Judging the Reaper Con MSP Open - Armor/Ordnance Division

[Heisler]

This is the fourth, and last, in a series of four posts each concentrating on a different entry category. You can find information about the scoring system itself in the Painter Division post. From here forward I will just concentrate on how the component guidelines apply to the other three divisions.

 

Armor/Ordnance Division

At MMSI in Chicago and elsewhere around the globe this category is usually filled with armor, planes, artillery and the like. At the MSP Open it is more along the lines of the red-headed stepchild. This division shares a lot with the Open Division with workmanship and creativity being big components of the scoring. While many entrants are willing to spend hours pouring over a single miniature and eradicating mold lines and filling gaps, they seem to be loath to do that with an entry into the armor/ordnance category. Just like the other divisions preparation is key, a visible mold line or a seam is likely to drop you a whole medal category in the judging. Since many of the entries are from plastic and resin kits visible seams are usually the biggest problem I see as a judge, following that would be mold lines in difficult to reach places. At the 2018 MSP Open there were a lot of larger Games Workshop pieces. Almost everyone single of these had visible mold lines in the hoses and seams in the armor panels on the back of the legs. This dropped everyone of these entries a medal level. Decals are often used in this division and there is nothing wrong with using them. You will get marked down for poor application though, treat a decal like freehand and don’t just slop it into place. There is a right way and a wrong way to apply decals and it can be a bit of an art to the proper application.

Again, if you have just a single entry then the judges can just go ahead and score your entry, no discussion is necessary. If you have multiple entries, then there will be a discussion between the judges on which entry they want to score. That conversation is typically the only conversation although these discussions tend to be longer than they might be in the Painter Division. However, when selecting the scoring entry the conversation is still based on “I can score this one higher than the others” or words to that affect, till they come to a decision just as it would be for the Painter Division. If multiple entries are visually very thematic the judges may decide to judge them together as a single entry.

 

Let’s take a quick look at the scoring guidelines the judges use (which is published as part of the MSP Open rules. These are guidelines are subject to change.

Difficulty: 15%

Creativity: 10% 

Workmanship: 30%

Painting Skill: 35% 

Presentation: 10% 

 

Difficulty: This and the Open Division are the places where difficulty does have a significant impact. The difficulty of assembling some of the kits available on the market can vary widely from manufacturer to manufacturer. Especially when dealing with a plastic kit like those produced by Tamiya and Games Workshop to the five piece resin game oriented kits put out by other manufacturers.

 

Creativity: There is not a lot of creativity involved with a straight up kit build, but when someone goes to the extra lengths to “upgrade” their kits with after market or hand made parts that impacts the creativity component. This is the equivalent of a conversion in the other divisions.

 

Workmanship: This is really a key component for this division and the proposed change reflects that. Any type of non-painting effort is represented here. This is includes your ability to do conversions and/or scratch sculpt or at least be able to blend your entry in with the scene you have constructed. A missed mold line, poor assembly or a poorly executed conversion could easily drop you a while numeric value in the scoring.

 

Painting Skill: Everything that was said about painting still applies in the Diorama Division but there is less emphasis. At this point workmanship and creativity components exceed the painting component (as currently proposed). There are a few other mediums that are often used in this category, like weathering powders, the application of those mediums falls into the painting component. While we don’t expect your abilities to be exactly equal in those areas you cannot count on your ability to paint alone to carry you over the top.

 

Presentation: While not the most important component in the Armor/Ordnance Division it is another example of getting the little things right. A nice, well executed base will set the “scene” for your entry. It can be the simple or it can be more elaborate. I would save the effort on a really elaborate base for an entry in the Open or Diorama divisions. This component is one that a judge will often use when making that final decision between scores, a tie breaker as it were.

Edited March 5, 2019 by Heisler

[kristof65]

1 hour ago, Heisler said:

Difficulty: This and the Open Division are the places where difficulty does have a significant impact. The difficulty of assembling some of the kits available on the market can vary widely from manufacturer to manufacturer. Especially when dealing with a plastic kit like those produced by Tamiya and Games Workshop to the five piece resin game oriented kits put out by other manufacturers.

