To detail or not to detail?

[black hat miniatures]

You need to decide if you are painting to play with the figures on the tabletop or for photography on the internet.  I think too many people see figures that have been painted over many, many hours and well-photographed without thinking that you can't see that detail when you are playing with them so why spend the time painting it?

Mike

[matakishi]

I think this must be a problem which affects mainly sci-fi / fantasy miniatures?
Can't say I've really noticed an abundance of extra detail on historical figures. They all seem much the same as they used to be.

The option to add spurious detail to historicals isn't quite as tempting as it is for fantasy. Historicals are garbed in what people wore, either uniforms or native/civilian clothes, and this pretty much dictates what the sculptor can sculpt. Likewise the poses for historicals need to facilitate ranking up miniatures or using equipment as it was designed to be used, so firing stances that are realistic rather than leapy jumpy Infinity stuff (I'm ignoring the old Airfix 'gun over head, hopping' poses here, let's pretend they never happened).

[scarlowe]

You need to decide if you are painting to play with the figures on the tabletop or for photography on the internet.  I think too many people see figures that have been painted over many, many hours and well-photographed without thinking that you can't see that detail when you are playing with them so why spend the time painting it?

I don't see why you can't do both, though limiting uses to either play or internet photography is a bit of a stretch. I mean you can enjoy having a well painted warband/gang/force/army rather than a basecoat-dip functionnal one without having the motivation of gloating on internet or showcasing your talent. It's just a question of if you're going to do something, may as well do it as well as you can. Yeah, it may be physically impossible to spend hours and hours on one model if you need to line up 300 of them for a game, but in the case of skirmish games, it's doable. And the overdetailed minis tend to be precisely for skirmish games.

Also many of you seem to assume that the complaint is related to some kind of self-imposed competition with studio painters and such, which is absolutely not the case. It has nothing to do with how good some people are in comparison to the vast majority. It isn't a contest unless you want to make it one.

I was simply wondering what other people's thoughts were regarding the aesthetic value of extensive/abusive detail VS the dose of tedium and technical difficulties it invariably creates.

[Major_Gilbear]

At some point I think most people have these very thoughts regarding detail and poses - sooner rather than later if you happen to play more Sci-fi/Fantasy skirmish games than mass-battle games or historicals.

My personal feelings (in general terms) are that selected and well-judged detail enhances, but that mindless over-detailing detracts. I have noticed over time and across the internet a trend that many people seem judge a model's "quality" based on how much detail it has, rather than anything else. I suspect this comes from a majority having an introduction to wargaming through GW (and who have long been terrible for over-loading their models with far too much unneeded detail).

Being more specific in terms of model ranges, I have found that the recent digital sculpts for Infinity figures have made them easier to paint, not harder. Infinity figures had been getting smaller, more detailed, and more hunched-over for a good while, and the return to bigger models with more rationalised details has been a welcome one (from my own point of view at least). Painting hand-sculpted weapons that had been reduced to the size of staples (and had tiny wobbly lines because they were too small to sculpt straight) was never fun even if they were more realistically-scaled to the models carrying them.

The new Malifaux plastics on the other hand seem to have made it their mission to produce models with faces too small to paint, and too flimsy to glue to a base securely. In addition, rather a lot of the new models are so dynamic, that it's unlikely you'll get them in a case easily. Don't get me wrong, I like the new Malifaux plastics well enough, and the quality is very good - but many of them are just far too wispy and acrobatic for me.

My personal dislikes when it comes to painting are more specific though; detail that's too fussy to make out properly (rows and rows of buckled straps on a model's boots or forearms being stand-out examples), blobby hands and feet (no excuse for blobby hands especially), and poorly-sculpted faces and hair (makes very hard work for you to rectify with paint alone).

I also hate that key details seem to be right where a mould-line needs to be, and that not only ruins the details further anyway, but makes it nearly impossible to put a brush to them - inevitably, the worst mouldlines coincide with my list of least-liked nitpicks too.  

