Newbie Guide?

[OGOPTIMUS]

I don't have a real preference. If a mini is "heavy" it goes on a metal/plastic stand. If not, then I don't have a system.

The only caveat I have is that I make the stand fit to the miniature. I don't glue minis to stands since I broke WAY too many back then I got into miniatures gaming. I use putty, pins, and whatever else I can to make them fit snugly.

My real issue with the plastic/plastic stand is that it doesn't fit most minis--the metal/plastic one fits a lot better, and the Zocchi one is very nice (seems like most of the older minis were made to use that stand).

And cost isn't an incentive here--the metal/plastic and plastic/plastic are the same price; $0.50 each.

My Gorn BB is actually on a metal/plastic stand--that really works. It's been on my bench like that for months and months now.

[djdood]

One of the reasons I use the "low-rider" B-10 stand for large ships is because it puts them so low. Makes it that much easier to keep it and its consorts out of each others' way on the mapboard.

[Falconer]

And cost isn't an incentive here--the metal/plastic and plastic/plastic are the same price; $0.50 each.

Except that if a mini comes with a plastic/plastic stand (like every miniature I have bought), then you are stuck paying 50¢ more for the other kind of stand.

Anyway, thanks for the advice, everyone. I can see the advantage of not keeping the heights uniform.

[Falconer]

I now have 1 of each of: Federation CC, Federation CL, Klingon D7, Romulan WE, Kzinti CS, Kzinti CL, Gorn CA, and Gorn CL. The three designs from TV are obviously classic; otherwise, my favorite so far is the Gorn CL. Very cool little ship!

A plastic Federation DN is on its way next.

[marcus_aurelius]

I am getting back into painting some miniatures for the first time
in about 20 years (since high school).

I am going to use Tamiya brand for my base hull color on top of the primer. I was then planning on using a dullcoat at the end to protect
and give a more realistic look

I have a some questions that perhaps someone could answer:

1. There was a mention of still being able to see the metal under the
primer. I assume this means a complete yet light covering but still
with NO exposed metal? This is hard for me to picture.

2. After I do the base hull color, would it be best to paint the details
and then do the dullcoat. Or should I do the dullcoat on top of the base hull color BEFORE the details to protect the hull color and then do a
second dullcoat when totally done?
(The reason I ask is that I was painting details on a Kzinti at an angle
and it slipped down the newspaper a couple of inches and some of the base hull paint came off. The base hull paint was done weeks before.)

3. There was a recommendation to use glosscoat before decals.
Does dullcoat fulfill the same function?

Thanks!

[djdood]

1. There was a mention of still being able to see the metal under the primer. I assume this means a complete yet light covering but still with NO exposed metal? This is hard for me to picture.

That was me.

It's tricky. You definitely want complete coverage of primer, but you absolutely don't want it too thick. My meter to measure it against is if the mini still looks a bit gray (i.e. the primer isn't totally opaque and the metal shows through a bit). Primer doesn't need to be thick to do it's nifty little chemical bonds.

You have to account for the base coat that will go on later, and even the detail coat for things like shuttle hatches, etc. If you want tiny little grille details like on lots of Gorn shuttle hatches to show, you need to go as thin as you can manage on every layer (but still thick enough to do the job). It takes practice.

2. After I do the base hull color, would it be best to paint the details and then do the dullcoat. Or should I do the dullcoat on top of the base hull color BEFORE the details to protect the hull color and then do a second dullcoat when totally done?

I usually dullcoat to protect the mini at the very end. In-progress accidents happen, but I wouldn't modify my sequences to account for them (Lord knows I have them, but I *try* to not).

3. There was a recommendation to use glosscoat before decals. Does dullcoat fulfill the same function?

Nope. Dull-coat and gloss-coat are completely different in how they interact with decals. They both create a layer of transparent plastic on your subject (to protect it from smudges, etc.) but the similarity stops there.

Matte and Dull-coats leave an extremely fine "pitted" surface texture (to different degrees). It's not textured enough to really see, but that breaking up of the smooth surface scatters the bounced light, giving it much less shine (and makes it look less "toy like"). That surface texture is the sworn enemy of decals.

Water-slide decals are very dependent on an extremely smooth surface to work correctly. Their adhesive layer is incredibly thin (roughly as thick as the texture from matte and dull coat is tall). Therein lies the problem. If you put decals over a textured surface, they end up with millions of tiny air-pockets trapped under the decal. This causes the condition known as "silvering", where the decal looks like it has a mirror behind it, or other visual defects. They also tend to not really be adhered to the mini (they are only grabbing the very tops of those pits).

The solution for this is to either paint your minis in a gloss paint (which leaves a mirror-smooth, reflective finish), or gloss clear coat the minis before decals (which can also be done cheaply with Future floor polish). Either method gives the decals the smooth surface they want to adhere to best.

Once your minis are on, dry, and cleaned-up (to removed excess adhesive), then they should be sealed on with a good clear coat. I recommend flat dullcoat, but any clear coat will do.

