coming from the heavy metal team are at his level of perfection, you can make a kind of look like, but even the goldy landraider has perfect highlight. There is no highlight on FW tank just some air brush light vs line on each armor panel for 40k. It's more flash but require more step and dexterity.
I believe just saying cartoonish is a disservice, more clean, sterile, "perfect", where as the FW painting style is muddied, dirty, worn, chipped, old, bearing mars of it`s long service etc kinda theme. Because you can do bright bold "cartonish" colors, and still have amazing weathering etc, and aslong as it`s done well, you can have absolutely phenomenal models, that have "cartoonish" colors aka "perfect clean" colors etc, but with weathering, and still have that forge world look. Just harder to pull off for the average person usually. Also I absolutely love almost everything about FW Guilliman, the only thing I do not like is no helmet, I like helmeted SM more than non-helmeted SMs even primarchs. Also to say it`s just a "heresy" style is imo also a disservice to both sides, its just adding weathering, and the like to a higer detail, and taking more time with layering, blending, and highlighting. From my view it could be seen as more "serious", but I think it`s just a matter of being more worn, and influenced by how alot of what forge world does, they want you to feel in the story, and have the equipment straight from a battlefield, imo it is legitimately like how the old salts have worn fatigues, from washing, and wear, that are comfortable, and dulled down in color, compared to a fresh set that still has the starch in, and on it. Completely clean equipment for a parade basically compared to the battlefield, worn look like new leather vs old leather..
reboot is omegon. i mean, he wears the friggin omega, he's clearly gonna wack into the warp and shake hands with alpharius like friends that haven't seen eachother in a while.
The 30k blood angle is painted more to 3rd Ed. paint scheme for a throw back look but I can agree. Forge world painters show a grittier, dirtier version
I think some of the FW models under-do it with edge highlights, especially with a lot of the paint jobs from before the Blood Bowl era. Using loads of chipping and weathering powders works great for vehicles, but it tends to make the details on infantry look muddy and undefined. I can see the appeal of painting an army like that for the tabletop, but an official paint job should really be trying to sell you on the details by making them stand out. And I don't think there's anything wrong (for lack of a better word) with edge highlighting in itself, it's more how GW/'Eavy Metal use it. They're usually the *only* sort of highlighting on the model, and done with really high contrast, which is where the cartoonishness comes from.
Your talking a fashion design changes over 10,000 years...collectable to playable or the story of treachery murder or keeping the empire while the other shows father is unavailable so wear what you want ?! Every style is different but you'll never change the price at service to the public.
IMHO the GW stuff looks way, way better than forgeworld painting. It's neatly done and looks really cool. A lot of the forgeworld stuff looks a bit messy at times, unfinished looking and kind of a bit over the top attempting detail. Also everything is highly battleworn...which doesn't make much sense.
Anyone who was at the weekender: IS FW re-releasing the paints? I saw a pic of how they paint their legions and paints like "sons of horus green" etc are shown? Anyone know?
I wasn't at the weekender but my last trip was late November and they were encouraging us to pick up any of the FW paints if we wanted them as they weren't going to be coming back.
While I agree with you 110% in that I much, MUCH prefer the forgeworld style, please be careful in how you present the amount of effort involved; you present the FW style as a lot of extra work over and above GW as if the GW style is harf-arsed. I personally find that getting to the GW style takes 80% - 90% of the time, and adding battle damage, then airbrushing on a load of dirt and grime is not a huge amount more effort, and is actually the most enjoyable part of the project, after a load of hard painting grind to get a really neat, good quality paint job to dirty up. Don't take it as harsh c&c; Ii enjoyed your video and I fully agree with your preference, but I do feel your preference comes through as a prejudice. The worlds 'comical' and 'cartoonish' are negatively emotive, even if you do not mean them to be so. There are also some armies that REALLY benefit from the GW approach. the Imperium is not one of them, but there is something really beautiful about a properly blended, cleanly painted matte eldar that I've always been in awe of.
I can't speak to GW's simpler style but I've heard it said that 'Eavy Metal style is meant to be clear and visable from 3' away and Forge World from an up close inspection. But it could be a difference due to GW aiming their models at a younger age group than the more expensive (as a rule) Forge World ones. I think edge highlights have a place but people need to remember they are only meant to be highlights. Too often they seem to be used, even in codexes and GW promo stills as a replacement for shading. I suppose that it's easier to teach people to edge highlight a plain base coated mini, toget an army painted and on to the table than it is to take the time to do a bang up job with four or five layers of shading. And obviously it's more appealing to people for whom painting is a chore. I just can't stand cartoon Girlyman.
I see what your saying, but in the end they're marketing photos, your going to paint your own models so why care. If your "going to go that extra step" it doesn't really matter the painting on the box
GW believes that shiny stuff will draw in more normies. FW is more specialized and has a niche audience so they can use weathering to make the models look a bit "worse" for wear.
As long as people are not playing with bare metal and plastic. We should be accommodating. Let's not forget. Painting power armour again and again get tedious.
Well, I think for the likes of Forgeworld's character series a lot more time is spent painting each individual model. However, I'll say this. Whoever paints Forgeworld's showcase models is great... but man... they make an absolute pigs ear of so many of the model's faces.
Looks like Raldoron's gold is NMM. NMM never looks as good as a proper metallic paint. Same with that blood drop coming off his sword blade - does he know GW have invented Blood for the Blood God? There's no need for pretentious layers and layers of shading and blending when you have a good, simple and effective technical paint available.
