Posted some updates for my Dux Bellorum project on my blog, mostly Pendraken and some others (for the Irish):
(http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-MOPaMyIXoiU/U6jSUVTRK4I/AAAAAAAAAWE/p5DlvS9VTQE/s1600/RB3.JPG)
(http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-gnfbE8BYPGs/U6jST365sXI/AAAAAAAAAV8/BWD-uBkdPwo/s1600/RB2.JPG)
(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-_ZdeBK9xcy0/U6jSUvx7ydI/AAAAAAAAAWI/B8bA76UcCAs/s1600/RB4.JPG)
(http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-mlaoy2jAc7Y/U6oYuA5OWxI/AAAAAAAAAXE/vJXioxKi_2w/s1600/GH2.JPG)
Link to the blog is here: http://lecoqfou.blogspot.com/
Mmm, very crisp definition. I approve and envy.
:-bd =D> :-bd =D>
Very impressive, I really like the shading on the shields
Now those are what I call 'well painted figures', very well done.
Those are brilliant! 8)
Very, very impressive !
Absolutely terrific ! =D> :-bd
Cheers - Phil
Very, very nice work 8).
Smashing job Joshua! Those are very nice indeed. Maybe a little too nice... :-\
Very nice indeed. I like the vivid colours and the crisp lining. 8)
Very nice Joshua! I especially like how you've put heavies at the front and lighter troops at the back of the bases.
Well b*gger me, they're brilliant!
*is mightily impressed
Says something of the quality of the painter and the mini when they're far better than many 28's I've seen :o
Bloody hell! I wish my Arthurian stuff looked that good, but unfortunately blessed(?) with shaky hands.
Wow! Definitely something to aspire to. Superexcellent work.
I really like them ! =D>
Again, your work shows the whole point of 10mm: the mass effect on large bases. Excellent; the leftovers from my Dux Britanniarum purchase (and there are many of them) will be going into an Impetus army on 60mm frontage.
Rather nice looking little chaps. Inspirational stuff.
Rather fab figures :-bd
Oh, I say, rather, what?
(chuckles to himself)
Only just seen them, but hats off! Excellent work! :-bd
Cheers,
Rob
Quote from: Ace of Spades on 11 August 2014, 10:57:11 AM
Only just seen them, but hats off! Excellent work! :-bd
Cheers,
Rob
Ditto - superbly done 8)
Lovely job, makes me want to try harder, also don't know how you got such clear photos, I have to reduce my photo file size to post them, so I loose detail, what's your secret!!
If you loose it, tie it tighter.
FK has a point; wargamers, even professionally published ones, seem to constantly mix up:
loose (unsecured) - lose (misplace)
lead (the metal) - led (the verb)
their (belonging to them) - there (is where it is) - they're (they are). They're over there with their troops.
where (in which place) - were (verb, past tense) - we're (we are). We're where we were last night.
could've (could have) - could of (just doesn't exist in the English language)
The apostrophe:
AFV's - belonging to a particular tank, eg. the AFV's crew.
AFVs - a number of tanks, eg. by 1918 AFVs were employed in their hundreds.
I know this won't make a ha'porth of difference but I've got it off my chest now.
Dear Mr Puritan.
When a grammar pedant gets a little frustrated I just want to give them a hug and say "there, their, they're".
:(
Quote from: Dour Puritan on 03 September 2014, 06:56:15 AM
AFV's - belonging to a particular tank, eg. the AFV's crew.
AFVs - a number of tanks, eg. by 1918 AFVs were employed in their hundreds.
Or AFVs' - belonging to more than one Armoured Fighting Vehicle, e.g. The Divisional AFVs' tracks were all covered in mud.
And while I'm being picky I'd like to point out that not all AFVs are tanks.
Let's tie something heavy to Fsn's goolies and take him jogging!
No, of course they're not, so:
The armoured car's crew were getting mightily brassed off.
The self-propelled artillery peice's tracks were giving it a great deal of trouble.
The Hussite war wagons' teams were late being harnessed, which meant they were unable to take part in the defence.
