Slitherine

Hi All,

Here's my first batch of War of the Roses archers, with some supporting Man-at-Arms types.

I'm really happy with the 'blued' armour. Feedback appreciated, as I'm probably biased about the blued armour!

http://img862.imageshack.us/img862/1819/wotr.jpg

I think your blued armor looks great. How did you do it?

iowa_grognard wrote:I think your blued armor looks great. How did you do it?

Thanks Iowa Grognard.

Spray painted the figure black.

Using Citadel miniatures I mixed about 1 parts mithril silver to 2 part necron abyss.

Dry brushed the mix until it came up like it did.

I think the 'trick' is to highlite the figure afterwards, otherwise it looks like a blue figure


So, I trimmed the armour in gold, dry brushed the chain mail silver, painted the lacing a bright colour.

I really like the blued armour. I'll copy that.
How common were painted helmets for the lower classes? I read about it but still I'm not used to see it, looks somewhat ... strange.

Mehrunes wrote:I really like the blued armour. I'll copy that.
How common were painted helmets for the lower classes? I read about it but still I'm not used to see it, looks somewhat ... strange.

Yes, the BG will be 8 stands, so the rest will have silvered armour. It was a logistical problem for the number I painted that way. Changed my method half way through. So it will probably appear better once the rest of the BG is assembled. The thing is, I don't think we know how many painted their armour. Any other know?

EDIT: You've made a good point, however, and I'll take it on board. It didn't 'look odd' to me, but I would have had artistic bias . I'll probably cut down on the number that I do like that, and also subdue it somewhat by trying to put wear marks on the helms that are painted. The rivets painted gunmetal and a few scuff marks on the high points of the armour. I wonder, however, how much stock we put on what we're used to seeing on the wargames table. For example, if archeological evidence proved that >50% of armour was painted, would we take time to 'get used' to the new information and continue to paint our armour in bright silver? Interesting Thanks for the feedback though.

ravenflight wrote: The thing is, I don't think we know how many painted their armour. Any other know?

You could take an uneducated guess like me and say the nutters that wanted to stand out because they wanted a fight did, but most people were happy to hide behind them and not get killed.

Some armour appears to have been painted because it was relatively poor quality and the paint would have prevented rust - saves a lot of elbow grease polishing the damed stuff which is a tiresome job I can assure you.

nikgaukroger wrote:Some armour appears to have been painted because it was relatively poor quality and the paint would have prevented rust - saves a lot of elbow grease polishing the damed stuff which is a tiresome job I can assure you.

Yes Nik, having spent many a day polishing quite high quality steel, I can assure you I would do practically anything I could to not have to do it in the field. I guess the big question is what chance would the possessor of poor quality armour have to get paint in the livery pigments? Chances are they would have used 'whatever was going' or 'black'. I just wanted to 'do something' to break up the 'standard' of a line of silver helmets. I wouldn't think many (any?) archers would have blued armour .

philqw78 wrote:

ravenflight wrote: The thing is, I don't think we know how many painted their armour. Any other know?

You could take an uneducated guess like me and say the nutters that wanted to stand out because they wanted a fight did, but most people were happy to hide behind them and not get killed.

From my military days we were taught to 'be the grey man'. Maybe I should paint the whole army grey, except for the occasional nutter in livery colours