I'd say properly done NMM looks way more convincing than metallic paints, since it accounts for how the light and shading would work if the character were at full size rather than 28mm scale. The problem with the NMM on Raldoron is that they half-assed it. And I'd disagree with Marneus - I don't think 'Eavy Metal use most technical paints, apart from the Martian base textures for their Ad Mech. Those are generally made more for tabletop quality stuff (think Duncan and Peachy), and they tend to look jarring on display-standard stuff, IMO.
NMM can look good, from one angle, but at any other angle it's lost. Like a good 2D artist can paint amazing looking metallic effects and lighting, etc. but on a 3D surface it's not going to translate. It's a 2D effect.
@@100thmonkey It is a 2D technique, but you can force the effect from any angle by painting it as if there's four light sources rather than one, arranged like a halo above the model. That's the trick Darren Latham (former 'Eavy Metal painter) uses. And if you're painting a model with full directional lighting, you'd want the effect to be lost from certain angles.
ie. too much of a wank for anything outside Golden Demon. Real metal on a warrior or war machine is not going to be super reflective anyway - so the level you find in metallic paints is just right, and much more simple.
I agree somewhat, I do believe some of the paint jobs on Forgeworld are absolutely awful! Some of the troop painting looks like it was done by a 5 year old without thinning the paints :P Although I agree, their larger/better models are painted more subtle, and have brilliant weathering effects. I do believe the GW and FW aesthetics are supposed to be markedly different. Whereas GW have the Eavy' Metal studio and their way of painting, I'm not sure Forgeworld celebrate their painters as much as GW does. Add to the fact the 40k Aesthetic seems to lean towards bright, outlandish coulourings which are quite stark. Forgeworld seem to be more grimy and subtle in their style.
The argument older than time is that "It's fiction, realistic war conditions(model kit style) shouldn't be used in this to begin with." - However, old John Blanche iterations and the art from the 90's are of a different sort. Far from cartoonish. I can accept both and see their merits, but what I personally dislike is when people start taunting the other side out of blessed ignorance and intolerance, and the self-righteous explanation of why "I am right.". Looking at color images of vehicles from WW2/Post WW2 that went through mud and gravel, for one day, can look worse than what FW has ever cooked up, and that famous 'bucket of water' has zero effect on that. Smearing tanks has also been used over 100 years to help them camouflage as well, which is not a new thing, when paint isn't readily available to match the surrounding. - As for the exhaust pipes and such details, just like the cartoonish GW style, sometimes some things are done to make an effect, at other times they are an iteration of real life, and how these tanks have multi-fuel engines. Ultimately these are two very different schools of how to paint, and that more realistic style often has its certain stages of a painting comparable/similar to a clean 'GW style'. It's just done further. - That GW style fits certain styles of miniature gaming in my opinion(like Fantasy, WMH, Infinity), but for me; wargaming with tanks/combined arms of a similar sorts, like Battletech, I prefer the art and the source material to feel out how it should be painted, and for 30k/40k: It's gritty and realistic, like in the lore. Same for Battletech, unless you're part of the Lyran Royal Guard who spend more time polishing their armour than actually fighting.
In my opinion, FW looks like flat, dirty toys, with detail that gets lost. The sharp highlights and brighter colors make the GW models pop, and define the details when they're on the table.
I dislike the everything must have green or blue airbrush glow style most ppl do noir the everything must be factory new and buffed to shine style gw has
I think it's newFW NMM style but restrained by need to show GW school for marketing needs of their paint system so it looks more crappy than normal NMM which still is nothing fancy except lot of work :) but it is IMHO and I really dislike NMM it's good in comic/manga/anime but for models TMM and realistic approach is a lot better, like FW Custodes paintjobs.
40k Robot Girlyman is a Cartoon, joke, age of sigmar, derp face transvestite. Usually i feel that 40k paintjobs look better on the table (2-3 feet away). I paint a lot of FW style grit. But a whole army can look like a brown blob from a distance. But Robot Girlyman 40k looks like a stormcast eternal from any distance.
For me it's the difference between Imperial propaganda, where marines are bright, bold beacons of the Emperor's might, and the actual reality of things where marines are borderline psychopathic killing machines. Both styles work wonderfully in the hands of a skilled painter.
Jacob Campion agreed!!
the lamenters are the first one
Macca, it's been over a year now, but this video has been at the back of my mind ever since. I am working on a video of my own as we speak, focusing on the history of the Forgeworld style of painting. Thank you as always for the inspiration.
This difference shows also when viewing art in their books. In GW you have colourful over the top dioramas and in FW some black-white or sepia "photos" like they are actual WW I or WW II images. With ruins, smoking buildings and such. When I first saw the difference in GW's take on imperial guard and FW's one it almost blew my mind.
40k art style is now so cartoony and soi induced
@@theirryhenry5121 soi induced?
@@KuK137 It saddens me deeply that I prefer more toned down FW style, yet I don't qualify as a grognard, as my airbrush setup is worth barely 3 boxes of incestor marines. :(
What's wrong with preferring more colorful and vibrant colors? It's all about taste and preference, I don't want my Salamanders to look like Dark Angels
The simple answer is 40k models are painted solely with gw paints. Where forgeworld models are display pieces and the artist has had no restrictions on what paints they could use. The best example of this is the alpha legion as forge world have publicly said how it was painted to get that look and it involves a substantial number of non gw produced paints.
Forge World used to have a range of their own paints and weathering powders.
I use the old FW weathering powder on EVERYTHING...Whilst highlighting the sh** out of your models does give impact, I'm Grim Dark all the way. Even my Tau are filthy.
Seeing fw painting for the first time, I get semi realistic style vibes like how ww1-2 miniatures are done, with powdering and oils. Being self taught and learning from the old 05-10 white dwarves, I began to love and be inspired by how eavy metal does their miniatures. Along the way I began a deviant from the eavy style more tone down "Grim" style of painting.
