Marking Painting In Tournaments, What I Look For

It recently came up with a question raised by the lads at The Sound of Machines- Commission Painting, that there was a concern among certain hobbyists that they were being docked painting points at tournaments for using an airbrush. Personally, I have never experienced this issue, and I would like to take this chance to expand upon my own views on the subject.

You see, at first I was highly critical of airbrushing. This is because I saw it as a cheat, that is, it takes far less skill to achieve an effect with an airbrush then it does with a brush and a paint palette. Since then, I have wizened up, usually through lively debate with Lord Dockington Keep. You see, I still find it a cheat achieving certain effects (such as source lighting, force weapons, extreme contrast highlighting, wet blending style effects...), but I have come to the conclusion (as I hope most gamers have) that this doesn't detract from the overall effect of the models. Basically, if an army is painted well, who cares how it was done? This said, airbrushing itself isn't easy, however, it is not an 'advanced painting technique'. I have taught people to do things on an airbrush in 20 minutes things that would take months to learn with a brush.

Keeping this in mind, I would like to discuss the system I like to use for marking miniatures at tournaments an painting competitions. In no way is this the be-all end-all, but it is designed so that a fair and relatively unbiased approach is taken.


Painting Scoresheet:

ARMY CONSTRUCTION, PAINTING AND THEME SCORESHEET:

2 points for a 'yes' 1 point for a 'sort-of' 0 points for a 'no'

Fully painted consists of 3 main colours, with clearly defined parts of the model, where the base is also a clearly defined colour. E.g Pitch black base, 0 points for the entire model. Basing DOES NOT include skimmer units, however, they should where possible be at least painted.

Regards WYSIWYG and composition, the army list should be available and the units should be easy to take in at a glance, if the army is near identical all over, this is not a bad thing provided there are obvious differences, such as wargear, markings etc.

Airbrushing does NOT automatically constitute using an advanced technique, the overal painting should reflect multiple skillsets, such as washes, highlights, shading, etc, and the model should be balanced, i.e not beautiful airbrushed armour and a train wreck of a face.

ARMY PREPARATION

Are the worst of the mold lines removed?

Has the model been fully undercoated? (no patches of plastic/resin/metal visible)

Are the tabs from clipping the model off the sprue present?

Does the model function correctly? (e.g does the turret/s move? do hatches open?)

Has some part of the army been magnetised? (i.e tank weapons, to facilitate in removal due to damage in game)

ARMY THEME AND COMPOSITION

Is there a coherent theme? (witch hunters, shock and awe, siege artillery)

Is there a well designed and structured force? (multiple weapons and equipment types)

Does the force have justifiable fluff? (Legion, Wraithdar etc)

Does the army utilise a wide variety of units from across the codex? (tanks/infantry etc)

Does the choice of models improve the look of the army?

ARMY COLOUR CHOICE AND TECHNIQUES

Does the choice of colour suit the theme?

Is it a basic theme, or enhanced by the player? (I.e an improvement on the standard normally seen of that army type)

Does it contain enhanced techniques, such as weathering, highlighting, markings, finishing touches?

Is the choice of enhanced technique effective? (or did they just sponge heavily?)

Are there visible poor painting techniques? (such as streaks, loss of detail, gluggy paint, poor attempts at keeping within the lines?)

BASING/CONVERSION/FINISHING TOUCHES

Has the whole army been fully based?

Are the bases consistent? (I.e the general is on a giant rock, the troops are on green flock)

Is there additional detail added and/or are the bases resin?

Is it fully painted?

Is it painted to a equal standard across the board?

Is a display base included?

Are the units clearly marked?

Is the army WYSIWYG?

Is there evidence of sculpting and/or conversion?

Is this one of the better armies at the event?

The Thought Process:

As you can see, it covers a wide range of areas. Very few people will tick all fields, because several of them do not work with one another as they are different techniques. This is recognised, for instance, not all armies use magnets. However, as part of army preparation, it is included since it is going out of the hobbyists' way to do. 

The only truly subjective question is the last, because personal choice will always come into it, but it is important, as an army that might be well painted could have dropped a couple of points elsewhere. (Some will call this crazy, but I have personally seen similar sheets like this where a worse army scored better because it ticked more boxes. That is why this question is a must add.)

I am happy to provide a PDF copy via email to anyone who wants to try out this system, so if you would like one, please comment below, or message us via our Facebook page.

~Macca

As a final thought, I think that if anyone seems to get docked points in painting, it's gamers who don't use super-highlighting aka Games Workshop Eldar style with every plate edge highlighted. Anyone else find this? Am I a conspiracy theorist? Do the United States have a secret base on the moon?