Sunday, September 15, 2013

Painting Checklist

This is the painting checklist referred to in the Skitterleap Players' Pack.

Sam Whitt, the Umpire will be using this to grade painting. As you can see it is possible to get up to 45 points. However only 35 points is required to get a full painting score.

If you sit down with your army then you should be able to objectively determine your own score by marking it against the sheet. Realistically you should be able to get within one or two points.

I'd suggest using it as a checklist when planning your army for the event if you want to maximise your painting score.

When Sam comes to mark your army you should be able to have a discussion with him pointing to the various factors.


  1. While I like the criteria, I will play the devils advocate and suggest that my initial thought was that it punishes someone who can't paint well, nor can afford to pay someone to do it for them...

    feel free to disagree ;-)

  2. I partially agree with you. If you didnt paint a model/unit yourself then it should score 0
    or only get a bare minimum mark

    1. what about someone like myself whose painting talent is limited (as you will see thursday!)... I simply can't paint a whole army (especially my orc one) to a high standard... Is this then fair to punish me in painting points to a large degree...

      Don't get me wrong, I am happy to get docked some points because I am not that consistent. But when it could cost a podium or close to it because when the job is 'not bad'... That was what my comment was about...

      Part of the reason I have had other people paint some my models is because I want to score more than 80% of the points available... To do that I need some 'quality' models to draw the eye from the average to below hiding in the 4th rank of Savage orcs :-)

      Not a major for skitter leap as I expect to have a lot of fun finishing in the bottom half of the field, happy to be playing again!

    2. The requirement for full points is not onerous. With some effort everyone can get them over a 3-6 month period.

      As a TO I really want people to come along and play in an event with nice terrain and against armies of a certain standard. This checklist seeks to set the standard I am comfortable with - tabletop standard army with 3+ colours, a wash and a highlight, textured bases, perhaps some conversions and the requisite movement trays matching the basing theme of the army. If you don't like certain aspects then that's ok, you can get the points by concentrating on other areas.

      It also moves it away from purely subjective towards objective criteria where you know exactly how your painting score is determined and how you can improve it if need be.

    3. Hamish....FFS....just paint in the lines, it's not a Picasso, just do a nice neat job and base simply (easy to do). It is your number one hobby, and I honestly don't buy the "I'm just not good at painting line". Sorry if it sounds harsh but it's just laziness's not like you're training to represent New Zealand at some sport...I'd hazard a guess wargaming takes up the majority of your free time so there's just no excuses - make some time for painting!
      FYI I'm not a great painter, just neat and tidy. I hate painting and derive no pleasure in doing it (I do love beautifully painted mini's though!)but with a little application and mental discipline I always enjoy the end result.
      To all the moaners out there harden up and boohoo! If you don't like the hobby aspect of Warhammer then I suggest you go and play computer games instead!

  3. As long as very clear before tournament. Then a mix is fine.
    If this is every tournament then it will become annoying

    1. What???? It's annoying you actually have to address the hobby aspect of the game....if you find it that annoying I have a copy of Shadow of the Horned Rat computer game which you can play in perpetuity with no worries at having to paint anything!

  4. Guys,

    There are 45 points you only need to get 35 points to get full points.

    Three colours, wash and a highlight gets you most of the painting points. Finished bases and trays gets you more. A few conversions and C. lock it in Eddie.

    An hour a night for 3-6 months and you'd have a full point army from bare plastic. A week for WOC.

    Physical disability may be excuse but not making an effort isn't.

    I don't know anyone who couldn't get the points with a little time and the right attitude.

    And Peter, it will be the norm for all FOB events going forward :-)

    It's miniature Wargaming not chess

  5. I think I can see both sides of the coin here. On the one hand the standard seemed to have slipped a bit this year in terms of what people brought to competitions, to the point where at Horned Rat the standard was clearly not applied at all and I know I don't think this is where the scene/hobby should be heading.

    The other side of the coin is that no one likes the idea that the army they've put time and effort in won't make the grade. I'm taking a hard look at my OnG (which fared very poorly in presentation at warpfire), considering that I have done no conversions (I bought the army completely second-hand so for the most part haven't got a sprue to my name), consider that I don't have a display board and suddenly I am competing for 39 points, which doesn't leave me much slack at all. I have no "masterful blending" or "hand painted details" leaving me at 35 points now. Realistically my army is probably going to hit low 30's with a generous judge. No sweat that's the standard that's set for the tournament, but it's still a bummer to know that the army I've been using all year and been receiving full painting marks and no criticisms for is now not up to par. I've put hundreds of hours into my hundreds of greenskins and thought I had a decent presentable army that looked good on the table.