Depending on what they are, I sometimes paint things like buckles in fairly light colours, and then just successively wash with darker colours until it looks sensible - this produces a smoother and sharper effect than a drybrush and wash. Likewise, with blobby hands, I simply paint the whole area in flesh, pick out the gaps between fingers with a dark liner colour (ignoring the sculpted fingers) and then add knuckles with sharp highlights. "Ignoring" the detail like this and just colouring it in as it suits you instead is a neat way around a lot of these issues - even if it looks a bit ropey, it's pretty hard to tell when its finished anyway!

One of the things I liked about the original line of metal Malifaux figures was that they painted up pretty fast - they suffered from The Nitpicks, but were otherwise very easy to paint up as they had little other extraneous detail.

I would advise against getting a magnifier for painting though - too much strain on your eyes (can't be good), and it makes painting too much like actual work (ditto). I would instead recommend a comfortable workspace and plenty of bright light so that you can see what you're doing - anything so small you need a magnifier for is probably not worth detail-painting that far.

With regard to the pose of sculpts... I don't mind dynamic sculpts for skirmish games. You are normally unlikely to need more than two of any sculpt, and will likely need just the one, so they can be more eye-catching IMO. Mainly, I like the more dynamic poses as an excuse to make fairly elaborate bases - something I'd never bother with if I had to paint 70+ models for an army, but which is actually rather fun when you only have to do eight or ten.

When it comes to multipart kits... Well, I like a couple of split torsos/legs and some separate arms in a kit for the sake of having some flexibility/variety, but for the most part I usually prefer single-piece torso and leg parts. This leads to a more consistent model pose, and I prefer these more natural poses and the fewer mouldlines they entail personally. If the models in a kit are all part of a unit, then similar poses is probably to be expected even just from a "realism" perspective, no?

[Captain Blood]

I don't see why you can't do both, though limiting uses to either play or internet photography is a bit of a stretch. I mean you can enjoy having a well painted warband/gang/force/army rather than a basecoat-dip functionnal one without having the motivation of gloating on internet or showcasing your talent. It's just a question of if you're going to do something, may as well do it as well as you can. Yeah, it may be physically impossible to spend hours and hours on one model if you need to line up 300 of them for a game, but in the case of skirmish games, it's doable.

Well this sums up my approach exactly.
I like to paint to a high standard - because why would you not try to paint as well as you are able to?
I then like to photograph my figures and show them, enter painting competitions and so on. (I try to go easy on the gloating though )
Then I play games with them.
90% of the figures I paint are to be played with. Only a very few here and there are showcase-only.

But because 95% of my stuff is historical / pseudo historical, I don't have to deal with endless skullz and buckles and exaggerated sci-fi style detailing.
The sci-fi figures I like the best are Pig Iron, which have a delightful absence of extraneous detail and are a joy to paint as a result.

So yes, I would do both. Paint as well as you can and with as much detail as you want, enjoy painting them, and then enjoy playing with them. And avoid figures which have too much detail just for detail's sake

I'm ignoring the old Airfix 'gun over head, hopping' poses here, let's pretend they never happened.

Ah yes, at least a couple of ludicrous or inexplicable poses in every set - happy days 

[Vermis]

Just as CGI has led to lots of unconvincing battle scenes in films, digital techniques have lead to unconvincingly dynamic poses. Modern GW orcs are much more dynamically posed than the Perrys' wonderful armoured orcs of the early 80s, but they're much the worse for it; they look crude and cartoony, even though the sculpting is crisper and the figures are much more animated. The earlier figures are all the better for being created within constraints; the dynamism afforded by modern techniques often detracts from the model. Those orcs again: many of the Perry ones are slouching, standing or simply marching - and they look much better than their modern equivalents, which are a mess of lunging, brandishing, duck-walking and generally posturing. I suspect that it comes down to the limitations of the traditional techniques - limitations that lead (in the hands of maestri like the Perrys) to restrained, natural-looking figures. In contrast, just as CGI tempts film-makers into extravagant and implausible elements in battle scenes, the freedom available to sculptors unconstrained by conventional techniques leads them to create overelaborate and over dynamic figures. When everything is easy, restraint and (to a degree) ingenuity go out the window.