[Scoutdad]

Not to detract from Will's second comment - but I use a different approach.
I often apply several light dullcotes at various stages during te painting process, but this is more an atrifact of how/what I do than a requirement of the material being used.

If you look at the examples on my photobucket site, you'll see what I mean.
I sometimes end up with 30 or 40 different colors / shades of color on a single mini and with my work/home life being as hectic as a family of six makes it, it has taken as long as 4 weeks or more to finish a single mini... 30 minutes on Monday, 5 more on Friday evening, 15 minutes Sunday before church, 11 minutes after dinner on Tuesday, etc...
(For an extreme example, I have about 4 dozen Hydran minis that were base coated, washed and high-lighted during the summer of 2008 - along with the other 3 dozen or so that are finished. These have all been dull coated to protect the badse coat as they get shuffled around the work area until I finish them)

This is especially true of the fantasy minis that I paint. They will often receive a light dull-coat to protect the work previosuly completed. I have "accidentally" removed previous placed paint through unintentional transfer of potential energy resulting from outside intervention of gravitation attraction more often than care to admit and a bit of dull coat will help in that situation.

The end result of this long winded missive is, while not required - a bit of dull coat on top of the base coat will not adversely affect the final result.

[marcus_aurelius]

Thanks!! That information really helps!

[djdood]

See.

Ask 5 painters, and you'll get 5 different takes on how to do it.

You'll see some common threads though (and Tony's a kick-butt painter, so I'd listen to him, over me, any day).

[Scoutdad]

That's funny - I've always found that if you ask three (3) painters, you get Pi answers...

[djdood]

Mmmmmm... pie.

[Falconer]

Probably a dumb question, but, here goes. So I got a metal DNG and a plastic DN. All of my other miniatures are metal, but I need a DN (MY). Is there any reason I shouldn’t combine the primary hull and aloft propulsion unit from the metal DNG with the secondary hull and the two rear propulsion units from the plastic DN?

Possible downsides: extra cost; primary hull is more detailed on the plastic model (though there isn’t much difference; anyway, neither one is quite the level of detail of the CC); extra work to file off extra weapons; and the possibility that it will want to fall forward because of the very uneven weight—even with the metal/metal stand (but with glue and possibly reinforcement this could be okay?).

Upside: the added weight and metallic feel enhances the gaming experience and keeps it more in-line with every other miniature I own. It’s a very good-looking mini, but I regret how light-weight it is.

Any chance of ADB ever coming out with a metal DN, ideally with a saucer as detailed as the CC?

Your expertise, please, gentlemen!

[djdood]

Well, they're your minis, so you can do as you please.

I'm pretty sure putting a metal saucer on a plastic rear hull and engines would end up being severely nose-heavy. You'd have to weight the base so much, that it would defeat the whole purpose.

If you really want a metal DN, you'd could modify a DNG to have the "bent" engines and shorter rear-hull. A fair amount of work, but it could be done.

That's exactly how the DNG mini was mastered, just in the opposite direction. Mike Raper modified a plastic DN to extend the rear hull and put the engines on flat struts, then had a jeweler friend of his cast it in metal for him as a master-copy.

I will give away a big secret though. If you call a DNG a DN, and don't tell anybody, 99% wouldn't notice the difference. Only the top 1% of uber-nerd obsessives like me would notice the difference, and we would nod and know that it's a substitution (and a pretty valid one at that). It's not like using a freighter for a dreadnought - and that happens all the time (and there's nothing wrong with that - even if it makes my inner-geek groan).

[Scoutdad]

I will give away a big secret though. If you call a DNG a DN, and don't tell anybody, 99% wouldn't notice the difference. Only the top 1% of uber-nerd obsessives like me would notice the difference...

Proudly numbered among the uber-geeks for 25 years and still counting!

...and we would nod and know that it's a substitution (and a pretty valid one at that). It's not like using a freighter for a dreadnought...

Didn't Hauptman try that against Honor Harrington in Basilisk Station? With amazing horrendous results! IIRC

...and that happens all the time (and there's nothing wrong with that - even if it makes my inner-geek groan).

As long as all parties agree and understand what the proxy represents; although it can go too far.

[Remind me to eventually tell the tale of the 13 year in the FLGS WH40K league.]
In a nutshell... everything in his Army was represented by the plastic marines from the boxed set. He had a handy reference chart so HE! and his opponent could remember what was what.
The single marines spray painted red were Dreadnoughts...
The marines spray painted green were land speeders...
The marines spray painted black were Knights Templar...
That's takign proxies a bit too far

[Wolverin61]

I will give away a big secret though. If you call a DNG a DN, and don't tell anybody, 99% wouldn't notice the difference. Only the top 1% of uber-nerd obsessives like me would notice the difference, and we would nod and know that it's a substitution (and a pretty valid one at that).

Sounds like me, for years I've only had one Gorn mini, a DN (2200 iirc, it has the separate engines) and it's been every kind of Gorn ship I've ever used in a game. But, since nobody plays Gorns that I've gamed with, it's worked.