    My lizards are in virtually the same boat, as again I've gone for simple but hopefully effective painting methods combined with nice basing to try and get hundreds of models painted.

    There are definitely things I can do to up my scores, display boards for all my armies are on the to do list, and I'll start looking for ways to incorporate conversions and go back and look to put highlights over washed/dipped models. I am certainly capable of getting the thirty-five points (I'd be aiming for well into the 40's with my DE I'm doing at the moment) but I think that myself and many others may be disappointed with the requirement to go back and re-do parts of armies that until now we had considered to be decent finished armies.

    Just my two cents on the issue. I wholeheartedly agree that it's wonderful to play with beautiful armies on beautiful tables and as I spend more time in the hobby I'm striving to improve my painting/presentation skills. It's just I do understand and empathise with those for whom conversions, display boards and multiple levels of highlighting isn't a great priority (or wasn't in the past).

    None of this would stop me from attending any Welly events though as it's the best scene in the country.

    Cheers. Jeff

    1. Cry me a river Jeff... just do some highlights...yarns!

    2. Ill avoid the painting discussion other than to say I agree that "I cant paint" is not a good excuse. "I dont want to paint" is better.

      I do agree with you though Jeff, on the conversions front. I always hate when thats a requirement for painting marks. Some armies just do not require or justify conversions to the extent of others. Eg I actually like all of the High Elf models and do not wish to convert anything so why should I get punished?

      That said its all clear and up front so you can do what you want with it. Just play better if you know you'll get hit on painting... :-D I personally have to make sure I hit enough other points that I dont have to worry about a display board as I'm not dragging one of those across the ditch!

  6. This comment has been removed by the author.

  7. Sorry to start a storm in a tea cup...

    I am paid up and in for skitterleap, trying to book vermintide as well, looking forward to playing, and when I get my paints and orcs I will 'touch' up and try score 80% on the painting criteria with my ogres...

    No biggie really ;-)

    (I am going to have a word with Gork (or was it Mork) about Rory though, just watch out for that big green foot stomping into Auckland sometime soon fella, just not on your house as I may need somewhere to stay next year..... ;-P)

    1. Terrible idea Hamish, his foot will just miss and then mysteriously show up above your house..

    2. It would be mean to have you up at my house again! Friday night painting session? ;-p

  8. I like this approach you are taking with your tournaments you organise Pete, from now on. I dislike having a fully painted army of which I have spent hours and hours painting with conversions and get the same as someone who has done 3 colours minimum on a straight out of the box army. It leaves a bad taste in your mouth. I see tournaments as finding who is the best in the hobby overall.

    I don't even mind if they bring an army that they bought. But they can't win best painted for it.

    Ugh, lrn2paintsrsly. When I started I was horrid at painting. Now I'm ok. It's not hard, It's even easier to paint armies with dips, washes and inks and the painting evolution that has come about in the last 20 years I've been in the hobby.

    I'm even teaching some of the club members to paint properly as well.

  9. I feel that having a poorly painted or 'minimum standards' aka half-assed (cant believe people are happy with this terminology..) is disrespectful to those who have put the effort to produce a unified coherent army. I mean they have put 400+hours into their army and have to play some 'shitspeedpainted' 'haha its acceptable because its on the internet and podcasts haha its funny to not try' army. And since their army is a labour of love, taking years is not decades to finish, I highly doubt that their force is the 'latest filth'. nothing better than looking at the final standings and seeing those 1week - 1 month latest toys sprayed and dipped stopping all over you. awesome.

    People only change with rewards.
    No one on the tournament scene (who already isnt doing so) will start to put even a fraction of 400+hrs into their armies when there is no benefits to do so.
    Rewarding those who do put effort in (this check list is pretty easy to see max points, only the bottom 10% of the armies wont receive full points) will result in a change.

    And after all this, you still get the red mist from having to paint your minis.. go play warmachine or a computer game and stay out of my hobby.
    (Some of) The People's Champion

    ps i could go on for ever about this... honestly.. get a different hobby if you cant find the time to paint between the lines.

    "the red mist is taking over...!!"

  10. Think the painting checklist is well written and fair. I liked and appreciated the inclusion of painting scores at Warpfire and think it was a necessary step. Im with 'Runeflames' in that I dont like getting the same painting score as someone who hasnt put in any effort, I also dont enjoy playing tournament games against unpainted armies and dont buy the whole 'I dont have time' to paint excuse - most of us have kids and jobs and get good results. There is a certain High Elf player whose army has remained unpainted and unassembled for years and there was a horrible VC army at CTA this year that half of whose models weren't even close to being fully put together.

    The paint score component doesnt force you to go back and improve things or end up with armies of a Dunn/Whitt standard but it at least requires you to have something decent. My 1st tournament Runefang in 2009 was a massive eyeopener in terms of the armies I saw and it gave me the incentive to improve. As a result I surfed the net, did a lot of reading, and paint stripped my entire HE and Dwarf collections before repainting both armies. Yes it takes time but the more I do it the better I got.

    I like the idea that I get rewarded for those efforts and that others do to.

    And fairs fair - if you can get more points for playing better than me then I should get more points for painting better.

    Those who oppose the painting score thing should ask themselves this... how would you feel losing a podium to a guy with an unpainted/unassembled army on cardboard movement trays with units full of proxies when your army represents hours of work and effort.

    1. Plus just out of interest if we took the painting scores out of Warpfire the results and the resulting change in the Top 10 positions would be:

      1. Peter W (n/c)
      2. Hamish G (+2)
      3. Tom D (-1)
      4. Hugh D (+6)
      5. Glen B (-2)
      6. James M (+6)
      7. Hagen K (-2)
      8. Wil Hoverd (+3)
      9. Joel V (-3)
      10. John M (-3)

    2. Only because I've been mentioned, I'll add that I'm totally happy with the painting scores and I rightfully ended up back in the pack for warpfire. My "centrepiece" hero was only minimum standard and my warriors are unwashed and minimally based. I know I hadn't put in the preperation time and so was scored accordingly, falling from 6th to 12th.

      I echo the sentiment that warhammer is a hobby and more than a game, and I appreciate knowing the criteria beforehand.


  11. I'm the first to admit that I am not the best painter, or even an average painter, so I'm tentative about weighing in on this,and getting BBQ'd.

    In my limited tournament experience, people usually only get pissy about painting scoring when they get unexpectedly penalised. This only occurs when the scoring is subjective and the criteria is not publicly known - because there is no way to challenge it.

    My thoughts are that as long as the painting criteria is set in stone in the player pack, and presented as a list of check marks that you can aim for, then its fine. You should be able to know before the tournament, within 2-3 marks, what you army is going to score.

    If you feel that your painting is going to prevent you from a podium finish, then at least you know what you need to do to improve. If you can't achieve that through your own ability, or a borrowed army, then you make a decision to go or not to go to the tournament.

    People make decisions on what tournaments to go to based on lots of factors - cost, work, family, and sometimes tournament format. If the format of zny given tournament is one you would prefer not to play in, just play in a different one. Its pretty arrogant to try and force change on someone else's tournament just because you don't like the rules they have.

  12. I've heard that some people can paint with their feet


    1. there are some armies out there that are testimony to that

  13. I once played Kaipara College 1st XV at their secondary grounds, because there number one grounds were a bog due to flooding. However the replacement ground had cows all over it and they had to be chased back onto a farmers property! The ground as a result (still boggy) covered in divots, and worst of all covered in cow shit. Sure enough, we managed to play the game but in terms of a spectacle and in terms of player enjoyment it was one of the worst games ever. Not to mention seeing Tony Woodcock drilling my halfback off the back of the ruck into a massive cow pat!
    I feel this story is analogous to painting at tournaments. playing a half painted or "minimum standard" painted or painted out-side of-the-lines army is like playing a rugby game all covered in shit. In Warhammer you have two modes of playing 1) in the garage where you can do what you want and it's in the privacy of your own home or 2) play at a tournament where (effectively) it's open to the public, as an "event". Furthermore, many people may have taken on huge costs just to get there (Henry and I worked out that traveling to Welly for us works out to be roughly $100 per game) so playing a poorly painted army is a massive disappointment.
    So just like a professional rugby event there are high standards for the venue, and the surface the game is played on, so it is enjoyable for all who participate or watch.
    To finish - tournament Hammer is the highest standard of Warhammer no two ways about it...and it just beggars belief that folks could spin out about painting when essentially it is a hobby pursuit.

  14. TBH painting has never been easier. There are great products available that shorten the process enormously.

    Army Painter do a great guide which you can get from Slave to Painting and the Citadel guides are great too.

    I see painting as a necessary step to participating in tournament gaming. You either invest time or some people invest money (buy). To me it makes no difference as once you get to the max points which are easily achievable there is no benefit except those that painted their own can compete for Best Painted.

    At Skitterleap we are having three painting trophies to reward those who have made the effort.

    To me everyone wins as the standard of army at the event is increased.

  15. What I was getting at , was my army painting skill is around the 30 mark give or take a couple. I am not going to receive full points. If every tournament from now on I have a penalty in points that I have to make up, It will get annoying!

    Turning people away just because they cannot reach a high painting standard, cannot be good. Playing below the pack from the start for someone new can hardly be considered "Fun".

    There are separate painting competitions for painters.I don't think Everyone can achieve the full score mark. You may beg to differ saying everyone can get 35/35, but I do not think this is true... Close sure.

    Personally as long as It's painted and looks nice, they have made an effort. Full marks from me. I do think it should be painted out of respect for your opponent if nothing else, which is why I always play with painted models.

    Why does every tournament have to meet this painting checklist? Variety is the spice. I am happy to attend a harsher painting tournament or a more laxed one as long as it stated.

    Really it all comes down to respect for your opposition in aspects of the hobby. IMO it is failing in worse area then painting, But that is another topic, which I will not go into.

    1. So what you're saying is that your army is forever stuck on the 30 mark because you have never worked towards anything in your life and improved yourself in any way? If that's the case, just give up now - but I am sure you have worked towards something, like school for instance....I'm sure you may have been stuck around the 30 mark for something there too at one stage but you applied yourself and became better.
      Just play less computer games.

    2. You know some of us gamers have more than one hobby, and it is conceivable that warhammer is not the number one hobby for some us.

    3. Yeah me too man...I play piano and guitar in a band, I own my own physiotherapy pratice, I am a competitive powerlifter, I have a long term partner/girlfriend. Yet considering all this I manage to war game and paint my army up nicely.
      My cousin Mike Youngs is a fantastic painter, he has a young daughter, he is the sole bread winner for the family and looks after his extended family too....still makes time for awesome painting.
      There's just no excuses - shit painting on miniatures is bad for the hobby and is frankly pathetic.

    4. Then dont ruin it for those who it is their number one hobby.

      Warhammer till I DIEEEEEE!!!!

    5. Well humanity is a diverse and unique race so it is very plausible that not everyone is like you (apparently a multi task extraordinaire), some people cant balance work, their other hobbies and warhammer in such a way that allows them constantly improve their painting skills. Everyone is not the same and we should acknowledge this

    6. I have enjoyed reading the back and forward on this today (and Henry - you ARE the people's champion dont worry!) and I think I am on Peter W's side of the fence on this one.

      My armies fall into the "score over 35" on the check list, so I'm not coming from a position of personal disadvantage - and I have made painting part of my nightly routine - so I understand what it required to get into the habit of painting (a very understanding/tolerant/resigned partner that lets me have all my crap on the coffee table in front of the TV!)

      However I also remember how bad I was at painting when I first started (not that the evidence exists anymore given I re-painted my Woodies last year to hide it!). Attending events inspired me to get better as I saw fantastic armies on display...yet at the same time I got exposure to the "grey legions" that were common at the time and it is a good thing that they no longer exist at tournments!

      The last thing I would want to see happen is an army that has the 3 colours + base lose a ranking position because the player was still learning to paint. Yes Tournaments are the public event and if we are to bring new people into the hobby we need to not slap them down with harsh scores because it was the first time they ventured out of the garage (where it didnt matter that the back rank was undercoated only)to spend a weekend gaming with strangers.

      Just my thoughts

      Joel v

    7. Joel - these are not harsh scores. Read the checklist. Everyone can get 35 points with a modicum of effort.

      I despair for today's youth who have all come through a system telling them that they are all the best and a beautiful princess. Don't like "Pass" or "Fail", dry your eyes petal we'll get rid of those nasty judgemental names. Now everyone "Achieves". You are all winners.


      The world is a big bad place full of Apex Predators, not so Apex Predators and those who are king of their mudpuddle.

      Along the way you will be tested. If you are unprepared you may fail. You will get out what you put in.

      Here ends today's life lesson.

    8. Sweet....and when someone first starts and their painting isn't great a fantastic way to improve is to have feedback (a form or check list), to see really great armies as a base for inspiration and to talk with other painters older/more skilled than yourself. TBH a new painter shouldn't expect to get full marks straight would be like getting full marks on your first piano recital...just doesn't happen.
      However the bone of contention that I have is folks who have been on the scene for a very long time and just don't make the effort and expect other who do to just be happy about it. And frankly I think that is a joke and slightly delusional.
      Consider the master painter who spends hours painting up an army compared to the hard out power gamer how chops and changes his list extracting the most benefit from practise games....all the while the master painter just slaves away....why should his efforts be worth anything less? It's just so rude and disrespectful to think that only the game mechanics should matter....and if that is the case (repeating myself here) but just play computer games.

    9. You are aware... there are painting tournaments, you know just for painting!? Get reward at the appropriate level. I am not disrepecting anything that you did, in fact there is a prize in the tournament devoted entirely for the master painter.

      why does every tournament have to be this way!!! Mix it up. Have more Hobby aspect tournaments, have gaming tournaments. This is what I am getting at. There is not one way of doing things.

      FYI: if I am running Runefang, I will not use this checklist, But i do fully support it being used in other tournaments. And I fully Respect a comp that has a harsher painting score.

    10. One of the reasons why the tournaments I run will be using this spreadsheet for paint scoring is because I want to play against armies that meet this minimum standard. I don't think that for 80% of people there is a change as their armies meet this standard or are within 1 or 2 points of it.

      But now I'm making the requirement visible and meaningful.

      Why? Because I like seeing two painted armies battling over nice terrain. Painting scores have been pretty relaxed over the past few years and that has allowed people to build their armies. Most have and they now meet this standard. But not all have. That's ok, that's their choice.

      My choice is that there is a three colour minimum standard, compulsory movement trays and now visible and enforced painting score that awards maximum points for an army that meets a clear threshold.

    11. I agree everyone should take an army that is at least 90-95% fully painted army to an acceptable standard (3 colours/shading/wash/highlighting) but if painting scores are going to be enforced to an "above average standard" which the above guide implies then going forward so should the standard of model taken to represent each unit within any given army.

      For example Joe's Warriors of Choas army (I hope that’s right) does not in my mind (and a number of other ppls) constitute a WoC army by any stretch of the imagination. While it might be well painted it doesn't even come close to representing the units he's trying to field... hand made "Sand people" as WoC Tzeentch warriors with sword and board... Fast Cav as Chaos Knights... Orc Characters as Chaos Sorcerer Lords... really? Another example is taking Orion and Ariel as a Deamon Princes... they don't even come close to being a DP (sorry Stuart)

      An acceptable example would be Sam Whit's Daemon Prince or Simon's Manic Dwarf's or Fern's Mangler Squig's... they all reasonably represent the unit their trying to feild easily.

      The other thing I would suggest is that painting scores need to be announced before the start of the 5th round so ppl can speak with the judges as painting is so subjective that their should be at least an appeals process or some very very clear feedback as to why peoples scores weren't as high as what they would preseve to be similarly presented armies.

      At warpfire I felt that the 14 for painting was unduly harsh by comparison to other painting scores announced especially when you compare my armies to those that got 16-20. In several cases I personally thought my painting was of a standard equal to or higher than a number of those armies but on the flip side no where near as good as Glen's VC or the Orge army that won best painted.
      And the fact it knocked me out of 2nd and ultimately 3rd by 1.4% was hard to swallow especially when i took almost maximum battle points in 4 out 5 rd's and I spent alot of time painting up what i brought to Warpfire.

    12. Conversions are part of the hobby Hanish, as a proxies. If people are using a proxy or extreme conversion then it is always bet to check with the TO prior to the event.

      As for an appeals process - absolutely no way. The judge marks your army and tells you your score at the time of marking. You then have an opportunity to discuss with him if you feel he's missed something. But no way prior to the final round are people going to be given an opportunity to badger the judge to improve their prospects. It is not happening.

      As for Warpfire the armies that jumped yours in the standings - Glen's VC and Tom's DoC were significantly better painted as a whole than your army. Given this was a hobby event, advertised as such with 25% assigned for painting then it shouldn't be a surprise that Overall was more than Battle Scores.

      I can't help that you find it hard to swallow but I stand by Locky's scoring. The outcome would have been exactly the same if I had done it.

      For me the beauty of this checklist is that you should be able to mark your own army to within 1-2 points if you follow the criteria. Hopefully that will avoid any hard to swallow surprises in future.

      Things are now visible for FOB events.

    13. Thanks for bringing your point up about models being representative. It's something that's been rankling with me as well.

      In my mind, the model must represent the unit entry. Where is the line drawn? Cavalry models must have a mount and a rider - just a snake isn't good enough. Blobs of putty aren't men clad in full metal armour with a weapon and a shield.

      Yes, some units can be widely varying and still obviously be what they represent. Examples of this would be my hellcannon (which is a 40K maulerfiend - aka "a metal daemon with a cannon"). We can accept a riderless griffon to be a great eagle.

      Linking this to painting - is it a painting score only or a "presentation" score?


    14. Just so we're on the same page, this is Glen's VC with the green plastic movement tray(s) and the grey primered mortis engine that fell apart constantly?

      I think what is being asked for is some consistency.

    15. I'm sure that a visible checklist will provide the consistency you require

    16. @Hamish
      I don't believe your score of 14 was harsh at all. As stated before you would have received a 16 if you had consistent basing and painted horses. Your demigryph units were a nice standard, however your knight unit was below. This is where you dropped 2 points. If you compare your 14 to Simons 15, for example, whose models are all painted, based consistently and had painted banners, I don't feel I was harsh on you. Also I decided to drop the -5 TP penalty you had from submitting an incorrect late army list to keep you in 4th place rather than in 10, where you did finish. Now some people may think that this was being too nice. Its all perspective.

      Yes, I think glens army is lovely. It is painted to a nice standard. I did drop him a point for his movement trays, but I did not think his mortis engine was an issue, I had no idea it was falling apart and never saw it in pieces during the tournament. Also Glen received 3 best painted votes from the rest of the participants, so I believe his score of 23 is very fair, I'm clearly not the only person who thinks it's presented well.

      As I have stated many times, I am happy to discuss any individuals painting score in specific detail in private.

    17. I would also like to point out that I stated a few times prior to the event that I was happy for people to send me pictures of their units and I would let them know where they stood before the event. Only 2 people did this.

    18. I would also like to point out that I've checked my email, this blog and your blog and see no evidence of your above assertion.

      Stating that you've apparently given extra information to a select few people only increases a perception of subjectivity and bias.

      I won't say anymore about Warpfire.


    19. James you are clearly unhappy and feel that you have in some way been wronged. That makes me unhappy as clearly it soured your perception of the event. However I think it is unfair to start accusing Locky of bias,

      When this unhappiness around painting scores is coupled with your unhappiness prior to the event over comp, I can only conclude that you had a pretty shit weekend. On that basis I'd like to offer you a refund of your entry fee as the event has clearly not met your expectations. It was billed as a fun event and your comments would pretty clearly indicate you didn't have fun.

      I'm sorry that was the case.


    20. I'm obviously not very good at this forums thing.

      As previously stated (and I did in the thread about the results) I had a grand time last weekend and I'll further say I haven't had a bad time at any FoB tournament I've been to.

      I like to know where I stand and that whatever rules or guidelines are given are adhered to. And also seen to be adhered to - this is important. Above, Locky makes an assertion that I cannot verify by checking any emails from him or this blog or his own blog. I can only suggest that maybe the assertion was made in a different place or medium or to only a certain group of people. My point that this gives a perception of bias and subjectivity, even if no bias or subjectivity has taken place.

      I am not upset or surprised by the mark I was given for painting, given the post-event marking list provided. I *am* surprised by the excessively high marks scored by some of the other efforts, given what I saw. I'm not *complaining* about those marks - those people managed to sneak things past the judge, good on them. Eyebrows have been raised however, and I don't think I'm the only one.

      I also feel it's important to not let one side of any discussion be browbeaten by offensiveness. It seems there are people who are wanting to know how things will be in the future and are making valid points and are seeming to be shouted down and sworn at.

      I will *now* say no more about Warpfire and I very much look forward to Skitterleap where my "best painted attempt at this time" army will be on display and scored appropriately.


    21. Pete, I had no problem with ppl using conversions or proxi's as long as they actually "reasonably" represent what the unit should be. Seriously those sand ppl as warriors or chaos... or Ariel as a Deamon Prince...

      As for painting scores at warpfires all the army's that got 20+ points like yours and Glen's I had no issue with, I was making a direct comparison to the army's ranked a few points ahead of mine in painting terms.

      I'm not questioning Locky's Lockies intergity but I do find it hard to see where I went wrong when directly comparing my painting score to that of several of my opponants armies who recieved a score of 16 and 18. Hell I even went to the extra step of creating specific scenic basing on all of my Demigryphs which I thought came out exceptionally well considering it was my first attempt.

      Either way I think some sort of specific constructive feedback is needed since anyone can read a paint checksheet and think they've meet a particular standard and still fall short due to differing perspectives. It only has to be 10 secs or just a quick note on their player slip where they could pick up more points next time.

    22. I'll say again, the basing on your demigryphs is nice, and I dropped you a point for inconsistent basing since you had three different basing schemes in the army. If you wish to discuss specific armies, email me.

    23. @James - I think I've been very clear and upfront that this is how it will be at FOB events where there are painting scores in the future. I am at a loss given the concerns you are raising about subjectivity and bias why you wouldn't want something that is visible and catalogued. Is that what you want?

      I want the events I organise to have armies of a certain presentation standard participating. The way I am going to achieve this is through painting scores. If you reach this standard you will get full marks. If you don't you won't and it will impact your overall result. To help people know what this standard is - and to remove as much subjectivity and possibility of perception of bias - I have produced this handy little checklist. You can even mark your army before the event yourself and know that you should be within 1/2 points. You can discuss with judge when he marks your army. And you'll know your score when he walks away. I see this as a good thing.

      I'd honestly like to know where it is flawed. At the moment the arguments against seem to be falling into three areas:

      1) we should have a variety of painting standards at different events

      2) I don't want to have to get my army up to that standard

      3) I don't like being told what to do

      I think 1) is acceptable however if you want events with a looser painting style then please go ahead and organise them. To use the parlance "I don't want my brand associated with them". I see 2) as personal choice. You don't want to get your army up to the standard, I don't want to give you painting points. And 3) is just unfortunate. People do have choice. They can follow the direction of the TO or they can choose not to attend.

      I certainly haven't shouted at anyone or been offensive but I have told people how it is going to be. People have said they want transparency and that is what I am providing.

      @Hamish - I'm sorry you don't like other people's armies but it's really not your call. If the TO deems them acceptable then they are acceptable. You ultimately do get a veto, in that you can choose to attend or not. People are asked that if they are using proxies to talk to the TO prior to the event. If he okays it then it doesn't go out to a group vote.

      I hate most of the Mantic and Reaper figures but I don't ban them as I think they are - as portrayed in the army - an unambiguous unit.

      See above (and previous replies) as to how the checklist is applied and why I think it is constructive and two way feedback.

    24. For NerdyCon I wrote individual feedback on everyone's army....If they were "up there" the feedback was generally short. If it was a low score the feedback was more specific.

  16. Guys - Let's keep this friendly and positive. The aim of every event I run is to be inclusive and welcoming. I appreciate that everyone has different hobby motivations and that it takes awhile to start an army from scratch and get it up to a standard that you are proud to play with and also recognises that part of your opponent's motivation/enjoyment might be to play nice armies.

    I have shown in another post that I believe that everyone can score 35 points with effort rather than talent.

    See I'm really glad I've posted this checklist as there is no a lot less grey area around painting scores. Rather than just say you'll be marked out of 35 and put up with post-event bitching we can now all go on a journey to 35 point land following a laid out road map

  17. I like the increased emphasis on painting. More importantly, I like the greater seperation of painting scores this system promises. For instance, Sam W's WoC shouldn't be given the same basic score as someone who has only applied basecoats and a single wash.

    For those who say that they will be disadvantaged by their painting, remember others may be disadvantaged by their playing skill. This can be improved with practice, just like painting can.

    Others are disadvantaged by army choice. I love my Dwarves, but I'm not going to threaten the podium with them anytime soon. If I want to do better, maybe I need to play a stronger army.

    Tournament performance is down to several factors. Pete has chosen to make painting more of one than previously. I like facing good looking armies, this increased emphasis will help that so I'm all for it.

    Tarting up your models in the weeks and months prior to an event seems like an easy way to get tournament points to me......

  18. I just worked out my score and my vamporcs are not far off hitting full marks. I have built and painted them in 4-5 months, have limited painting skills and a lot of time pressures meaning I tend to only be able to paint whilst tired/drinking/both.