Third, and in a similar vein, the freedom to create super-sharp detail (as in modern plastics) often leads to lapses in judgement. Back to the 80s armoured orcs: while they're suitably menacing and vicious-looking, they don't look as if they've been on intensive courses of anabolic steroids. The modern GW orcs do - and it makes them look ridiculous and even camp. I suspect that the modern trend towards steroidal miniatures is a result of the ability to produce highly detailed musculature in digital sculpting. If you can show all the muscles on a figure clearly, why not make them huge muscles? And the same applies with details on armour and the like. There's no need for restraint, and so aesthetics give way to excess.

I agree with most of what you say, though I'm not so sure that the over-the-top aspects of some modern sci-fi/fantasy minis are the fault of digital sculpting. I think you can still put zany poses and inflated muscles on a bit of wire and putty! Look at the GW Catachans and Chaos Marauders, for instance, or old Celtos and Confrontation stuff.
Personally I think it's got something to do with the general increase in, and demand for, sculpting sophistication in those genres, perhaps fuelled by other pop-culture media. Seems to be quite a few comments around the web about Infinity's manga styling, at least! I agree that digital sculpting can give a boost to that, in ways; but in the end it's just a tool and doesn't provide knowledge, reference, style, or a certain awareness. As I said earlier, I think that's the real problem. Too often it's 'sophisticated' in specific, limited, even - dare I say - misguided ways.

I'd say that's likely the source of the 'restraint' you mention - fantasy viewed through knowledge and awareness, a solid grounding of anatomy and figure construction, and an idea of the finished product and it's purpose. (I hear you guys about unit blocks made up of individual 'characters') Most oldschool sculpting, including some lauded sculptors, doesn't look great to me. There's maybe a distinctive style, a couple of gimmicks, but often a lack of meat under the gravy... or something... in my view. Same as today. But in the same way, then, as now, there sculptors who stood out. The Perrys, Tom Meier, Julie Guthrie, etc. (Ah... Julie Guthrie, and John Dennett, and Nick Bibby, and so on. If you want to talk about natural-looking oldschool sculpting vs. badly exaggerated modern examples, I could bend your ear about their dragons.)

It's why I'm irritated by the whole "Ayyy! It's fantasayyy! Do what you like!" thing. There's an element of truth there but too often it sounds like an excuse for that lack of knowledge and awareness, a handwave for lack of restraint, a block against trying harder; at least for professional, commercial ventures.

Pity it sells so well...

Even some recent multipart kits have pretty much a single assembly possibility if you're keen on having natural-looking stances. Thoughts?

I'd say that's true of older styrene kits too. (i.e. GW's) In fact, I'm with you in that I wish some modern kits limited their poses a little more! Gripping Beast Saxons and Fireforge infantry, for example - I'm not fond of the squatting poses alongside the tall-standing ones, especially if they have to go into the same unit block.
Personally I feel less worried about limited poses in a kit these days. I see it as similar to what you say about duplicate minis in a squad, only there's still more customisation possible.

But at least I suppose the skinny sci-fi look is a conscious style / design choice on the part of the sculptor or manufacturer. You either like it, or you don't.

True dat.

The option to add spurious detail to historicals isn't quite as tempting as it is for fantasy. Historicals are garbed in what people wore, either uniforms or native/civilian clothes, and this pretty much dictates what the sculptor can sculpt. Likewise the poses for historicals need to facilitate ranking up miniatures or using equipment as it was designed to be used, so firing stances that are realistic rather than leapy jumpy Infinity stuff

Yup!

I don't see why you can't do both, though limiting uses to either play or internet photography is a bit of a stretch. I mean you can enjoy having a well painted warband/gang/force/army rather than a basecoat-dip functionnal one without having the motivation of gloating on internet or showcasing your talent. It's just a question of if you're going to do something, may as well do it as well as you can. Yeah, it may be physically impossible to spend hours and hours on one model if you need to line up 300 of them for a game, but in the case of skirmish games, it's doable. And the overdetailed minis tend to be precisely for skirmish games.

Agreed. I don't think a mass-battle rank'n'file grunt needs the same attention as a detailed skirmish character, but, well, they're not held at arm's length all the time. Used to go to a club where some guys painted their armies to a really basic standard, worse than anything I've seen online, just quick, thick basecoat strokes over a black undercoat. Being put on a table didn't improve them much. (They used to needle me a bit about taking so long to paint too - even with just tidy basecoats and a wash - rather than 'get minis on the table'; but I don't think I could bring myself to do that to my minis.)

My personal feelings (in general terms) are that selected and well-judged detail enhances, but that mindless over-detailing detracts. I have noticed over time and across the internet a trend that many people seem judge a model's "quality" based on how much detail it has, rather than anything else. I suspect this comes from a majority having an introduction to wargaming through GW (and who have long been terrible for over-loading their models with far too much unneeded detail).

My personal dislikes when it comes to painting are more specific though; detail that's too fussy to make out properly (rows and rows of buckled straps on a model's boots or forearms being stand-out examples), blobby hands and feet (no excuse for blobby hands especially), and poorly-sculpted faces and hair (makes very hard work for you to rectify with paint alone).

I also hate that key details seem to be right where a mould-line needs to be, and that not only ruins the details further anyway, but makes it nearly impossible to put a brush to them - inevitably, the worst mouldlines coincide with my list of least-liked nitpicks too.  

I would advise against getting a magnifier for painting though - too much strain on your eyes (can't be good), and it makes painting too much like actual work (ditto). I would instead recommend a comfortable workspace and plenty of bright light so that you can see what you're doing - anything so small you need a magnifier for is probably not worth detail-painting that far.

When it comes to multipart kits... Well, I like a couple of split torsos/legs and some separate arms in a kit for the sake of having some flexibility/variety, but for the most part I usually prefer single-piece torso and leg parts. This leads to a more consistent model pose, and I prefer these more natural poses and the fewer mouldlines they entail personally. If the models in a kit are all part of a unit, then similar poses is probably to be expected even just from a "realism" perspective, no?

Yup! Also, I agree that washes can help with some details, if you can rig them right. And I think Malifaux had it's share of flimsy models before Wyrd got into plastics. Had to trade my Guild hunter because the leg joints were so tiny and annoying. I kept the Guild guardian but it had the same problem: wee skinny robot legs with wee skinny, highly rotatable, robot hip joints, intended to hold up big chunks of metal in the form of a big robot torso and big robot arms weilding a big robot sword and robot shield...

The sci-fi figures I like the best are Pig Iron, which have a delightful absence of extraneous detail and are a joy to paint as a result.

Something I try to keep in mind with my own sculpting. Makes sense! The finished sculpt and whatever detail your skillz allowed you to put on it aren't it's sole purpose and endpoint. People then have to paint them before playing with them, so why make it more of a chore or more awkward than it needs to be?

[Major_Gilbear]

And I think Malifaux had it's share of flimsy models before Wyrd got into plastics. Had to trade my Guild hunter because the leg joints were so tiny and annoying. I kept the Guild guardian but it had the same problem: wee skinny robot legs with wee skinny, highly rotatable, robot hip joints, intended to hold up big chunks of metal in the form of a big robot torso and big robot arms weilding a big robot sword and robot shield...

Oh, I quite agree that there used to be some Wyrd metals that suffered just as you say. However, the new plastics seem to make this the norm rather than the exception.

Also, they've traded things like blobby hands for... yet more vaguely-sculpted straps-n-buckles. Sigh.

[scarlowe]

Heh... you haven't seen a flimsy model 'til you've held one of Taban's Eden miniatures. You're liable to break off an arm if you
sneeze on it. But more seriously, I've bought Eden miniatures that were bent... at the CHEST (and a big barrel chest at that). Don't even get me started on spears or the like.   

