Modelling for accuracy

[WBRBloom]

The topic by @Lathe Biosas, and the subsequent answer from @Karhedron, got me thinking:

 

How accurately do you portray your miniatures on the table? And I'm not talking if you model miniatures to show having heavy weapons for Havocs (heretic astartes chaos space marines) or Devastators (primaris space marines), as this is something one would expect from a heavy weapon squad, to at least show they hold heavy weapons.

 

Neither I am talking about WYSIWYG on official tournaments (is this still a thing? It used to be back in the day - not sure if it is anymore). I am talking about adding details on your models, when creating them, to show the variety, absurdity, randomness and grimdarkness of the Warhammer 40k universe.

 

Looking back at artwork from the earlier days, one can see how incoherent and nonsensical stuff could be:

 

 

An eager WBRBloom at the age of 11-12 (at that time) would look at the commander in the artwork above and expect for such a model to exist. However it did not, and even models as iconic as the 2nd edition box set art commander did not had a model, until GW decided to release a limited edition one during Games Day 2012, or until the hobby community decided to scratch built one.

 

 

 

Understandably, a miniature as simple as that commander could be modelled by simply adding a bolter (instead of a bolt pistol) to a (commander) model with a power fist, a lot of people wanted the 'real' thing, or simply lacked the means to make one themselves.

 

As I recall it, GW created models that were true to the loadout that one would find in the codex, so you would have a librarian with a force staff and a plasma pistol, or a codicier librarian with a force weapon (axe) and a pistol (either bolt or plasma) to cover the needs for a miniature of that load out (or something similar for CSM models, sorcerers with force weapons and either bolt pistols or plasma pistols).

 

But even GW made errors, creating models that did not had the correct loadout, or simply falling behind on the production, especially during the transition from Rogue Trader to 2nd edition, or even well inside the 2nd edition, recalling them later for the correct miniature/loadouts and making the wrong model a 'limited edition' of sorts, skyrocketing its price on the second hand market.

 

Myself, I believe I have it fairly easy. Chaos is exactly that: Chaos. My champions have 'accursed swords', my terminators still carry combi-weapons. And don't even get me started on possessed chaos space marines and obliterators.

 

Of course I am not talking about easily recognisable weapons, such as plasma/melta or chainswords, but rather more obscure equipment. The majority of my miniatures come from kits that came in production late 90s/early 00s so my chaos space marines still carry bandoliers with grenades, bolter magazines and bolt pistols meaning that, theoretically, I can still field my force as having both loadout options (3rd edition had us modelling either CC/assault teams or rapid fire/tactical teams).

 

Nowdays I model mostly  for my personal enjoyment and, although I don't play a lot, I like to see my models looking awesome when I field them. However for me awesome means 'weird', and I really mean WEIRD (I still got a 'possessed' CSM I made back then, with the umbilical and a baby hanging out of his exposed intestines). It doesn't add anything to the tabletop, or the gaming experience, except perhaps the shock value and awkwardness of a younger WBRBloom who did not knew any better.

Edited 7 hours ago by WBRBloom

[space wolf]

I follow one rule: Rule of Cool. I'm with you, I like older warhammer art where there is a bunch of detail everywhere. To that point, I prefer even more detail than most GW models have...which creates more work for me, but I love it all the same.