And so on and so forth ad infinitum...... If we're going to use English we should at least attempt to use it properly. My main niggle is paying good money for rules sets and then having to unravel the poor grammar to make sense of the rules. If a person is going to write and then SELL rules that person could at least ensure that spelling and punctuation is correct so that the intention behind the rules is perfectly clear.
Quote from: Dour Puritan on 03 September 2014, 08:56:33 AM
The self-propelled artillery peice's tracks were giving it a great deal of trouble.
That's "piece" not "peice" ;)
It's the Law that any attempt at grammar pedantry must contain at least one speeling mistook,
Quote from: Dour Puritan on 03 September 2014, 06:56:15 AM
FK has a point; wargamers, even professionally published ones, seem to constantly mix up:
loose (unsecured) - lose (misplace)
lead (the metal) - led (the verb)
their (belonging to them) - there (is where it is) - they're (they are). They're over there with their troops.
where (in which place) - were (verb, past tense) - we're (we are). We're where we were last night.
could've (could have) - could of (just doesn't exist in the English language)
The apostrophe:
AFV's - belonging to a particular tank, eg. the AFV's crew.
AFVs - a number of tanks, eg. by 1918 AFVs were employed in their hundreds.
I know this won't make a ha'porth of difference but I've got it off my chest now.
Huzzay! One of the great irritations of written English has been the rise of the rogue apostrophe. It seems that very few people now can write a plural word without preceding the final letter "s" with an apostrophe.
It doesn't need it. Come the revolution, I'm going to have a large pit dug in the middle of nowhere and offenders will spend a month at the bottom of it, living on bread and water. You have been warned! >:( >:( >:(
Oh borrax me flippin spellin thingy as got broke!
Cant see much differance meself
IanS
Well, moving on, received the PDF of my Raiders bundle from Too Fat Lardies this morning, so I'm hoping the Picts will be going into production soon. Must get on with my Saxons now to get this DB campaign under way.
(http://ak2.polyvoreimg.com/cgi/img-thing/size/orig/tid/41702087.jpg)
Give it ip Derek now!
Is giving it "ip" the same as giving it some welly? ;)
The world needs more people like Hertsblue and Jane Austen and Dickens and .... well, me, let's say it.
It.
Good, Techno, good. Let's try a harder one (as the actress said): Mex-i-ca. Try, now, tryyyyyyyyyy....
He's bad enough with the welsh, so NO DONT.
IanS
Quote from: FierceKitty on 04 September 2014, 12:54:28 PM
Good, Techno, good. Let's try a harder one (as the actress said): Mex-i-ca. Try, now, tryyyyyyyyyy....
NNNNN.....OWWWWW.
Quote from: ianrs54 on 04 September 2014, 12:56:31 PM
He's bad enough with the welsh, so NO DONT.IanS
:P..... ;)
Cheers - Phil
Mutters. Again. :d
Who is the morose bu**er muttering in the corner ?
IanS ;)
Don't mind him, he can't tell talk from mutter. (No-one under forty-five is going to get that one, I fear)
;D ;D ;D ;D
Ray !!!
That's truly awful ! =O =O =O =O
(oh...alright !.....It's very good, even though it took me a few seconds to get it.)
I thought we were talking about Mutter Slater from that well known beat combo "Strackridge."
Cheers - Phil
Shall I escort you to the cloak room, Sir? You'll be needing your coat,
No he wont - it be nice here.
IanS
Quote from: Ironduke on 02 September 2014, 06:20:23 PM
Lovely job, makes me want to try harder, also don't know how you got such clear photos, I have to reduce my photo file size to post them, so I loose detail, what's your secret!!
Thanks for the compliments, I use a Canon T3i (a gift I bought for my wife that I borrow when I need to snap photos of figures). I know nothing of photography and take the pictures on the kitchen countertop. The camera takes great photos despite my skills. No Ansel Adams I'm afraid.
On a side note, I have posted on my blog my painting technique...not that I am any expert. Some people over at The Miniatures Page requested and I thought it might be fun to look at it myself. Be warned not all the 10mm figures are Pendraken (but Pendraken ARE my favorite ;) ):
http://lecoqfou.blogspot.com/2014/09/10mm-dark-ages-step-by-step.html