Also, they've traded things like blobby hands for... yet more vaguely-sculpted straps-n-buckles. Sigh.

The type of straps you mention is in fact a good 50% of my issue with many recent figures... you know how in GW's stuff it's the size of your pauldrons and hat that determine how important you are? Seems like in places like Malifaux it's how many teeny tiny belts and straps you have. They have em around the calves, the forearms, tend to have 3 to 5 around the waist, not to mention the ones criss-crossed around the chest.

But because 95% of my stuff is historical / pseudo historical, I don't have to deal with endless skullz and buckles and exaggerated sci-fi style detailing.
The sci-fi figures I like the best are Pig Iron, which have a delightful absence of extraneous detail and are a joy to paint as a result.

Yes, historical models are great for that.  No frills, down to business. That's one aspect of the "historical fantasy" trend that's quite nice - some of the fantasy ranges are starting to get a bit toned down.
I love Pig Iron minis also. The Kolony Ferals are really awesome. Among others.

[Captain Blood]

I love Pig Iron minis also. The Kolony Ferals are really awesome. Among others.

Yeah. My favourites

[Major_Gilbear]

The type of straps you mention is in fact a good 50% of my issue with many recent figures... you know how in GW's stuff it's the size of your pauldrons and hat that determine how important you are? Seems like in places like Malifaux it's how many teeny tiny belts and straps you have. They have em around the calves, the forearms, tend to have 3 to 5 around the waist, not to mention the ones criss-crossed around the chest.

Those on the plastic models are even worse though; due to moulding limitations, most of them don't even have proper detail (like buckles) that you can wash over to bring it out.  

[Hobgoblin]

I agree with most of what you say, though I'm not so sure that the over-the-top aspects of some modern sci-fi/fantasy minis are the fault of digital sculpting. I think you can still put zany poses and inflated muscles on a bit of wire and putty! Look at the GW Catachans and Chaos Marauders, for instance, or old Celtos and Confrontation stuff.

Yes, that's certainly true. I suspect some of the problem, though, does stem from the ability to add more and more detail (in musculature as much as anything else).

Personally I think it's got something to do with the general increase in, and demand for, sculpting sophistication in those genres, perhaps fuelled by other pop-culture media. Seems to be quite a few comments around the web about Infinity's manga styling, at least! I agree that digital sculpting can give a boost to that, in ways; but in the end it's just a tool and doesn't provide knowledge, reference, style, or a certain awareness. As I said earlier, I think that's the real problem. Too often it's 'sophisticated' in specific, limited, even - dare I say - misguided ways.

I think that's very true too. I suspect that computer games and comics have often outweighed history and literature as the main influences on fantasy miniatures over the last couple of decades. If you look at, say, the marvellous Asgard orcs of the early 80s, it looks like Jez Goodwin had paid a lot of attention to what Tolkien actually wrote about orcs. And another factor is that miniatures were less influenced by other miniatures. Look at how many of today's orc ranges are influenced by GW's massive, tusked and prognathous orcs rather than by JRRT or (in another direction) the AD&D Monster Manual.

I'd say that's likely the source of the 'restraint' you mention - fantasy viewed through knowledge and awareness, a solid grounding of anatomy and figure construction, and an idea of the finished product and it's purpose. (I hear you guys about unit blocks made up of individual 'characters') Most oldschool sculpting, including some lauded sculptors, doesn't look great to me. There's maybe a distinctive style, a couple of gimmicks, but often a lack of meat under the gravy... or something... in my view. Same as today. But in the same way, then, as now, there sculptors who stood out. The Perrys, Tom Meier, Julie Guthrie, etc. (Ah... Julie Guthrie, and John Dennett, and Nick Bibby, and so on. If you want to talk about natural-looking oldschool sculpting vs. badly exaggerated modern examples, I could bend your ear about their dragons.)

Yes - those dragons! The Meier, Bibby and Dennett dragons are extraordinary - and I can remember a time when most of the Dennett ones were £1.95 each. And yes, there were plenty of less exalted sculpts around too. Today, I think, there's a huge amount of talent (more so than 30 years ago), but much of it seems misdirected (to my doubtless non-commercial tastes, at any rate!).

It's why I'm irritated by the whole "Ayyy! It's fantasayyy! Do what you like!" thing. Ther's an element of truth there but too often it sounds like an excuse for that lack of knowledge and awareness, a handwave for lack of restraint, a block against trying harder; at least for professional, commercial ventures.

Couldn't agree more! Oversized weapons are a particular bugbear of mine here. If you look at early Citadel orcs, they were often armed with little hand-axes or humble javelins, all of which looked perfectly natural and improved the overall look of the miniatures.

A couple of other thoughts. I do think the internet has had an odd influence on miniature painters, in that many are painting for photography unconsciously (even if they're consciously aiming for the gaming table). As evidence, I submit the decline in gloss varnishing. To my mind, the most spectacular painted miniatures are those by Aly Morrison and John Blanche in the early 80s (as seen in Heroes for Wargames and the like). Those were heavily glossed and looked all the better for it. I actually think that most miniatures look better with a gloss finish on the tabletop, not least because the gloss adds depth and brilliance to mediocre paintjobs (it certainly helps with mine!). Every time I walk past a GW store (I seldom enter), I'm struck by how drab the miniatures on display look. The gaming shops of my childhood often displayed miniatures that may not have been any technically better painted, but looked better because of white undercoats, brilliant colours and gloss varnish. I quite appreciate that really top-notch painters might want their work unobscured by shine, but for most of us mortals, a gloss finish accentuates the positives.

The other thing is that a lack of detail often leaves space for creativity on the part of the painter. I've been converting an Age of Sigmar miniature into a chaos warrior, a process that has involved shaving off huge amounts of detail from the armour and shield, as well as replacing the oversized hammer. The size of the figure and its shield gives great scope for painting - but not if it's cluttered with all manner of fussy detail. If a figure has armour or robes, the painter can add sigils or stripes or whatever with brush and pen. I think a great many modern figures leave less room than they should for the painter to "add value" through creative decoration.

[Major_Gilbear]

Briefly on gloss varnish: I hate the wet-look finish on the majority of models personally. On some models, it's fine, but not for the majority. Therefore, I can safely say that I have not been influenced by "photo-shoot" models here - personal preference still triumphs!

With regards to Age of Sigmar... A lot of the detail is designed for a specific style of painting. Details like inscriptions are recessed in to accept washes, and insignia like that on the shield is raised to make drybrushing possible. It does make painting pretty quick, but it also makes everyone's models look pretty much the same.

[Hobgoblin]

Briefly on gloss varnish: I hate the wet-look finish on the majority of models personally. On some models, it's fine, but not for the majority. Therefore, I can safely say that I have not been influenced by "photo-shoot" models here - personal preference still triumphs!

It's a perfectly honourable position, much as I disagree with it! 

But I do think that the fact that so many more people are photographing their miniatures and displaying them online has had a huge impact here. In the early 1980s, gloss was very much the norm. Almost all the miniatures in Gary Chalk and Joe Dever's Tabletop Heroes column were glossed, for example. Now, it's relatively unusual (and often consciously "retro"). It's much easier to take a good photo of a matt-finished miniature.

With regards to Age of Sigmar... A lot of the detail is designed for a specific style of painting. Details like inscriptions are recessed in to accept washes, and insignia like that on the shield is raised to make drybrushing possible. It does make painting pretty quick, but it also makes everyone's models look pretty much the same.

Yes, I do little but drybrush and wash. But I'd much prefer to add my own inscriptions and insignia. I think the sameness of many modern fantasy figures is a little unfortunate, and I think a lot of it (in GW's case) can be traced back to Warhammer's transition from an RPG/skirmish game to one of massed battles (with the third edition specifically). Beforehand, figures that were designed primarily for RPGs often looked as if they had an existence outside their unit; they might have loot or captives (some early trolls!) or other accoutrements not specifically related to fighting. And they might have unorthodox weaponry (darts for some of the armoured orcs for example, along with javelins). But, as Warhammer became more regimented (strict army lists, restricted weapon options), so did the figures.