 

Creativity: There is not a lot of creativity involved with a straight up kit build, but when someone goes to the extra lengths to “upgrade” their kits with after market or hand made parts that impacts the creativity component. This is the equivalent of a conversion in the other divisions.

 

How would 3d printed pieces be considered in these categories?  For example, the CAV that @Pegazus did a couple years ago, or the Tycho and Rottweiler vehicles I've done. 

[Heisler]

They would be judged the same as any other miniature. Complications arise with 3D printing due to resolution,  I shouldn’t be able to see the layers through your paint work.

[kristof65]

13 hours ago, Heisler said:

I shouldn’t be able to see the layers through your paint work.

That was understood from the get go - but what I'm wondering is how that would be judged in difficulty in relation to other types of models? 

For example, you said:

20 hours ago, Heisler said:

Almost everyone single of these had visible mold lines in the hoses and seams in the armor panels on the back of the legs. This dropped everyone of these entries a medal level.

Which is understandable. But, IMO, the difficulty of removing the mold lines of hoses on a commercial plastic kit is still easier than removing the layer lines over the entire surface area of a fully 3d printed model done on many consumer grade 3d printers.  I'm hoping that's being considered - IE, failing to remove the mold lines on a few hoses might be 20-30% of the mold lines on a commercial model, whereas failing to conceal the layers in similar locations on a 3d printed model might only be 2-3% of the layer lines overall. 

[Heisler]

2 hours ago, kristof65 said:

That was understood from the get go - but what I'm wondering is how that would be judged in difficulty in relation to other types of models? 

For example, you said:

Which is understandable. But, IMO, the difficulty of removing the mold lines of hoses on a commercial plastic kit is still easier than removing the layer lines over the entire surface area of a fully 3d printed model done on many consumer grade 3d printers.  I'm hoping that's being considered - IE, failing to remove the mold lines on a few hoses might be 20-30% of the mold lines on a commercial model, whereas failing to conceal the layers in similar locations on a 3d printed model might only be 2-3% of the layer lines overall. 

 

Agreed, I would certainly consider most 3D printed kits to be more difficult to prep than most plastic kits and the same or more difficult than resin kits (many of the armor kits these days are mastered from 3D prints, like the ones from Mad Bob Miniatures). Its also a situation where if you have done your prep right I would never know it was a 3D print. Which means you would need to say something on the card that goes with each entry or provide some documentation, like in progress photos (much like an entry in the Open Division), to show what it took to make the kit ready for the competition.

[kristof65]

Thanks for the clarification. I had figured as much, but didn't want to assume. 

[Heisler]

Always better to ask the question than sit and wonder about it!

[Cranky Dog]

On 10/10/2018 at 12:33 PM, Heisler said:

This is the fourth, and last, in a series of four posts each concentrating on a different entry category. You can find information about the scoring system itself in the Painter Division post. From here forward I will just concentrate on how the component guidelines apply to the other three divisions.

 

Armor/Ordnance Division

At MMSI in Chicago and elsewhere around the globe this category is usually filled with armor, planes, artillery and the like. At the MSP Open it is more along the lines of the red-headed stepchild.

As I'm mostly unfamiliar with the full spectrum of the possibilities, I'm curious to know as to how wide the category is or not.

 

Standard real life military gear is easy to accept, as are Big Stompy Robots. But what about other less imposing sci-fi or fantasy units, or simply a bunch of soldiers? Where do you draw the line at accepting them in this category or putting them in Open/Diorama/etc.

 

For example, are a bunch of Star Wars stormtroopers acceptable? What if they're standing on a AT-ST? Or how about a bunch of Warhammer dwarves/orcs and their war machine.

 

Is the whole idea of the category machines first, personnel second?

[GlenP]

Is the whole idea of the category machines first, personnel second?