I get a weird vibe from _SOME_ of the Forge World painted stuff. Like that discolouration on the exhaust looks very unfinished to me (I don't see any hints of metalics behind the gradient). Stuff like that happens sometimes on their model that are not the main display pieces, like a particular detail that doesn't look like it was finished, a pouch or a gun that doesn't seem to have received anything but a base-coat... that kind of stuff. It always seems to me that they're more concerned with getting whatever they made out of the door quickly and don't even bother painting it all. Especially when you're outside of the HH range.
Maybe it's to be a bit closer goal? Majority of us propably won't paint with same quality as 'Eavy Metal, but it's pretty easy to get inspired by it. Edge highlighting is hard if you want straight lines like in display models, but as a concept, it's simple. Just draw a lighter lines on edges. It's easy to catch on it and improve quality of your miniatures. And it's also cheap, all you need is the paints you would already have, and a light grey/white paint to make a lighter version of the color.
Now, Forge World. They are gorgeous, but in a lot of cases I have a hard time of figuring out how to get the effect. They use pretty complicated techniques. Some will require additional products like weathering powders. All in all, they can be pretty intimidating.
Intimidating your costumers may not be the best marketing move. And box art/display miniatures are ALL about marketing, after all how they will actually look like depends wholly on you.
I prefer the cleaner and clearcut GW style to the forge world pseduo realism style. Much more straightforward, and less nonsense weathering (seriously, stop chipping and weathering and dirtying up absolutely everything, the imperium can afford a bucket of soap and an extra bucket of paint if needed). It just looks nicer.
But you can't over detail it. Like the sculpt for Guilman is so much better in FW than GW. The clearcut style works exactly because you do not overburden the model with a lot of extraneous crap.
@@KuK137 That's a fair point, though I still think the model would look better with less trim.
Honestly lore wise it is a bit weird that he is on the front lines at all, he should be waaaaaay back behind friendly lines commanding the entire ultramar war effort, not beating up individual stuff in random battles.
Though I understand that would make it difficult to sell a model of him to be used in games.
When I first heard he had returned to 40k I thought they were gonna put him in a dreadnought.
Whoa Goblin Green bases!
I like FW because it feels a bit more gritty and realistic, GW seems more like CGI or animation. I like both, but I prefer the FW style.
1000 dollars! On behalf of the UK I do apologise for this humanitarian issue
I've been criticized at my local game store (only by young/new players for not having enough highlighting on my models to make them more like GW. Its kinda weird how people can come to the idea there is only one way to paint a model that is any good.
I prefer the FW style and always did. Remember when 40k was in it's 2nd edition? Every photo had guys posed on lush green fields. That never seemed right to me. 40K is too dark a universe for such bright and cheery scenes.
When it's done well, a grittier, more realistic style can only need minimal highlighting.
I think the gold FW does on their Custodes (and even Sanguinius) is far too dulled and dirty. A real Custodes would be ashamed to let their armour get to that state - especially that verdigris all over the new Venatari jump pack guys.
Getting dirty mid-battle is one thing, but letting such tarnish and corrosion take root in between? Not right.
I model both 40k and historical. I mix my paint styles on my 40k mini's mild edge highlighting but weathering to the max, streaking and dirt and grime. Hell I do very light edge highlights in my historical mini's.
The key is do the best you can and bring what feels right for the mini. I love the classic retro 90s 40k style bright and mental, but I also really enjoy that Grim Dark Realism.
Bloody good episode Macca.
I know I'm overstepping the subject a bit, but god damn the basing on Forge World miniatures is atrocious and makes me want to gouge my eyes out every-time I see it, and I'm not talking about the sculpted bases.
Games Workshop style: "Ha my model with extreeeeeeeme edge highlights and monkeyface syndrome is done, time to work on a nice multi-textured base with a few tufts and tasteful dry brushing, maybe a few rocks and a skull for good measure."
Forge world style: "Ha my miniature with an upside down bolter muzzle and strands of shit for fur is done, time to slab 5 kilos of coarse sand and spray an uniform coat of shit on top of it, oops it went all over the feet and legs of the model? Nevermind!"
All marines discounting primaris and some of the new chaos stuff has had no midsection for 30yrs.
I'd have to somewhat disagree with you. The over done basing style of FW seems to be trying hard to get a stupidly gritty and dirty aesthetic of a brutal brother-on-brother war which for the setting seems to be at the least theamatically fitting. Though in the end it's entirely subjective
As a person that prefers the GW style of painting, I have to say that the custodes land raider and GW Guilliman sculpt are the most hideous things I have ever seen on GW's webstore.
While the realistic style of painting looks better in close up photos, or when you have the model inches from your nose, I like the way GW style of painting makes the details pop on the gaming table, which is where I spend most of my time looking at them. It's not about making them look cartoony, it's about cranking up the contrast so you don't lose details at distance.
Hey Macca, I have two questions.
Firstly, could you do a video on how to do the 30k style and what materials you use?
Also, what's your opinion on the GW Corvus Blackstar style? Cos even though it's got strong highlights, it's got scratches, burns, soot, and heat effects. Is that a good compromise between the two?
Would you be willing to do a painting tutorial on how to achieve those more ‘muted’ colour tones? Such as the metallics and what I’m guessing are blended colours with washes mixed in or layered/blended in with an airbrush?
Have a google mate there's tons of good tutorials about. ua-cam.com/video/VepXVggrfiE/v-deo.html is a pretty great channel for example if you want to get good at painting although I cant remember if they cover exactly what you're after.
I personally think 'eavy metal style looks better than forgeworld on the tabletop, the high contrast highlights make detail easier to see from far away.