[Vermis]

If you look at, say, the marvellous Asgard orcs of the early 80s, it looks like Jez Goodwin had paid a lot of attention to what Tolkien actually wrote about orcs. And another factor is that miniatures were less influenced by other miniatures. Look at how many of today's orc ranges are influenced by GW's massive, tusked and prognathous orcs rather than by JRRT or (in another direction) the AD&D Monster Manual.

True! I remember the time I got chewed out for being disappointed that the Mantic orcs were copies of the GW orcs. Apparently they're completely different because they're not quite as bucket-jawed and huge. I think I've moaned before that most orcs around these days are divided between a few older styles and a lot of the GW-style gorilla-faced Hulks. Not altogether great when you're scoping out future replacements for official LotR orcs.

Yes - those dragons! The Meier, Bibby and Dennett dragons are extraordinary - and I can remember a time when most of the Dennett ones were £1.95 each. And yes, there were plenty of less exalted sculpts around too. Today, I think, there's a huge amount of talent (more so than 30 years ago), but much of it seems misdirected (to my doubtless non-commercial tastes, at any rate!).

Agreed! I only got into wargaming after the turn of the century, and spent the next couple of years immersed in GW; but when I started to look around at what else there was and what had gone before, I knew I had to get my hands on some of those old Grenadier dragons. They still hold up extremely well, IMO. The jewel in my collection has to be the dragonlisk by John Dennett. Took a while between finding out about it, and finding it on ebay. The trebor-mint nodules are a bit funky, but I like it from the overall weight and attitude, to individual bits like the turn of the head (looks like it had just swivelled to fix on an unusual sound, before the photo was shot) complete with wattle; the actually-reptilian curve of the jaws; the tendons and muscles under the skin wrinkles of the limbs (something Nick Bibby* is praised for too); the way the toes of the feet spread, grip, or are just held neutrally; the design of the wing that deftly combines those of pterosaurs and birds... I'm an unapologetic fanboy. At the least it makes a difference from some of the slightly confused, scaly-bodybuilder spikosaurs that've cropped up since.

* I'm in awe of what Nick does these days, some of which is confident to go without a lot of surface greebling, and doesn't suffer from that.

Although I'll repeat one of my heretical thoughts in that, while Tom Meier is rarely matched with humanoid sculpts and his dragons aren't bad, I think that he sometimes has a bit of trouble with non-human figures. The GoT dire wolves for Dark Sword don't entirely convince me, for instance. But then he's not the only masterful human sculptor with that bit of a blind spot.

Couldn't agree more! Oversized weapons are a particular bugbear of mine here. If you look at early Citadel orcs, they were often armed with little hand-axes or humble javelins, all of which looked perfectly natural and improved the overall look of the miniatures.

The choppas of modern orcs could make decent coffee tables, I think.

Interesting point about gloss varnish.  I think I'd fall on Gilbear's side of the fence, TBH, but I understand how gloss brightens colours and adds depth. And aye, already mentioned my thoughts on cluttered minis. Recently I would've bought a pile of those sea elves from the last Warhammer start box, but then I would've wanted to scrape most of the marine designs off their shields. A load of bother.

[FramFramson]

This is sort of funny, because I've actually been pushing myself to add details to flat areas recently for fun and skill-testing. In the past week I've painted a bunch of text and diagrams into codices, tabby patterns on a cat, a garish floral vest, a burberry-esque coat liner (on a coat that had no liner), and and an argyle sweater.

But when the detail is pre-made for you, you can't really choose to do that sort of thing yourself.

I also hate that key details seem to be right where a mould-line needs to be, and that not only ruins the details further anyway, but makes it nearly impossible to put a brush to them - inevitably, the worst mouldlines coincide with my list of least-liked nitpicks too.  

In this day and age, any caster who allows a mold line to run across a face should be buried in quicklime.