 

You could easily look at it that way. Generally speaking, the ordnance category (as explained to me years ago) was 'machines of war' (italics mine). Every figure show I've ever been to has an ordnance category. Reaper's initially provided a means of entering CAV and other similar tabletop gaming pieces. The category was the bastard stepchild until Anne decided she wanted to make it bigger. What Anne wants, Anne gets... Over the last few years it has grown considerably and it now includes everything from historical to sci-fi/fantasy subjects with wings, wheels, tracks, skids, and legs - starships to Roman catapults to civilian vehicles. A figure has the advantage of giving the viewer an indication of scale. Figures can be in or out of a vehicle, but you have to be careful that you don't put it into the realm of 'diorama'. Lone or multiple figures simply clad in armor (powered or not) might be best suited for painters, open, or diorama. The judges can and do move things to other categories if they feel it would do better medal-wise.

 

My own ordnance entries focus on the machine. No crew, light weathering, but not covered in mud, and not buried in stowage (to the consternation of some). I put the model on wood base with a metal name plate so folks know what it is they're looking at. I would likely do the same for an AT-ST.

 

Don't forget:

 

Remove all mold seams.

Remove all construction seams where applicable.

Proper alignment of parts.

Smooth paint.

No stray paint or glue spots.

No silvered decals where applicable.

Weathering - worn, faded, abraded, scratched, and chipped paint, stains, dust, dirt, mud, etc. - is optional. Use your base groundwork as a guide if you go that route.

 

Full disclosure: I judge ordnance with Heisler and taught him everything he knows about Sherman drive sprocket lug nuts.

 

Glen

[Heisler]

Glen's points are excellent but in the simplest of terms its all about the machine. So machine first, miniatures are there more for a representation of scale and presentation. Although since they fall into the presentation aspect of the judging they could downgrade your score if poorly done. In other words don't just slop some paint on the miniatures and throw them on the base, that will result in a lower score.

 

This category is not for single miniatures or squads of troops. For instance at Reaper Con 2018 there was a single miniature entered in this category with a jet pack. Since the "vehicle" in this instance was the jetpack I made the decision,  as the team captain, to move that miniature into painter. Troops can support the vehicle or weapon but we are judging the "Machine of War" not the troops although crewman will factor more heavily into the presentation of the piece. An artillery piece with a crew "presents" better than an artillery piece in isolation.

[kristof65]

On 10/11/2018 at 11:20 AM, Heisler said:

provide some documentation, 

Speaking of this (and it probably applies to all categories) - is there a preferred method/type of documentation that makes it easier for the judges and/or competition overall? 

For my diorama this year, I had 3 pages of photos stapled together, but it looked like it took up a lot of valuable table space. Since I could easily do way more than that for the documentation for one of my 3d printed tanks,  I've been considering ways that would make it quick and convenient for the judges (or anyone else who was curious) and not get in the way, but yet be informative as to the process I went through, from the initial design in Fusion 360 to the printing, preparation and painting. 

I loved how this year's diorama Gold Sophie winner had a really detailed blog about his build, but I don't recall seeing any of that with his entry. 

[Heisler]

Clever Crow did much the same thing with his entry, two or three pages of photographs underneath his entry. I don’t think we have ever discussed a good format amongst the judges before, something we should do I suppose. I think my favorite was a small 4x7 format photo book with both text and pictures. It was really easy to flip through.

[kristof65]

26 minutes ago, Heisler said:

I think my favorite was a small 4x7 format photo book with both text and pictures.

That's what I was thinking about doing. 

[GlenP]

Every entry is matched with a bar-coded sticker with the artist's name, category, subject, and if it's a Reaper or some other connected product on a 3x5 card. After that, the rest of the card - front and rear - are blank. I use that to describe the kit manufacturer, scale, modifications made (if any) and paints. This is for the attendees as well as the judges. The key is to write/print small and neatly. I give the reader a general idea of what went into the piece vs an SBS. I save that for the bar.

 

Heisler's buying...

 

Glen

[Pegazus]

I actually had a complete additional print, straight from the printer, as an easy illustration of what I’d done. Should I manage to actually produce what I’ve got floating around in my head, I’ll probably continue that way.