Yes, the 'realistic' style with weathering, scorching, chips and scratches can look great close up or in a high quality photo but look a total mess on the tabletop. You have to bear in mind what the purpose of the paint-job is when you plan your scheme, I think.
FW: "Hey guys, did you know paint exists?"
GW: "Did you guys know that combining 'ard coat with a shade, then drawing towards the end of an appendage gives a nice transition?"
Something additional i think is worth mentioning that relates to a conversation I had with a mate of mine whos building an old metal sisters of battle army
I was questioning his logic in not waiting for the newer better sculpted presumably plastic models, but be argued that the ones you see on the gw site look bad because they're painted too detailed for the low-detail sculpt.
This in a way applies here, not so to the weathering aspect but when you have a lower detail non-resin model it can help to put less detail into the paintjob too achieve a nicer result
I think neither is more afvanced really, just a different emphasis. GW's style is lots of mid-tones and (particularly edge) highlighting, whereas FW leans less into varying the base colors but creating visual interest with wear and tear. Weathering oil paints and such is the name of the game here.
I think 1 thing to take into account is that the cartoonish style of games workshop is definitely more inviting for people that have just heard about 40K and are interested in getting into it whereas the forge world might put some people off, I'm not a great painter but I think I can do something approximating the games workshop style whereas all the blending and effects in the forge world examples might be a bit intimidating for newcomers.
GW Style. Comic book /Cartoony exaggerated outlines on everything
FW Style. Source lighting, Realism, lots of blending, Subtle color shifting etc
I paint minis in FW style for commission in my city :)
Thanks for the video Macca, I didn't realise there was such a difference with FW/GWs painting styles until you've pointed out, at which point it seems rather obvious. I much prefer the FW style and it shows if you go that little bit further you can really bring more realistic life to the models
I find somewhat of a mix in style. I use quite bright colours, but use my airbrush to acheive zenithal highlighting with no edge highlights. I do slight chipping on the armour, dusting and dirt on the legs/ firearm. They're bright and pop on the table, but look good close up too. I think it's a good balance for me.
I didn't like the bright yellow used in the NMM of Raldoron either, it definitely looks cartoonish and out of place in FW's style.
I will add, however, that GW's style is aimed at both showing all the details (which FW can obscure) for a clear image of the model, and presenting an achievable result that a new, most probably young, customer can achieve.
When I think of the first military model I painted when I was a kid, and before I got into 40K, it was a Spitfire painted in flat colours. When I found GW at age 11, I was introduced to shading and highlighting and aimed to replicate the 'Eavy Metal examples of the time.
FW, on the other hand, are aimed towards experienced modellers and painters, most probably with experience of realistic military model making and painting, and their painting reflects that - they know who their customers are.
When it comes to this Raldoron model though, I think they've tried to exemplify the shining gold of Sanguinius' armour, but have gone too far into the yellow spectrum, when a realistic gold would have been better.
Lol Raldoron painted in a vintage style... I didn't like it...made it look like a 30year old mini..lol
there`s a bit of edge highlighting on the FW minis too, but as I see it, there are two major stylistic choices that differentiate them, which tends to pull me towards FW: saturation and contrast.
There are tons of ways to balance those elements, my preferred choices are: 1-) to have a high shading contrast, specially with cold shadows, making the lighter parts pop. 2-) weathering. FW style tends to go that way, but I see it on GW too. Nice oil stains and rust, may some mud, they help with the contrast.
GW's "EavyMetal" style is not easy, but it's easier then pulling a good FW style. It's easier to teach and easier to achieve good results. From a marketing point of view, it's the best possible choice.
its not just style but the cost of the miniatures too, the FW ones are painted with so much detail to sell something far more expensive.
FW resins seem to have a thinner/sharper look which is harder to edge highlight so needs more attention to the light and extra techniques like weathering to stand out, so in a sense GW methods don't work on them, whereas all methods are viable on GW models. Also the realism isn't always commendable alongside plastic kits and unlike FW which has always specializard in collectors pieces most of GWs line is made with tabletop viewing in mind.
Younger painters tend to like the more muted and dull style. My suggestion is that if you like weathering then you should try doing historical modeling. I am old school and tend to think that fantasy space giants from the year 40,000 should look eyecatching. Trying to make something that is clearly not realistic, look realistic is just silly. C'mon guys, buy some Sherman tank models instead.
A lot of historical modeling is actually done in a more cutesy/colourful style instead of extreme realism as well :p I think it really depends on the type of painter at the end of the day.
I'm someone who is also into historical stuff as well and me and people around me tend to give our dudes colourful uniforms, clear skin etc. instead of being covered in dirt and blood all the time.
Just because something is science fiction or as you say “unrealistic” does not mean it is just silly to paint them realistically. It makes sense that marines in the books that go through the deepest darkest intense shit storms get dirty and damaged. Have you not read any of the books from the black library?
Also, being eyecatching, what does that mean to you? It seems like a subjective word that doesn’t exclude something being pointed realistically.
All you’ve said is “I don’t like it, you shouldn’t either. Go paint WWII tanks...”
nice one
@@627hjc Exactly on the mark about the lore. Lore and artwork are two things I personally draw inspiration from, and with 30k/40k it's blatantly gritty. Battletech is also something of a similar sorts, but that 'clean' style fits in my opinion something like various Fantasy miniature games and for example Infinity.
- Your hobby, your call, no need to pull punches about doing it wrong, and I'm also in to WW2 aircraft model kits and Bolt Action/Flames. Hitting above thirty five soon, and to me, it seems the young'uns only know about the clean paint style with emphasis on edge highlights on top of edge highlights, as it's all you hear at GW and LGS painting competitions. Those super-edge highlighted models also tend to win those competitions.
Not fair at all. You do what you want, but it's unfair to encourage people not to paint whatever models they want however they want. Your artistic tastes aren't objective dogma for the rest of us to follow.
Did you really just say “youngins” when you’re 35? Come on. Even ignoring the fact that trying to type cast a whole group of people based entirely on their age is silly...acting like you’re somehow old and wisened at 35 is worthy of an eye roll.
Paint however you want and stop trying to make up silly type casts about others based on how they paint.
Hey Macca, do you have any resources for painting models in a FW style aside from the masterclass books? Even stuff from the WWI/WWII wargaming community if you think it would be useful. Could be an idea for a video if you could be bothered. Cheers.
Phenomenal insight and analysis. Nailed it!
I found the image of the 40k blood angels and the forgeworld thunderhawk next to each other quite jarring because of how different the paint schemes are.
To me the difference between the two styles shows what I can currently achieve with my limited painting skills (GW style) to what I aspire to be able to achieve ( with the FW style).
Can someone point me to some good tutorials for the forge world style? I never liked edge highlighting but it was the only thing I knew and I want to change my paint style.
Anything by zatcaskagoon (almost blanchitsu) or orcpainternerd will give you the fw look.
Buy the FW Model Masterclass books.
Check the Plasmo channel ua-cam.com/users/idaemon
Thanks!
they use edge highlighting in fw style too
Great stuff! You ought to start a series about this where you go a little more in depth and compare, say, 40k Iron Warriors vs 30k or the same with Ultramarines. You clearly are an immensely talented painter and I'd love to hear what you have to say.
I've always been bad at edge highlighting, and even now I'm still learning. I don't think I could go through and painstakingly highlight every raised edge on power armour, twice, the same way most GW painted models seem to have done it. It just looks so incredibly tedious and time consuming, not to mention requiring a lot of patience and an incredibly steady hand.
Drybrushing is fine, and edge highlighting to make sure certain raised points stand out or areas that can't be taken care of with a drybrush, that sort of thing. So the highlights tend to be subtle and limited to one or two colours. Dark Angels and Crimson Fists for example have a fairly deep armour colour so one highlight is all they really need.
I really want to go for the FW style paintjobs, and from now on that's what I'll get my inspiration from. For ages I've been meaning to paint Emperor's Children with the use of GW's tint set to create a metallic pinkish-purple armour. I tried it on the new plastic Noise Marine and now I just need to save up for a while (thanks to my Crimson Fists getting the priority and FW's price structure). I want to learn more of FW's painting techniques, ways of making my 30k and 40k models look more realistically textured, more "gritty" and less cartoony than the way they're usually presented.
Also on Custodes I was really inspired by the FW style of painting, especially on their photos of the Achillus and Galatus Dreadnoughts. That sort of old, weathered and worn gold like something out of the movie 300. I don't know if it's exactly the same but basecoating them with Warplock Bronze and doing an all-over drybrush of Golden Griffon worked really well, I was pretty happy with the results. And to neaten up around any of the filigrey and such with Agrax. And obviously Khorne Red looks a lot better next to it than Mephiston does.
You don’t mean games workshop you mean ‘citadel’ games workshop is the company - forgeworld is a part of games workshop as is the main (citadel) design studio. So you mean ‘citadel vs forgeworld’ as both are games workshop
Games Workshop = super clean / Forgeworld = Been fighting for 10,000 years
Generally I like Forgeworld better, especially as a Nurgle player, but on the tabletop, you need a little bit of the GW pop. A very dark grimey model on the tabletop won't stand out at all, so it's all about getting a happy medium in my opinion.
I thumbs’ed up this video merely for mention of Robert Zdar
Do the 30k paint jobs even use citadel paints?
Nope. Forgeworld frequently uses whatever they need to get a certain look, while GW uses Citadel exclusively to make sure you can always paint the style they show you.
@@SawedOffLaser wrong, I used gw paints on the blood angels boxarts! Yes, I'm the painter of the Ferrari red, Axia
While I’m probably preaching to quire here GW vs FW. One is going for high contrast, highlighting the sculpt, and as eye popping as possible while being beginner friendly in order to market to said beginners.The other is going for grim realism.
While at the same fruit stand, apples and oranges are being compared.
Both are far beyond the Base coat, dry brush, wash style I started out with.
How can people say they dislike the 30k Guilliman when the 40k Guilliman looks like a dollarama toy? I almost puked when I seen his stupid face.
I agree 30k Guilliman is Romanesque and totally badass.
40k version looks like a world of Warcraft character made into a kids toy.
Thats why you go with the Girlyman in helmet. It is a very good model. And I am not a smurf fan.
@@karn6356 I`ve seen it in person with the helmet. Garbage quality sculpt. Proportions are god awful. I actually like most smurf characters, 40k guilliman is not one of them.
@@KuK137 Enjoy your dollarama toy. The head is disproportioned to his arms as well as the legs. And the detail on guilliman is dull, The FW model is far more realistic.
Valdors face is still a million times better than 40k derp face guilliman.
Valdors face is proportioned properly unlike the constipated looking dollarama toy.
The entire GW 2nd/3rd ed range are worse sculpts than Valdor in every conceivable way. What kind of meth are you smoking?
You want to tell me Khorne Berzerkers look better? LMFAO
@@KuK137 Man your everywhere just irrationally defending GW. How many pounds are you getting paid by the hour?
@@ProjectRevoltNow well lore wise he's in a big specialised healing armour so it's basically a med ward inside of armour of course it's not gonna be in proportion, the head is a bad sculpt though.... Very bad.
