Great show guys, lots of interesting talking points.

For vampires, I highly recommend the book ‘Vampire Forensics ‘ by Mark Collins Jenkins which goes into the history and origins of the vampire myth from multiple angles, a great book.

As for Warhammer, and to some degree 40k, I think the aesthetics of the miniatures have always been at odds with the background for technical and other reasons. In order to put the debate in context I think you need to look at the history of GW’s minis and paint schemes. When I started in the early-mid 90’s the minis were more cartoony and the colours really bright and I loved it, as I still do. I think GW tried to make things a bit darker in the 00’s but I think the general painting was worse as a result. I think you have to see GW’s minis as a blueprint for your interpretation of Warhammer or 40k. If you want to be more gritty and dark and more serious then you can paint them them that way. A darker pallette and blood/rust effects on the new Blightknights would do that and would no doubt be seen to be more awesome minis by some as a result. Ultimately it depends on how serious you want to make it for yourself.

I can see the virtue in both styles. I think bright, clean paint jobs really stand out on the tabletop, whereas more realistic interpretations of a miniature are perhaps at their best in a competition or as show pieces. To me the mini, any mini, is only a blueprint or a line drawing waiting to be coloured in. Do you paint inside or outside the lines? Do you use a varied, multi-coloured palette or do you use a grim, limited one?

I think it’s impossible for GW to please everyone as Warhammer and 40k gamers/fans/old fans often have a clear interpretation and passion of/for the background that brings emotion into play, be it love or, so often these days, of hate or despondency, all of which can be subjectively justified. Overall I think their paint jobs these days are bright and colourful/hideous because that’s the kind of style that made them successful to begin with. They have to pick a clear, consistent style to follow and the brighter palettes tend to look better and more appealing to a newcomer, they did in my case. I think the beauty of GW’s backgrounds, love ’em or hate ’em, is in the scope to make the aesthetics whatever you want them to be. I’d rather their minis looked more like the artwork but I think a case can be made for a mixture of detail/a blank canvas for gamers and painters to work with. I don’t think GW have an easy job when it comes to relating their IP through their minis as it’s so rich and varied that almost anything is possible for them to create and, to some extent, the WFB and 40k universes were designed to be that way. This said nothing will excuse the SM Centurions 🙂

I don’t think they have the balance right at the moment but it must be hard to innovate design aesthetics without alienating current/former miniature lines. IMHO I think their rules are their biggest problem right now as they have had no real innovation for 15+ years.

Anyway I personally endorse Ramshackle Games, who provide great bits and kits if you’re patient and are willing to put a bit more effort into making them. Their catalogue is a small treasure trove of bits, for Ork players especially. So if you haven’t done so already, check them out.

Now bring on XLBS 🙂