+ The Mazzikim – and historical accuracy in a future war +
 |
| + Markings, weathering and a few little details to go + |
+ More painting, more progress. While still WIP, these chaps are crawling along. However, with just twenty-one (and a Dreadnought) to paint, they're not an insurmountable project. I definitely find it easier to push myself on a slog when a project has a definite scope. +
+ The WIP shot about shows ten marines, including a couple of specialists (flamer, heavy bolter and possessed), so getting near to being halfway through. The majority of these will likely end up in the Mazzikim – one of two hotch-potch remnant squads fighting in the Underworld War – but at least one will need to join the other squad, in order to create space for a Sergeant. +
- Sergeant Clotho Harphagos
- Mugla of the Blasted Cedar – boltgun
- Kimon of the Inscribed – boltgun
- Coran of the Blasted Cedar – boltgun
- Arrian the Medean – boltgun
- Urka Madis – boltgun
- Bac Vorkar of the Third Hand – heavy bolter
- Vannis Gen of the Inscribed – boltgun
- Tantal – boltgun
- Sart Kayi – flamer
+ Emboldened names here are figures that were already ready for play (i.e. they just need finishing touches). I now need to pick who's who for the three in the picture at the top. Since I have some WIP shots, here's a pic of them a bit earlier in the painting process, with just the red done:
+ After this, I played around with some more glazes and final highlights, then painted in the metals. Adding the metals and eyes goes a surprising way to getting these near completion. +
+ Objective creep +
+ We've all been there – you put your main projects to one side in favour of 'a quick sideproject'. It's 'just come off the backburner'; you wanted 'a quick palette cleanser' before getting back to your main project... only it isn't. The side project catches your imagination, and before you know, you've got really deep into the lore, ordered a load of extra bits, and the project's taken on a life of its own. The infamous hobby butterfly strikes again! ++ Not inherently a problem, of course – and I'm an advocate of running with your enthusiasms where possible. Few things are more tiresome than having to force yourself to paint – it makes your hobby a job. +
+ The problem I do have with this is that indulging the hobby butterfly can mean that early parts of the project end up looking a bit half-hearted. As mentioned in an earlier inload, these Word Bearers were intended as a quick side-project; minimal conversion in order to get them on the table. In practice, I found myself enjoying the process, and have been lavishing more attention on the more recent members. +
+ Here, I think the painting has remained relatively consistent, but the underlying conversion work is gradually becoming more complex, hiding more of the Mark X basis of the figure, and drawing out more of the familiar Horus-Heresy look. Finding a balance between time available and simply getting figures done has become more important for me in recent years, so the underlying figures above have not been converted to the extent that I might once have done, as shown in a couple of examples below. +
 |
| + Mark II Crusade plate – a conversion that led to Praetor plate becoming 'canon'. + |
 |
| + Mark IV Maximus plate; full conversion + |
+ Anvils of Konor picked up on this on a post I put up on Instagram last night to say that they're not as obviously Horus Heresy-era as they could be. By the time I got back to the picture this morning, it had escalated into quite a heated discussion on the relative merits of what makes a figure fit into the Horus Heresy or not, and it was interesting to see the back and forth. +
 |
| + Altogether simpler – Mark IV Maximus with minimal sculpting. + |
+ He (quite unnecessarily, but very kindly) got in touch to apologise about what he felt was his slightly abrupt phrasing, and we fell to chatting about 'historical accuracy' within the HH era, a topic that has popped up a few times, and tends to end up with two entrenched camps. He and I are going to put together a future inload to discuss this concept of historical accuracy in Horus Heresy-era gaming, and in wargaming in general. +
+ It's an issue that's got more complexity than the partisan issue of 'rivet-counters' vs. 'lazy modellers' it often devolves into, so I'm hoping we can put together a more nuanced discussion of the topic; one with a vibe that's more 'friendly chat around the fire with a brandy' than 'debate with the enemy'! +
+ Best of all, I hope I'll be able to showcase some of AoK's stunning work here, and share it with you. +
+++
+ Ahead of the article, I'd love to hear your thoughts on 'pseudo-historical accuracy' within wargames in general, in order to get as broad a set of discussion points as possible. +
- How important is personal creativity and individuality to your hobby? How does that relate to fitting your models in with the established universe?
- How far do you consider compatibility with others' work when painting, modelling or gaming?
- Do you like playing with and against more familiar 'canon' figures and armies, or more unusual and individualistic 'counts-as' forces?
- How does it relate to the implied social contract of gaming or sharing your work?
- Where does the line lie for you between including everyone and setting particular standards?
- Do you see the official lore/'canon' simply as a starting point, or a common factor to be included where possible?
4 comments:
Do you like playing with and against more familiar 'canon' figures and armies, or more unusual and individualistic 'counts-as' forces?
My veteran sergeants killed a Bloodthirster in the same battle as my men slew Abaddon and wiped out his retinue in a sweeping advance. I don't know how you fit that story into the Warhammer 40,000 timeline other than the usual 'he teleported away' or 'it wasn't really him' which cheapen the game somewhat.
You don't really have that problem when its someone's original/generic character, as the Iron Warriors have many warsmiths for you to kill. Its nice to line up against something you recognise, but not so much a staple character from the mythos. Fighting the chaos warmaster or the daemon primarch raises the stakes of a battle- but only on one side. You're never going to be able to claim final victory over Magnus the Red in the way you could over Zargothrax, Sorceror of the 9th path.
As for Modelling creativity, I'd refer to The Black Templars by John Blanche. Most warriors are clearly wearing some MkVII variant, with enough variation (in ornamentation, how the powerfeeds connect, additional targeting lenses and stuff ) that each marine could be considered to be wearing a unique suit.
Most marines have boltguns and there are clear sergeants. One guy has a fur loincloth. This flies in the face somewhat of the Codex: Armageddon/Black Templars depiction of them as unled squads of equal brothers, predominantly armed with chainswords. There are none of the chains and lanterns that later design direction would add to their appearance.
However, there is enough flexibility in the background (and will in the fanbase) that the painting by John Blanche can always be considered visually representative of the faction. 5 editions later, it still tells you whats going on. I think that armies similarly need not be hidebound to specific schemes or wargear.
1. I would say this is the most important aspect of hobbying for me. I would say that I am a painter/modeller first and a gamer second, but truth be told, I consider crafting lore and fluff for my armies to be just as important as assembling and painting the miniatures themselves. As such, I think that creativity and individuality can be expressed in this meta-way, and need not require extensive conversion work or novel paint schemes (although both are always welcome and encouraged!). I am happy to paint up (or see painted) an army that doesn’t on the surface look unique or individual, but has been lovingly crafted with a theme or backstory in mind. As such, I think that fitting them in or finding a place for them in established lore is essential, although there is always room for creative and out-of-the box thinking.
2. Very little, as I do most of my hobbying (including gaming) solo. Had I more opportunities to work with others on hobbying projects, I don’t doubt I would value compatibility much more highly.
3. Either is fine, as long as it is/can be justified within the narrative of the game.
4. I’m not sure I fully understand what you’re getting at. I personally would be reticent to share my work were it not ‘historically accurate’, but then again, I wouldn’t build and create a force that wasn’t (although the myriad different lore writers at Games Workshop can make things confusing sometimes!). As for the social-contract aspect, it is a large hobby with many people playing for different reasons. I don’t think anyone is required to hobby in a historically accurate way, even in historical settings such as the Horus Heresy. It’s always appreciated, but should never be mandatory – nor, on that point, should anyone be disparaged for not hobbying the ‘correct’ way.
5. I guess it’s a matter of personal preference. As someone who values the stories told through models, rather than the models or the games themselves, I am neither an inclusive gamer, nor one easily included. I am happy to play or work with people who share similar philosophies to me, but I typically wouldn’t, for example, play a non-narrative game just for the sake of playing a game. Not everyone needs to be or even should be included in everything, nor should everyone be held to the same standards. These things are quite fluid, depending on what you and your gaming groups/friends/tournament scene want to get out of the hobby.
6. Both? I think official lore and canon should serve as a jumping off point to start your own adventures and to tell your own stories. I personally find it a little boring to recreate established battles or campaigns with a preset cast of canon characters (although shining the spotlight on ‘lesser’ canon characters or conflicts can be admirable); I’d prefer to take a plot hook and use it to build something original – to carve out a unique niche within the universe in question. Yet whatever story this might be, it should be couched in the canon, and be as plausible and ‘historically accurate’ as possible.
Oh boy, those are the really big questions, aren't they? ;)
Some thoughts, maybe in no particular order:
These days, my main focus is on creating characters, rather than playing pieces (seeing how I am not getting a lot of playing done), and my main aim with those characters is that they feel "right" within the scope of the given setting (be it 30k or 40k).
Now making sure characters fit the lore to a certain degree is, of course a part of that, and I would argue that the "rules" arising from the lore should not be seen as strictures that make stuff impossible, but rather as an added texture that provides that extra bit of plausibility. At the same time, I think it's fine to disregard a rule here and there in the service of an awesome conversion or a cool fluff idea. This is usually a bit of a tightrope walk: I find that, once you manage to achieve a certain sense of plausibility and coherency, I find that you can get away with breaking a rule here and there. It's like painting within the lines, but occasionally over the lines where it's necessary ;)
This usually works best with parts of the setting that haven't been explored to exhaustion by GW proper and/or by hobbyists: Stuff like minor Inquisitorial Ordos, trading houses, remote feudal worlds -- for instance, weirdingways' Navigator Houses are basically my favourite 40k projects of all time, because they take a part of the setting that is virtually unexplored and extrapolate the existing fluff into what seems like a plausible (if highly original) extension of the established setting. This is also why I tend to favour original characters over canon characters -- it just adds more freedom to explore the setting (there's also the fact that it really sucks to be forced into a corner by a new "official" piece of lore, a bad depiction of "your" canon character in a BL novel or stuff like that.
Now the Horus Heresy setting is, in many ways, the opposite of all that: Because it is so heavily focused on Astartes AND because it *needs* to feel different from 40k, the minuscule differences between armour marks and tank variants turn into a sort of historical canon -- and one that can be a lot of fun to follow, don't get me wrong. But it also tends to grow into a divide between those who treat 30k as a "historical system" and those who treat the whole subject with a bit (or a lot) more leeway.
When all is said and done, I would argue that a warband or army that has that certain spark, where the creator has applied lots of care to make sure the collection just "feels right", will always end up feeling plausible and fit the chosen setting. It's just a matter of narrative and creative care, in my opinion, and a project that has that certain "je-ne-sais-quoi" will always fit in, even if some of the rivets are in the wrong place ;)
Speaking of which, wonderful work on those Word Bearers: I think those really sharp looking metallic rims on the CSM shoulder pads would really profit from some sharp highlighting, but you are probably on top of the situation ;)
How important is personal creativity and individuality to your hobby? - The ability to make my own figure though kitbashing, or my own army through paint and other design choices is what for me, really makes the hobby. Merely assembling and painting does not do it for me.
How does that relate to fitting your models in with the established universe? - I like to pick obscure areas, or less considered territories to base my armies in, for example Wissenland for the Empire, or similar less popular armies (if not making up my own)
How far do you consider compatibility with others' work when painting, modelling or gaming? - I do not really consider other's work when planning these things, as I am mostly a solitary hobbyist.
Do you like playing with and against more familiar 'canon' figures and armies, or more unusual and individualistic 'counts-as' forces? - converted armies and counts as armies are more exciting to me, but can be very complicated to work out what is what, vs. something that hues more closely to the standard.
How does it relate to the implied social contract of gaming or sharing your work? - as a mostly solo hobbyist, I do not worry so much about the social contract aspect of it, for example with basing, or making conversions translate easily to standards... as long as they are clear to me, and please me, I consider that enough.
Where does the line lie for you between including everyone and setting particular standards? - I think this depends on your gaming or hobbying environment. If you are doing your own thing online, then it hardly matters what other people are doing, or not doing with regards to painting, customization, writing up backgrounds or whatever. If you are playing with a group or club, or going to a FLGS to play, then you need to conform more to what the standard is there (and hopefully rise above it, particularly with regards to painting)
Do you see the official lore/'canon' simply as a starting point, or a common factor to be included where possible? - this is something that is unique to GW games, in that there is both a large quantity of "official" background material, and also a strong history of building your own worlds, characters, and fitting your work in as you like. This is further complicated by the multiple viewpoints of authors, and changing emphasis over the 25 years I have been involved in the hobby (Where does the time go!). Much of the feel of the universes seems to be "story" and "official" lately, as compared to the 90's when things were so much more open seeming.
Post a Comment