To be fair, GW is for the casual player/painter, while FW is more for the advanced player/painter. Most people willing to spend FW money tend to spend more time on their models.
Funny that in the scale modelling world, they have the exact opposite problem. Aircraft look like they've been left in the rain for eons. Operational tanks look like they've abandoned for years. The good thing is that any shoddy paintjobs can be covered up with weathering. In fact, things like colour modulation (shading) and pre-shading has been catching a lot of flak in the scale modelling world for "not being realistic" Plus, heavy weathering will completely obscure it at the end of the day.
Personally, I play with weathering mainly for scale modelling - lots of nice flat surfaces to push the limit with things like oil dot, hairspray, etc. I only apply lighting effects (colour modulation/zenithal/shading) to 40k models, as the scale is smaller, so it shows more realistically, with minimal weathering. Not worth weathering if you do light-source painting, it obscures your hard work, and the benefit is very marginal for the effort put in. Plus the techniques applied will be extremely minimal beyond using pigments. Hairspray weathering doesn't look good in that scale.
I think the forgworld paint job is more realistic. No tank will ever look like it is fresh out of the paint shop, during a conflict, chips, dirt build up and marks from small arms fire do happen.
I can definitely see where you're coming from here. I think the Heresy styles look better.
I agree with you at certain things GW has changed the way they paint like the example you give of the storm raven you look how that is painted to the newer models produced by GW, I have gone off 40k with the 8th Edition rules, much prefer Horus heresy
40k is less realistic to make it easier for entry level painters and younger audiences, making it more attractive as its easier to get close to the website picture than compared to the more detailed and realistic forgeworld
Old plague marines, old plague ogry s, looked really horrifying
Great, thanks a lot for this episode. I was going to suggest a topic like 30k vs 40k painting after you've mentioned it in one of the last vids. As for suggestions, you were talking about old vs current Golden deamon, can you please expand on this subject in similar comparison style video?
Anyways, greetings from Poland, where GW store prices are 1/4 higher than independent hobby stores. You're not alone ;-)
You also have to take into account the price difference. 3 models for $120 is going to look a lot better then the 10 models for $45. If i was an advertiser I would make sure the stupid expensive shit looked amazing so it could sell
GW painting style is meant to look good but be feasible to a novice to moderate level painter. Base, shade, highlight(edge or dry brush), is a very easy way to transfer those bunch of boyz to the tabletop for play. It’s meant to get the new guy on the table playing and enjoying the hobby.
FW has some infantry stuff but let’s be real. People buy from FW for the big bois. Tanks, characters, Titans, etc. Big show pieces that bring the army together or catch the eye and envy of fellow hobbyists. A lot more time is going to be spent on a FW model so they utilize more advanced techniques on their display pieces. Layering, blending, OSL, NMM are all techniques that require practice and time to do well. And given the time commitment, will be done one at a time on a hobbyists showcase model.
I personally prefer the GW style. I like the bolder look of the GW style, I think it pops more. Although I acknowledge that a part of this is because I can't paint anything close to FW models.
I see it like that - 40K = 'eavy metal style that is easy, meant for anyone to replicate. FW = more advanced technique.
This was actually straight up stated by GW (if I recall correctly, both Duncan and Peachy stated as such). GW's models, specifically those on the website and on the box art, are specifically designed to be simple, straight forward, and reliably easy to reproduce by the average user. Basic layer or two, wash for shading, and edge highlighting is super-easy to produce by anyone within weeks of starting the hobby and watching a few videos from Duncan and Peachy. Because they don't go down the path of weathering and wear, the models come out looking cartoony.
Forge World is not. Forge World models are clearly painted by people who use advanced techniques and may even use non-GW supplies and techniques to produce the effects they do. I've been in this hobby since 1999, and I can comfortably tell you I have yet to try sponge-based weathering or using weathering powders. Like, at all.
I look at GW models and I'm like "Yeah, I can almost do that. Shaky hands are really the only thing holding me back and I'm happy with my painting." I look at Forge World models and my response is, "I'll never be anywhere near that good, ever, and honestly, I'm not willing to put the effort in to even try."
So which paint scheme is going to motivate me, more? The GW one. That's why they do it.
Great video, thanks for sharing!
I always found the fw painting to be really good due to the realism. But I play 40k and mainly do it in the cartoon style only because it's I just think it matches to more unrealistic parts of it.
GW style I see as 'cartoony striving for realism' whereas FW style is 'yeah, I am a miniature but I will do anything to appear real.'. Having said this for my 40K minis I don't like that 'clean' straight out of the factory (vehicles) and straight out of Space Marine academy look entirely that you see on the outer box. I like to dirty up my white decals with army painter washes and paint scratches and dirt on my 40k minis with zenithial priming. It's more effort but the results can look amazing
You know what. From no on, I'll try to give off a lore friendly, or Grimdark appearance for my Blood Angels.
To be fair to GW, i feel although their art style is more basic than FW, I feel it is dont intentionally so that it gives the average hobbyist a fair and achievable guide to copy. Although they are no where near as cool looking in my opinion, GW painted models do still look quite nice on the battlefield, whereas FW gives guides to those who are prehaps more experienced or skilled.
