ReaperCon Painting Contest

[EdPugh]

Does that mean that the "Ed's Choice" award will go to the miniature with the most charming, sensitive and engaging personality, too?

So in order to win, we have to paint a mini that looks like Ed?

 

 

depending on who you ask around here that would be... 2727, 3163 or 2216

 

The one that I believe looks like me is 50027, but then again I'm the modest type

[kristof65]

LOL - Ed, now I have this urge to do a conversion with 2216's head on 50027's body....

[Vaitalla]

Interesting that you got PM's on this, Kristof (your views on the judging, not your views on an Ed conversion figure... /shudder).

 

I think you can trust my Pro judges to be as objective as possible. I'm choosing people who have extensive judging experience for this first year, and at least two or three of them will have judged this type of competition (Open) before. I'm picking people with experience judging a variety of scales and genres. Remember too, we WANT you guys to get medals! We want people to win stuff and get fired up! We are not going to be looking at these models in the exclusionary way of a normal 1-2-3 competition, where the point is to disqualify minis as not good enough until you're left with what is good enough.

 

As you say, in the past with the Masters we have never had a problem with people not recognizing great technique when they see it. The only place where you start to stumble into grey areas is when there are several pieces which are equally cool, or where there are several very good pieces but no AMAZING ones. There was one MMSI Chicago show where I was just wandering around in a panic with my voting card because no one model was standing out to me! That was agonizing. The year prior to that I knew which model I was voting for before I even took a second turn around the room.

 

As Kristof says, even though the Masters was anonymous, a lot of people "knew" who had painted what already. I had people come up to me and flat out ask me if so-and-so painted X or Y piece. I always told them they would have to wait and see, but most were pretty sure they knew without my answer (and some were even right...Hehe!). Yet year after year the votes came in and except for one year the places fell out exactly as I would have rated them as a judge! The conduct of all of the entrants and voters has been impeccable so far as I have seen and we have never had a complaint about anyone trolling for votes. I think Kristof is right in that you will see more subjectivity over subject matter or color scheme than you will over who painted a piece.

 

--Anne

[dks]

PS: Is being in a category with Derek really that scary?

 

Nah, I'm a lamb. Actually, it depends on when you catch me. Just because one of us "big-name painters" shows up doesn't mean that we've brought a knockout entry, or any entry at all.

 

In head-to-head competition between Marike and me, for example, you'll find the bigger number in her "W" column, by far. I first met Jen Haley when her Single Figure entry trounced mine at Gen Con 2002 -- and Anne was one of the judges. I was obsessively focussed on my dioramas for Gen Con '07 and '08 for months (or even years) in advance, and the judges decided to award top honors to what I produced. Meanwhile, I didn't place at ReaperCon.

 

It would be a great contest in which everyone had created an entry that represented the height of her or his work, but a lack of time or lack of inspiration hinders everyone occasionally. With the Open system, if a particular contest sees four or more painters touched by the muse (or spending 100+ hours on their entries or making pacts with infernal powers), then none of them is deprived of a rightful gold: sounds fair to me.

 

non-scary Derek

[Gus Landt]

For all the reasons stated by Anne & Sue, I believe the judges really need to know the names. As for us joe public types, I don't care one way or the other. Sure there may be some votes affected by knowing the painter's name, but so many that it causes an undeserving piece to win? I just don't see that being very likely.

[psyberwolfe1]

For what it’s worth here are my comments. First from what I have read so far I like these new rules. I like opening it up to any mini company. I know that some think that a certain British company’s figures will come to dominate this competition, but I can only see this in one category: the vehicle category. This has a great two fold effect. First I am able to work on my cue and second it encourages me to do top notch work all of the time instead of flipping between table top and competition styles.

Of all the categories I think a little more definition may be in order for this vehicle category. I say this because the new Soulgrinder figure is a mix between flesh and vehicle.

Next I am a bit confused about the painting category. If I decided to leave a broccoli base on and use some green stuff to blend the base into its final display base will I be automatically sent to the Open Category? Also I have used GS to fix hard to reach mold lines. One of my techniques is to cover said mold line with sculpted hair extensions, muscle rebuilds, or wardrobe re-sculpts. All of these are incredibly minor adjustments to the figure that are my way to compensate for some of my inability to completely clean off all of the mold lines but would this move me into the open category? I think that it should not because I have not done anything major to the figure that changes the artist’s original concept.

That is all I have for now. I’m sure more will come up as I think of it.

[KatieS]

Next I am a bit confused about the painting category. If I decided to leave a broccoli base on and use some green stuff to blend the base into its final display base will I be automatically sent to the Open Category? Also I have used GS to fix hard to reach mold lines. One of my techniques is to cover said mold line with sculpted hair extensions, muscle rebuilds, or wardrobe re-sculpts. All of these are incredibly minor adjustments to the figure that are my way to compensate for some of my inability to completely clean off all of the mold lines but would this move me into the open category? I think that it should not because I have not done anything major to the figure that changes the artist’s original concept.

That is all I have for now. I’m sure more will come up as I think of it.

 

My understanding (and someone please correct me if I am wrong) is that in the painting category, you will be judged on painting only, even if the model is not stock. In the Open category, you'll be judged on painting and composition, and that doesn't, necessarily, mean there's any conversion involved (but it could be, say, a diorama).

[eastman]

My understanding (and someone please correct me if I am wrong) is that in the painting category, you will be judged on painting only, even if the model is not stock. In the Open category, you'll be judged on painting and composition, and that doesn't, necessarily, mean there's any conversion involved (but it could be, say, a diorama).

 

That's the way it works at MMSI

[Gus Landt]

In answer to another question, yes, Warmachine warjacks are considered fantasy machines of war, and would go in this [ordnance] category

This is my only remaining objection. If you allow Warjacks into ordnance, then I'm assuming you would have to allow things like the Onyx Golem from Reaper's Warlord line, as it fits nearly every description you could give to the Warjack.

 

And of course you would have to allow the toolbots too, as they are no different than a Warjack.

 

And if you allow those, that begs the question - does it have to be made of metal to qualify for ordnance? Obviously not, as you would allow a wooden ship. Well if a Warjack is allowed, and a wooden ship is allowed, then why would the following not be allowed? As a golem, it fits most every definition you'd give to a Warjack, except it wasn't constructed of metal, which isn't a problem since you would allow a wooden catapult.

 

 

Bottom line, I don't think Warjacks should count as ordnance. If they are. then we need a really explicit definition of ordnance so we don't end up with a Wood Golem in it.

 

NOTE: If a Warjack actually had a person inside of it operating it, then I would say absolutely it would be a machine of war. However, it does not. It is controlled from outside, no different than a golem.

[paintminion]

Hmmm, another question from that great Left Field - both. Again, I'm not a Reaper Official, only fan and part time judge. Anne will chime in here soon as she can.

 

Placement of Ordnance possibilities...

 

If you were asking about MMSI, I'd say--where do YOU want that Onyx Golem judged? Place it there, depending on what other entries you've brought for which categories. Painter's or Ordnance, which medal would you rather go for? Where do you think it will do best? And the judges may decide you'd get a higher award in Painter's than Ordnance, and move it accordingly if you had no other entries or lesser entries in Painter's. They probably would because they wouldn't have a clue what they were looking at, considering it a humanoid armored figure like a Fantasy knight. MMSI has not had to deal with our difficult aspects of the hobby...things which are Machines of War in intent and not Single Figures. They deal with Ordnance vs Non-Ordnance, Historical vs F, but we deal with Historical vs SF vs F vs Steamfantasy/Punkfantasy/Steampunk or Punkfiction.

 

At Gen Con we developed the Machines of War category to cover all aspects of models dealing with mechanical machines of all genres. That solved our dilemna of Privateer Press's desire to have warjacks in the Fantasy category and not the SF category. It was a blurry line so we erased it and made a new line. Mechanicals, mechanisms and machines.

 

Again, historicals shows have not had to deal with this burgeoning new drive in the gaming industry. Obvious Vehicles, Weapons Systems, and Mechanisms went in the Ordnance category, everything else did not. Emphasis was on Figures vs Non-Figures.

 

Deciding category is not the end of the world, strict cut and dried, right or wrong, black and white, impassable lines drawn, allowed or not allowed. The system is much more forgiving than that. So to that question about the basing...we've covered that. This is not a basing competition. If you do a bad base, it's gonna detract from your figure, but if you do an okay or better base, it will not raise your painting scores. Presentation of your work is always important. And as for minor changes, you already seem to be saying you haven't really added anything to the figure to change it in any drastic way...if you want your painting judged, put it in Painters, if you think it will do better in Open, that your changes represent an intent to modify the figure and make it something unique, go for Open.

 

Basically, the Open System makes YOU think more about what you will display and where you want to display it. Plan. Think about your intent with the piece. Rethink your piece. Rethink your plan. Where will it do best? Then just bring it on!

[GreyHorde]

Since there are sculpting classes at ReaperCon, how about a separate Sculpting category? Any medium, size, basing, genre or style could be entered, as long as it is unpainted. This would encourage more sculptors to attend, benchmark their progress, interact with the top talent in the field. Yes, I realize it would not be a huge draw, but apply similar Open System judging standards for sculpting aspects. The field would likely still be small and awards presented only if truly merited.

 

Maybe judging similar to Painters could work: 70% sculpting skill, 10% workmanship (a moldmaker's dream, or a moldmaker's nightmare?), 10% overall effect, 10% difficulty.

 

Maybe judging similar to Open could work: 30% on sculpting skill, 30% on technique (split between paintability, casting/production viability and smoothness/quality of the work), 15% on overall effect, 15% on creativity, and 10% on difficulty.

 

Maybe combine some of that and make it 50% skill/technique,30% effect/creativity, 20% difficulty/detail.

 

Just thinking...make of it what you will.

[Vaitalla]

Only time for a short reply now, more later.

 

1. Sue is absolutely right, these are not hard and fast categories. Where and how YOU want to display your piece has as much to do with it as where it "belongs"! It will take some time to get used to this, for sure!

 

2. That said, Gus, it sounds like you are lobbying for the rule to be "piloted" machines only, no constructs. I would say this would be a "human-shaped go into the figure categories" rule but CAV's, dreadnoughts, and battlemechs all are human shaped and I would argue that they definitely belong in Ordnance.

 

Anyone else have any thoughts on this?

 

--Anne

[Heisler]

Well you could try something like restricting it to built, mechanical objects. That would leave out just about eveything that's a golem. If its "magically" created then its not armor or ordnance (which are built up, mechanical objects)

[EdPugh]

Ok

 

You can put a 'Warjack' OR a CAV OR a Golem OR a large armored foot knight Or a WW2 Tank into ANY class.

 

Ordnance quote from MMSI rules:

"The Ordnance division is for. models without figures. Figures may be included, but they will not count in the judging".

 

Ordnance quote from our rules:

"only the mechanical aspect is being judged. If there are crew models which cannot be removed, they will either be ignored in the judging"

 

Now looking at the above model examples, if they were all entered into the Ordnance Class what would happen? All of them, including the foot knight, would be solely judged on the mechanical/armor aspect of the piece. The face painting work on the knight, the commander of the tank etc would be ignored.

 

With that said, it all still falls within the realm of the spirit of the rules and their interpretation. SO enter as you wish, but don't be surprised if the judges put you in a different category or your friends make fun of your judgment or your tiki-golem warmachine

[Mengu]

2. That said, Gus, it sounds like you are lobbying for the rule to be "piloted" machines only, no constructs. I would say this would be a "human-shaped go into the figure categories" rule but CAV's, dreadnoughts, and battlemechs all are human shaped and I would argue that they definitely belong in Ordnance.

 

Anyone else have any thoughts on this?

 

I say just let the painter put it in whatever category they want to put it in. If I paint up a Karchev model (man in the machine, think warjack with only a human head showing), I could focus on a clean paint job, maybe do some fancy pattern design on the armor, bring the face into focus with some freehand trickery, add some lighting effects coming from the inside of the machine, and enter it in painter category. Or I could take the same model, pick out every rivet, add some authentic lettering, add some battle damage, paint transfer, and oil leaks, and enter it in ordanance category. Or I could have him standing on a pile of trenchers, holding up a light enemy jack hanging upside down by its leg in one hand, and his axe raised up in defiance of his half torn armor converted with a bunch of hydraulic pipes and gears sticking out of it, and enter it in open category. Same model, different takes, different categories.

 

Like Sue said, it just makes the painter think about what category they are painting the model for. This should be no different than painting for any other competition.