    These paint scores sound pretty achievable to me.

    Only concern I have is noobs may be put off getting bumped down the rankings because of paint for their first few months and to grow NZ warhammer, like it or not, we need new players

  19. Ladies, ladies, please.

    The important thing to remember here is that we exist in a curiously diverse realm bound by physical restrictions and shadowed by illusive gateways to extended dimensions.

    Look away from your monitor for a moment.

    In the linearity of your vision there are reactions occurring so fast you could say they did not even happen, so numerous they are beyond countable, and beyond there is vastness so great if you could see for infinite then you would be disappointed as your vision would still fall short.

    What I am trying to say here gents is next to the divinity of an endless cosmos in which you reside, the effort that the universal consciousness goes through to allow you to merely exist is so colossal, you may as well put in the little bit of extra effort required to make your little models pretty for the other nerds to gork at.

    Paint with pride gents,

    Gods speed.

  20. Fully support the painting checklist. The sight of two well painted armies fighting it out on a tabletop with excellent scenery is always enjoyable to watch.
    Also believe there should be differential in painting scores to recognise the effort and skill that has gone into painting the armies. Just as we recognise the difference in generalship skill levels via battle points so we should recognise the level of painting skill that has gone into an army.

    As with most things in life painting skill is one of those things that needs to be worked at. I have models in my collection that I painted over twenty years ago when I first started out and I can assure you that at best they are fugly. However, with some commitment to learn, and practice it is possible to improve you skill and produce models that you will be proud to field.

    Think it is great that Skitterleap will have 1st, 2nd and 3rd prizes for painting.

    As a suggestion maybe the prizes should be rearranged sightly along the lines of top 3 battle points, top 3 painting, top sports, and then overall supreme champion. With the proviso that you can only win a prize if you meet a basic minimum standard in the other two areas. This would hopefully stop someone just going all out with an unpainted filth army while being unsporting along the way.

    As happens now there will be times when a person will win more than one prize. But it does allow anyone that does not have the best painted army to still aim for the top battle points prizes without being dragged down by their painting score. It still recognises that the most important prize is the supreme overall prize.

    1. Depending on the TO's objectives an alternative to the above prize structure could be: top battle points, top painting, top sports, and top 3 overall.

      Again just a suggestion. Have no issue with the way it is currently done in Wgtn tournaments.

    2. +1 Stu - solid suggestions. Also leaves room for players vote for best painted vs. judges scores.

  21. This is just a query to clarify a point of the painting checklist, and hopefully will be easy-ish to answer.

    As far as consistent themes across an army, how will this be judged as far as WoC or DoC armies with multiple marks? For instance, the net list of Tzeentch LoC, lots of Nurgley stuff and Khorne skillcannons. Would a basing scheme consistent over all Nurgle, a separate one for Khorne and another for Tzeentch still count as not consistent? This is also relevant for the Nurgle daemon prince + whatever marked & unmarked WoC units.

    On a lesser note, some armies, such as VC, are a little harder to unify theme-wise, due to having many different types of mini, with different flesh types and therefore colours, that wouldn't necessarily have cloth etc to unify them.

    Essentially, I'm asking if people would be penalised for painting their armies according to relevant fluff (e.g. red Khorne units and green Nurgle ones), or might have to lower their standards of basing etc to provide a simple scheme uniting their entire force, instead of basing to emphasise particular marks or units. The same would apply to a mixed-clan Skaven force (e.g. making Skaven units themed according to clan Moulder, Pestilens, etc, for fluff reasons)

    On a non-Chaos note, I have seen amazing armies online that mixed bases according to particular units, such as sand and water bases for Lothern Seaguard, with more regular ground type bases for others.

    Sorry if this is annoying with all the other painting debate stuff going on, but it's a point that's particularly relevant to me, with future army plans up in the air while I sort painting requirements


    1. Fern - good question and here is my take. In an army that has different marks you would not lose painting marks for painting according to fluff. However I think that it would be best to unify them through a consistent basing scheme.

      As to variable themed bases, the way that generally works is by placement on a unifying display board. Away from that it is harder to sell the idea of cohesion.

      Hope that helps.

    2. Hey Pete,

      Thanks. I think I'll have to come up with a creative way to make differing bases work on a display board, but at least that's a guide for me. Hopefully it'll help others as well