I personally prefer Games Workshop's style. Certain armies really lend themselves to that style, and a lot of people tend to use the "its gritty and realistic" excuse for plain sloppy paintwork
I see your point. I prefer the 40k style. And to correct the golden demon is now a painting competition not anymore a conversion/sculpting/free hand competition. It's the execution that prime on the other stuff. And the level is so high now compare to 10-20 years ago it's scary ! Even Slayer sword winner like Bruno Grelier in 1999 in a FW style demonwinner.free.fr/france/1999/slayer_sword.php?p=3&lang=fr or victoria lamb cannot compete to actual slayer sword winner IMO. Highlight are clean perfect, damaged minor but perfectly executed. The difference know it artist form beaux art school that compete, in the old time it was hobby enthusiasm. And miniature coming from the heavy metal team are at his level of perfection, you can make a kind of look like, but even the goldy landraider has perfect highlight. There is no highlight on FW tank just some air brush light vs line on each armor panel for 40k. It's more flash but require more step and dexterity.
I believe just saying cartoonish is a disservice, more clean, sterile, "perfect", where as the FW painting style is muddied, dirty, worn, chipped, old, bearing mars of it`s long service etc kinda theme. Because you can do bright bold "cartonish" colors, and still have amazing weathering etc, and aslong as it`s done well, you can have absolutely phenomenal models, that have "cartoonish" colors aka "perfect clean" colors etc, but with weathering, and still have that forge world look. Just harder to pull off for the average person usually. Also I absolutely love almost everything about FW Guilliman, the only thing I do not like is no helmet, I like helmeted SM more than non-helmeted SMs even primarchs. Also to say it`s just a "heresy" style is imo also a disservice to both sides, its just adding weathering, and the like to a higer detail, and taking more time with layering, blending, and highlighting.
From my view it could be seen as more "serious", but I think it`s just a matter of being more worn, and influenced by how alot of what forge world does, they want you to feel in the story, and have the equipment straight from a battlefield, imo it is legitimately like how the old salts have worn fatigues, from washing, and wear, that are comfortable, and dulled down in color, compared to a fresh set that still has the starch in, and on it. Completely clean equipment for a parade basically compared to the battlefield, worn look like new leather vs old leather..
40k - Edge Highlight / Cartoony
30k - Battle Damage/ Realistic
reboot is omegon. i mean, he wears the friggin omega, he's clearly gonna wack into the warp and shake hands with alpharius like friends that haven't seen eachother in a while.
I am happy guilliman for GW is now only £35 not $105
The 30k blood angle is painted more to 3rd Ed. paint scheme for a throw back look but I can agree. Forge world painters show a grittier, dirtier version
I think some of the FW models under-do it with edge highlights, especially with a lot of the paint jobs from before the Blood Bowl era. Using loads of chipping and weathering powders works great for vehicles, but it tends to make the details on infantry look muddy and undefined. I can see the appeal of painting an army like that for the tabletop, but an official paint job should really be trying to sell you on the details by making them stand out.
And I don't think there's anything wrong (for lack of a better word) with edge highlighting in itself, it's more how GW/'Eavy Metal use it. They're usually the *only* sort of highlighting on the model, and done with really high contrast, which is where the cartoonishness comes from.
Your talking a fashion design changes over 10,000 years...collectable to playable or the story of treachery murder or keeping the empire while the other shows father is unavailable so wear what you want ?! Every style is different but you'll never change the price at service to the public.
a sophisticated paint job for a more civilized age
Mat Kane vs GW Ultramarine comes to mind
Emperor's shit, I have just seen them. They are *EPIC* ! And I don't even like Ultramarines.
IMHO the GW stuff looks way, way better than forgeworld painting. It's neatly done and looks really cool. A lot of the forgeworld stuff looks a bit messy at times, unfinished looking and kind of a bit over the top attempting detail. Also everything is highly battleworn...which doesn't make much sense.
Forgeworld suits the Grimdark aesthetic much more, GW style just doesnt feel dark at all.
Anyone who was at the weekender: IS FW re-releasing the paints? I saw a pic of how they paint their legions and paints like "sons of horus green" etc are shown? Anyone know?
I wasn't at the weekender but my last trip was late November and they were encouraging us to pick up any of the FW paints if we wanted them as they weren't going to be coming back.
While I agree with you 110% in that I much, MUCH prefer the forgeworld style, please be careful in how you present the amount of effort involved; you present the FW style as a lot of extra work over and above GW as if the GW style is harf-arsed. I personally find that getting to the GW style takes 80% - 90% of the time, and adding battle damage, then airbrushing on a load of dirt and grime is not a huge amount more effort, and is actually the most enjoyable part of the project, after a load of hard painting grind to get a really neat, good quality paint job to dirty up. Don't take it as harsh c&c; Ii enjoyed your video and I fully agree with your preference, but I do feel your preference comes through as a prejudice. The worlds 'comical' and 'cartoonish' are negatively emotive, even if you do not mean them to be so. There are also some armies that REALLY benefit from the GW approach. the Imperium is not one of them, but there is something really beautiful about a properly blended, cleanly painted matte eldar that I've always been in awe of.
I can't speak to GW's simpler style but I've heard it said that 'Eavy Metal style is meant to be clear and visable from 3' away and Forge World from an up close inspection. But it could be a difference due to GW aiming their models at a younger age group than the more expensive (as a rule) Forge World ones.
I think edge highlights have a place but people need to remember they are only meant to be highlights. Too often they seem to be used, even in codexes and GW promo stills as a replacement for shading. I suppose that it's easier to teach people to edge highlight a plain base coated mini, toget an army painted and on to the table than it is to take the time to do a bang up job with four or five layers of shading. And obviously it's more appealing to people for whom painting is a chore. I just can't stand cartoon Girlyman.
I see what your saying, but in the end they're marketing photos, your going to paint your own models so why care. If your "going to go that extra step" it doesn't really matter the painting on the box
To put it simply, GE goes for a more clean look whilst FW goes for a realistic look, relatively speaking
Sealing weathering powders.. I hope your not actually doing that.
Another big thing is brightness. Where FW is darker and GW is brighter.
