Painted Seekers

These are Seekers from Games Workshop. As part of my ongoing attempts to either encourage my children to follow my geeky path, or possibly to tone down their enthusiasm to the point where we ever talk about something not related to toy soldiers, we each picked up a Start Collecting box for the (new to me) Age of Sigmar game. Interest in actually playing Age of Sigmar seems to have waned in favour of Warhammer 40,000 (magic space guns > just magic, at least as far as I can tell) but I have tremendously enjoyed the process of painting my way through the Daemons of Slaanesh box.  I’m aware that I could notionally play them in Warhammer 40,000 as well, but I’m looking into more ‘space-y’ armies to fit my perception of the aesthetic better and in any case a friend seems to have a potential use for the Daemons.

I will admit to having some issues with Games Workshop over the last decade or so. In summary, I love their miniatures and consider them to be pretty much the best manufacturer still. But the balance of their games (except Blood Bowl, which seems to have been a community effort) is almost universally terrible and this leads to unsatisfying games when played between adults of comparable skill levels. So it was with some trepidation that I jumped back down that particular rabbit-hole. Still, I suppose that if I’m mainly playing against my own kids then the balance is not really important as I can just modify things myself as needed.

I painted the Seekers, or as I recall them, Daemonettes on Steeds of Slaanesh, in two parts. I had already decided on a bright pink and purple scheme for the riders so I felt that something more muted would be suitable for the riders and eventually went for black hide and white underbelly. The assembly and ease of painting is significantly better compared to Wyrd miniatures and it is probably this that is at least in part leading to the dominance of Games Workshop in the industry.  I found this lot even harder to take decent photographs of than usual as they’re big enough that my lack of skill with the camera shows up the short focus compared to the depth of shot I would need.

Next on the painting table: Daemonettes.

Categories: Age of Sigmar, Painting and modelling, Warhammer 40000 | Tags: , , , | 9 Comments

Post navigation

9 thoughts on “Painted Seekers

  1. Very interesting. I have pretty much given up on GW and haven’t played any table top wargame in almost 10 years. I have started back painting some mini on hearing GW has simplified the rules for 40k (AoS is just too far out for me to get into, I loved WHFB and too many of the old favorite armies have been nix’ed).
    I see what your talking about in terms of painting; Since I started back with some ebay Tau and painting the figure from Zombiecide, and now Malifaux – I see where GW minis are really dumbed down. While the Wyrd models are much more complicated, each is like painting a heroic leader in 40k. I much prefer Malifaux to GW these days.

    • Thanks for commenting.

      I think that the relative simplicity of many GW miniatures is perhaps a feature rather than a bug. Having highly detailed miniatures is fine when a crew only consists of 7-9 on each side. Warhammer 40,000 armies could easily extend to 100 or more and it would probably be rather off-putting to be faced with so many miniatures that need significant detail work.

      That said, I certainly favour the Malifaux approach and prefer it as a game too.

    • GW has literally thousands of miniatures across a couple of dozen armies. I think you’re showing your bias a little too strongly with your choices of words here, such as “dumbed down” etc. The current Seekers are no simpler or harder to paint than the original metal Steed riders from ’88, except for needing to work around the metal joins. The Tau still follow the same design cues laid down when they were first released in 2001.
      Malifaux gangs have what? A dozen figures? They’re all individual characters. You’re trying to compare apples to oranges here. I mean, like whatever you enjoy. I don’t care – and there are plenty of valid reasons to criticise GW, but “dumbed down” miniatures isn’t one of them…

  2. Ann

    Very cute; I’ve always liked seekers. 🙂

    Yes, balance can be a problem though I’ve finding it less so than in the last couple of editions, though there are still some issues. I do what I’ve always done with miniature games, including GW ones: I rely for my games with regular opponents and people who are fun to play with rather than random pick up games. If I have fun gaming with someone then I put them on my contact list for when I’m looking for a game, if I don’t then I don’t. So far it has worked out pretty well.

    • Thanks! I think that these are really nice miniatures.

      The issue of balance may be due to my gaming group being somewhat competitive between ourselves. It has not proven enjoyable to win a game due to the choice of army book, and we did have a few cases where the power disparity between two army books lead to one sided results. Minor imbalances are fine; after all, we have imbalances in skill levels too. And your point about playing fun people is very well made of course.

  3. Those are very cool models, that I haven’t seen before. As a Blood Bowl gamer (for years), I kind of had to laugh when you mentioned “balance”. There is some, but the teams are pretty imbalanced. A Goblin team doesn’t stand much of a chance against a Chaos Dwarf team, for instance. There is an element of randomness to the game though, and coupled with skill, anything can happen. That’s what makes it so fun!

    • Thanks, I really enjoyed painting these Seekers.

      I have found the balance to be pretty good in Blood Bowl. The stunty teams and Vampires are lower on the pecking order (but I think I read somewhere that this was a deliberate thing, at least for the stunties) but the rest of the teams seem to have a good chance against each other.

  4. Ahem.
    Nice work on these guys, though you might want to consider the light balance (or more light?) – the second shot makes them a bit hard to make out.

    • Thanks! I know what you mean about the light. I’m experimenting a bit with my lightbox and decided to use my blog to remind myself also of the times when it didn’t work well.

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Blog at WordPress.com.

%d bloggers like this: