Indy GT paint score opinions?

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**ChaosismyAntidrug**

I run a 40k tournament every month at my FLGS and Points are awarded for painting. This score is always an all or nothing type of deal. The way I do it is, I ask my self: "Is the whole army painted with at least 3 basecoat colors?" Yes=5 pts No=0pts, and "Is the whole army Based?" yes=5 pts no=0pts. I feel this is the best way to give credit to people who take the time to paint their armies. There is no ambiguity in the scoring and functionally only serves as a tie breaker to separate out the top two or three players. I have only ever gotten 1 complaint about the system and that was from some one who had a fully painted army except for one squad and thusly did not get the points for having a fully painted army.

If a more stringent approach were to be used I would have to include a checklist or at least some criteria as to how I was coming up with the score. If only to show people that I am not just pulling these scores out of thin air to help certain people win.

**Clay Williams**

I am the whipping boy .... whip away.

I judged the paint. I would say 85 out of 90 people walked away happy with everything. That makes me happy.

Continue whipping.

Kieth my favortie quote from you "I highlighted that, you just can't see it"

**Redbeard**

gorgon wrote:The organizer is right that using checklists to evaluate artistic endeavours is stupid.

It may be stupid, but for 90% of the armies, it is a completely viable method of scoring - and one that works within the time constraints.

I wrote the rubric for the Adepticon team tournament last year, and did a lot of the judging. When you're judging 360 armies in three hours, you need some way to standardize what you're looking for. We're not judging the Mona Lisa, we're judging toy soldiers. Even with three judges, that means each judge needs to examine, and record scores for forty armies an hour - a rate that means each army gets slightly over a minute...

Fortunately we were able to pre-judge a bunch of the armies the night before, and we would judge teams all at once, simplifying things in many cases, but even still, you understand the scope of the problem facing paint judges at the big events.

I cannot fathom being able to take the time to assign 0-50 scores to 100 armies without having certain key elements that you know you're looking for up front. This is doubly true if you have multiple people judging, as different things will appeal to different judges. Making sure everyone is on the same page is important when scores are on the line.

One of the nice things about this is that I still have the data from scoring Adepticon, and can tell any team exactly where they got (or lost) their points. This accountability after the event is another huge benefit to using a rubric for scoring.

Can people "paint to a checklist" - Sure, but if they're doing that, odds are they're ending up with a pretty good looking army anyway. I know that the rubric we used included the words "well-done". Was there "well done" freehand markings on units? If it look like someone slopped a couple of X's on shoulderpads, it fails the "well-done" test.

There is also the checkbox for "this comes together as a whole" - which allows an army that may not excel technically, but that really works, to pick up points.

That said, the checklist can't be the only thing used. As I alluded to above, a checklist will work for 90% of the participants at any tournament. The remaining handful should be evaluated and discussed by all the judges present. Even if each judge is responsible for a third of a room, after the checklists are done, they should examine the top 10% a second time, without the checklist, and the judges should work together to pick the best army.

**AdeptArtificer**

ChaosismyAntidrug wrote:I run a 40k tournament every month at my FLGS and Points are awarded for painting. This score is always an all or nothing type of deal. The way I do it is, I ask my self: "Is the whole army painted with at least 3 basecoat colors?" Yes=5 pts No=0pts, and "Is the whole army Based?" yes=5 pts no=0pts. I feel this is the best way to give credit to people who take the time to paint their armies. There is no ambiguity in the scoring and functionally only serves as a tie breaker to separate out the top two or three players. I have only ever gotten 1 complaint about the system and that was from some one who had a fully painted army except for one squad and thusly did not get the points for having a fully painted army.

If a more stringent approach were to be used I would have to include a checklist or at least some criteria as to how I was coming up with the score. If only to show people that I am not just pulling these scores out of thin air to help certain people win.

While this may make a lot of players happy what about the players that spend the time to be exceptional? They get 10pts but their work is just as good as the player that just spray painted three colors and ran it through some sand? That doesn't seem fair to the player that goes above and beyond. Check lists are fine so long as there is room for judge's descretion. Did you do this? 1-5 points. Did you do that/ 1-5 points. This allows for the quality of execution and rewards those that go the extra mile.

My opinion of course after running four events.

**gorgon**

Redbeard wrote:
gorgon wrote:The organizer is right that using checklists to evaluate artistic endeavours is stupid.

It may be stupid, but for 90% of the armies, it is a completely viable method of scoring - and one that works within the time constraints.

Nice job pulling out that quote and then ignoring everything else I had to say in the rest of my post, sir. Bravo.

**Redbeard**

gorgon wrote:
Nice job pulling out that quote and then ignoring everything else I had to say in the rest of my post, sir. Bravo.

I agreed with the rest of your post - why would I bother quoting it?

**ChaosismyAntidrug**

AdeptArtificer wrote:While this may make a lot of players happy what about the players that spend the time to be exceptional? They get 10pts but their work is just as good as the player that just spray painted three colors and ran it through some sand? That doesn't seem fair to the player that goes above and beyond. Check lists are fine so long as there is room for judge's descretion. Did you do this? 1-5 points. Did you do that/ 1-5 points. This allows for the quality of execution and rewards those that go the extra mile.

My opinion of course after running four events.

I like to really make my armies stand out when I play, but after going to literally dozens of tournaments that either have very biased paint scores or none at all, I tried to come up with a system that is fair and encourages people to make an attempt at painting. I don't know about where you play but near me way too many people just buy and assemble their miniatures and use them. I would ask why this was and the answer was almost always "I can't paint very well so I don't try" or something to that effect. So with this system I give a solid reward to people who at least try to get their whole army painted. Usually the people who go out of their way to have a very pretty army aren't doing it just to get a painting score at a tournament so I don't worry about them too much.

**Aduro**

I long ago gave up any kind of painting scores or requirments in my tournaments. The people who are going to put in the effort to have a nicely painted army will do it anyways, while the rest either will no longer bother to show up or will just put in the barest minimum required that makes you wonder why bother.

**Redbeard**

Aduro wrote:I long ago gave up any kind of painting scores or requirments in my tournaments. The people who are going to put in the effort to have a nicely painted army will do it anyways, while the rest either will no longer bother to show up or will just put in the barest minimum required that makes you wonder why bother.

I can understand not having a requirement. But, no scores or award? Doesn't that make the tournaments into more gladiator-type events? Having a paint score (and prize) can actually motivate people to paint.

**SlaveToDorkness**

Clay Williams wrote:
Kieth my favortie quote from you "I highlighted that, you just can't see it"

It's called "subtle highlights". I can't help it if you cannot see both the colors on them.

BTW Learn to spell my name if you're going to use it...lol

**Headkeepa**

Modeling and painting are a huge part of what we do. 25% of the score should be the bare minimum for painting scores at any tournament. It's a hobby and a game. The "overall" champion is someone who encompasses every aspect of the world of Warhammer. People that don't think painting shouldn't be a major part of the scoring either are too lazy to learn how to paint, don't have the time, care way too much about playing to put an effort into the hobby aspect or some other handicap. I look at it this way. It only took me about a year to learn to become a great player. It took me 10 years to become a great army creator and painter. For someone to just stop by while I'm playing and pick up a few guys to judge my ability would be robbery to me. Not to mention if the tournament doesn't score it at all. I feel there should always be the following awards at tournaments, Best Overall, General, Army, Sportman, and Player's Choice. Best Overall for the person that does just that. Best General for someone displayed great commanding prowess. Best Army for the person that not only takes a FAIR, well balanced army *Cough, Theme, Cough*, but also has a nice visual appeal to it. Best Sportsman for the person that is an absolute must to play again in the future. Player's Choice to give the players some power to vote on the army at the event that is just awesome to see. Games are usually around 2 hours long, but it takes me around 100 hours or more to paint an army, which sounds like it deserves more attention score wise?

Another topic I wanted to hit too... I spend 100's of hours painting my stuff, but there's this debate about not painting your own models or paying someone to do it. I say, if you borrow something, or paid to have someone paint an army for you, your painting score shouldn't be deducted at all. Granted, you can't win Best Army or Player's Choice, but you still deserve your appearance points. I don't think anyone that uses borrowed armies or armies they paid to have painted would feel bad about that at all. And if someone wants them to have 0 points for appearance is just looking to take the easy road to beating someone. Someone that can fork over tons of cash to have an army expertly painted shouldn't get a 0 for appearance. I can't afford that, so they have one up on me.. but they can't paint and model the way I do.. so we'll call it a draw

My 2 cents..

**Clay Williams**

LEARN TO SPELL?!?!??

You knew it was you ... and thats good enough for me =)

My point on the 0 for painting if you bought or borrowed and army. If you are not eligible for the awards involving painting then why would you care about a score?

**SlaveToDorkness**

Whatever, Layc...

**winterman**

The best checklist I have seen was from the Astronomicon. They have refined it over the years and the system works.

Here are the rules. Note that there is a space for attendees on the sheet to state what has been done as far as conversions and whatnot. So what happened to kenshin wouldn't be an issue. Without that, I think actually recognizing conversions would be difficult. Also note the checklist incldues a bit of judges discretionary points. Finally they reworded their checklist to avoid terms like highlights. There are other ways to add depth beyond just layered highlighting.

Astronomicon wrote:Appearance will be scored in categories as follows:

0-2 DISPLAY
0 – No addition to display. Plain or no movement tray/display stand.
1 – Basic scenic movement tray. Flocked, and some detail work or equivalent
2 – Very fine display system. Additional effort was made to enhance the army’s appearance.

0-5 CONVERSIONS
0 – No conversions or contains conversions which do not enhance the appearance of the army.
1 – A few minor conversions. (Weapons, Heads, repositioning of arms, etc.)
2 – Minor conversion with one or more extensively converted models.
3 – Many extensively converted models. (Body alterations, additionally green-stuff work, etc.)
4 – Majority of the army is converted with many extensive conversions throughout.
5 – Majority of the army is strikingly converted.

Note: Bases that are modeled beyond simple paint/flock will also count toward Conversions scoring.

1-20 BRUSHWORK
1-5 – The Basics (Neat, complete, and ready for battle.)
1 – Three colours painted on the model. Not terribly neat. No detail work present.
3 – Noticeable attempts at neat painting throughout. Major details picked out.
5 – Fully Basecoated and neat. Decals and/or insignia and/or major details completed.
6-10 – Intermediate (These models look good on the table.)
6 – Some attempt to add depth and contrast to the model.
8 – Contrast techniques are evident and showing some skill and neatness.
10 – Completed models. Detail work exhibits skill. Contrast is visible. Still somewhat weak upon close inspection.
11-15 – Expert (These models look great on the table and look good up close.)
11 – Details and contrast hold up under closer inspection.
13 – Many details and a more successful contrast range shown upon close inspection.
15 – Clear ability to show contrast even upon close inspection. Very fine detail work. Skills are on display.
16-20 – Master (You’ve got some of the nicest models we’ve ever seen.)
16 – Models are very well done. Occasional minor flaws revealed upon close inspection. Mastery exhibited.
18 – Models are exceptional. True mastery of one or more techniques.
20 – Flaws cannot be found. All models in the army are stunning. Models are above and beyond all expectation.

0-3 ADDITIONAL EFFORT
0 – No models or units which rise above the demonstrated appearance standard of the army.
1 – Intermediate Brushwork met / One or more models or units which rise above the demonstrated appearance standard of army.
2 – Expert Brushwork met / Several units or models which rise above the demonstrated appearance standard of the army.
3 – Master Brushwork met / The effort put into this army as a whole raises the standard of the army’s appearance throughout.

±2 JUDGES’ ADJUSTMENT

The Judges may award up to 2 points for additional work done to enhance appearance.
The Judges may penalize up to 2 points for incomplete or messy appearance.

MAX POINTS: 30

**Aldonis**

Clay Williams wrote:
My point on the 0 for painting if you bought or borrowed and army. If you are not eligible for the awards involving painting then why would you care about a score?

I think the concern comes from painting counting towards the ability for overall. There are two sides here:

1) It's not fair that someone can pay the money and have a professionally painted army - and thus get a better score towards the overall than someone who works hard to paint their own models. The ability to have scores for pro-painted armies discriminates against those that can't afford it.

2) The fact that painting factors into the overall score discriminates against those with fair to poor painting skills. Regardless of how good a player and/or fun person to play against, they can NEVER win an overall because the painting scores they lose knocks them out of the contest. If someone is into the whole hobby enough to pay the money to have a beautifully painted army, then they should be as viable of a contender as the best painters in the land. They at least care enough about the pageantry of the game to put nice stuff on the table and make the game visually appealing. However, if they didn't paint their own - they should not be eligible for the best painted awards.

I go for #2 - even though I usually either paint my own stuff, or due to schedule and time constraints, buy things that are pre-painted - but to the same level I'm capable of producing myself. I still hope to someday pull and overall - it's a goal that I may never achieve - but would hate to be disqualified just due to pure lack of painting ability.

And Clay - I hope you don't feel to demonized - there were issues - you guys (as always) are listening to feedback and I'm sure it will be better next year. Big Waagh is still an awesome tournament. And the BNB folks still think highly of you and your club as well.

Best regards!

**Sidstyler**

Having a paint score (and prize) can actually motivate people to paint.

Maybe that works for some people, but to me a prize is meaningless since I know I'd never win it.

In order to even be eligible you have to have attempted to do all these complicated techniques to every line trooper in the army and most people aren't going to do that. Who wants to do wet blending, layered highlighting, etc. on every single fire warrior for instance? That, and as can be seen here, it doesn't matter how much work you think you put into an army, some random judge will 0 you out anyway for not living up to a Golden Demon standard, so I just don't see the point.

I'm not saying there shouldn't be a prize for it though, but I don't think painting should have anything to do with overall at least.

**SlaveToDorkness**

Best Painted is for the people who like to paint and do it well.

Best General is for the people who like to play, and do it well.

Best Overall is for the people who are BOTH.

**Aldonis**

Nurgleboy77 wrote:Best Painted is for the people who like to paint and do it well.

Best General is for the people who like to play, and do it well.

Best Overall is for the people who are BOTH.

Disagree - Best painted is for the best painter, Best General is for the highest battle points, Best overall is for the best overall hobbiest. If people care enough to drop serious change - they are a serious hobbiest - and should be eligible for overall.

#@#@$ elitist painters..... <grin>

**Clay Williams**

Buying your army does not make you a "hobbiest" it makes you a collector.

Nothing wrong with that mind you.

I think the line gets blurred because alot of gamers play 40k, gamers with no art or interest in art or mini painting. In order to win the overall catagory you have to be a combination of things in the hobby and overall is seen as the highest prize by many. So I can understand that competitive mentality that a gamer would have when it comes to winning without doing the "crap" work associated with it.

We might just do away with the overall catagory next year at The Big Waaagh. We still have to have our post meeting about how things went and what needs to change. Two of us have been tossing around the idea of no more best overall. 3 catagories only, sportsman, painting, and best general. This way all aspects of the hobby are encompassed and treated with equal respect. Secondly this lets us give out more prizes to the winners.

**Frazzled**

Meh all this could be fixed by tying your painting score to the level of tangible gratuity provided the judges. That way you would literally get what you pay for.

**Sidstyler**

Or just making the way you score painting a little less random, giving people reasonable explanations for why they got the score they did.

**littleboyblues**

I think the line gets blurred because alot of gamers play 40k, gamers with no art or interest in art or mini painting. In order to win the overall catagory you have to be a combination of things in the hobby and overall is seen as the highest prize by many. So I can understand that competitive mentality that a gamer would have when it comes to winning without doing the "crap" work associated with it.

QFT

I'm so tired of hearing people complain about Painting be in the overall... It's called overALL D-bags not overmost! Some people go to punch other armies in the face, some go to have a good time, some go to show off their newest creations and some go for all 3 and that person easily deserves to win best overALL!

**Clay Williams**

Sidstyler wrote:Or just making the way you score painting a little less random, giving people reasonable explanations for why they got the score they did.

I offered everyone pre paint judging where I would give them an estimate of the paint score they would recieve. 2 people took me up on this offer.

I offered full critiques on everyones work and 3 people took advantage of that.

If it really did bother people as much as they say it bothered them, wouldnt they try harder?