GW believes that shiny stuff will draw in more normies. FW is more specialized and has a niche audience so they can use weathering to make the models look a bit "worse" for wear.
As long as people are not playing with bare metal and plastic. We should be accommodating. Let's not forget. Painting power armour again and again get tedious.
what happened to Forgeworld's art team?
Well, I think for the likes of Forgeworld's character series a lot more time is spent painting each individual model.
However, I'll say this. Whoever paints Forgeworld's showcase models is great... but man... they make an absolute pigs ear of so many of the model's faces.
In person i like forge world style but in photos gw looks more professional
Gal Vorbak 3 man squad: 120.00
I honestly rather doing bronze that looks kinda goldish without being actual gold
Looks like Raldoron's gold is NMM. NMM never looks as good as a proper metallic paint.
Same with that blood drop coming off his sword blade - does he know GW have invented Blood for the Blood God? There's no need for pretentious layers and layers of shading and blending when you have a good, simple and effective technical paint available.
That's why I don't get the "this is GW style" kind of comment, GW style doesn't do NMM, nor do they skimp on the technicals they are selling.
I'd say properly done NMM looks way more convincing than metallic paints, since it accounts for how the light and shading would work if the character were at full size rather than 28mm scale. The problem with the NMM on Raldoron is that they half-assed it.
And I'd disagree with Marneus - I don't think 'Eavy Metal use most technical paints, apart from the Martian base textures for their Ad Mech. Those are generally made more for tabletop quality stuff (think Duncan and Peachy), and they tend to look jarring on display-standard stuff, IMO.
NMM can look good, from one angle, but at any other angle it's lost. Like a good 2D artist can paint amazing looking metallic effects and lighting, etc. but on a 3D surface it's not going to translate.
It's a 2D effect.
@@100thmonkey It is a 2D technique, but you can force the effect from any angle by painting it as if there's four light sources rather than one, arranged like a halo above the model. That's the trick Darren Latham (former 'Eavy Metal painter) uses.
And if you're painting a model with full directional lighting, you'd want the effect to be lost from certain angles.
ie. too much of a wank for anything outside Golden Demon.
Real metal on a warrior or war machine is not going to be super reflective anyway - so the level you find in metallic paints is just right, and much more simple.
I agree somewhat, I do believe some of the paint jobs on Forgeworld are absolutely awful! Some of the troop painting looks like it was done by a 5 year old without thinning the paints :P
Although I agree, their larger/better models are painted more subtle, and have brilliant weathering effects.
I do believe the GW and FW aesthetics are supposed to be markedly different. Whereas GW have the Eavy' Metal studio and their way of painting, I'm not sure Forgeworld celebrate their painters as much as GW does.
Add to the fact the 40k Aesthetic seems to lean towards bright, outlandish coulourings which are quite stark. Forgeworld seem to be more grimy and subtle in their style.
The argument older than time is that "It's fiction, realistic war conditions(model kit style) shouldn't be used in this to begin with."
- However, old John Blanche iterations and the art from the 90's are of a different sort. Far from cartoonish. I can accept both and see their merits, but what I personally dislike is when people start taunting the other side out of blessed ignorance and intolerance, and the self-righteous explanation of why "I am right.".
Looking at color images of vehicles from WW2/Post WW2 that went through mud and gravel, for one day, can look worse than what FW has ever cooked up, and that famous 'bucket of water' has zero effect on that. Smearing tanks has also been used over 100 years to help them camouflage as well, which is not a new thing, when paint isn't readily available to match the surrounding.
- As for the exhaust pipes and such details, just like the cartoonish GW style, sometimes some things are done to make an effect, at other times they are an iteration of real life, and how these tanks have multi-fuel engines.
Ultimately these are two very different schools of how to paint, and that more realistic style often has its certain stages of a painting comparable/similar to a clean 'GW style'. It's just done further.
- That GW style fits certain styles of miniature gaming in my opinion(like Fantasy, WMH, Infinity), but for me; wargaming with tanks/combined arms of a similar sorts, like Battletech, I prefer the art and the source material to feel out how it should be painted, and for 30k/40k: It's gritty and realistic, like in the lore. Same for Battletech, unless you're part of the Lyran Royal Guard who spend more time polishing their armour than actually fighting.
I paint the way Duncan taught me.
The 30k heads are getting flat out horrible lately too. Raldoran is an example, so is Sangy. Have to agree with the NMM though, it looks like garbage.
In my opinion, FW looks like flat, dirty toys, with detail that gets lost. The sharp highlights and brighter colors make the GW models pop, and define the details when they're on the table.
I dislike the everything must have green or blue airbrush glow style most ppl do
noir the everything must be factory new and buffed to shine style gw has
I think it's newFW NMM style but restrained by need to show GW school for marketing needs of their paint system so it looks more crappy than normal NMM which still is nothing fancy except lot of work :) but it is IMHO and I really dislike NMM it's good in comic/manga/anime but for models TMM and realistic approach is a lot better, like FW Custodes paintjobs.
So basically GW is Marvel and FW is DC.. change my mind!
That's... a good comparison
Explains why I prefer gw
30k RG is a shit model
Edit: Actually the more you show it the more I like it
40k Robot Girlyman is a Cartoon, joke, age of sigmar, derp face transvestite.
Usually i feel that 40k paintjobs look better on the table (2-3 feet away). I paint a lot of FW style grit. But a whole army can look like a brown blob from a distance.
But Robot Girlyman 40k looks like a stormcast eternal from any distance.
#TrashMicAginBoiz
gosh that golden land raider from gw is so fkin ugly wtf were they thinking with this c3po paintjob, it is actually burning my eyes....