"Battle Damage" on Space Marine Models?

[imperialsavant]

O.K. folks, i was thinking yesterday evening about modeling "battle damage" on to my Black Templar Marine figures. Then I remembered all the fluff from many BL novels, particularly the Heresy series, of the time spent by many characters polishing their Armour between battles & even that they had servitors to ensure immaculate gear for their next battle.

Whats the consensus of the Forumn? Do you put scratches, dents, chips, small bullet craters etc on your Marine figures or not??

I always paint mud, scratches etc on Vehicle models & even have small holes done with a needle point soldering iron on one of my Sister's Exorcists.

Would like your thoughts!

[Lerra]

I prefer to paint my marines clean and undamaged, but I've seen some beautifully done battle damage, too.

It's pretty fluffy either way. You can say that the battle damage occurred in the middle of the current battle, or that before the fight started all of the armor was polished and pristine.

[BuFFo]

All my models look like they went through hell... Because they quite literally do.

My models don't represent the time spend between battles... My models represent the current campaign theya re fighting in.

[Mike X]

Most of my marines look clean and unscathed, but my tanks and dreadnoughts usually acquire battle damage.

[Schultzhoffen]

I gouge bullet holes, claw marks, etc. I also paint the edges of the armour chipped and worn and the feet dusty.

I prefer the 'We're on Campaign' look.

[DarkLink]

If by battle damage you mean chipped paint, then I've got plenty. Stupid metal models.

[pgarfunkle]

My guys are all well repaired between battles but that's mainly because I'm just getting comfortable painting. In the future I'll probably add battle damage, maybe starting with vehicles.

[The AKH]

I add the occasional dent or gouge to my Marines' armour when I'm assembling them. I'll also often add some paint chipping/mud when I paint them. I think it comes down to personal preference; whether you like the "on campaign" look, or the "fresh out the fortress-monastery" look.

I'm guessing, though, even if their armour was scrubbed, repaired, and anointed between every battle, it might start to acquire some visible signs of repair after a while.

[ForeverHero]

I have to admit Dark Angels army is pretty clean but I've started an Imperial Guard army that is going to feature some new weathering techniques that I have learned recently. It will act as an experiment in showing distressed and battered equipment which is something that I haven’t tried before with my gaming miniatures. I used the techniques on my scale models with great success but I’ve felt that it might not hold up to all of the handling that a tabletop mini gets.

[eagleboy7259]

With a more "realistic" army like the Imperial Guard or with the Orks overall look and appeal I'd say weathering fits in just fine, but with Marines, Tau, Eldar their bright colors and smooth lines tend to do better without IMOP. Too much just makes armor look dingy, and even sometimes too involved. Bright and simple - besides, mud upsets the machine spirit of the power armor