Paint Scoring - opening a can of worms

It's pro-painted, full points dude 

so this post has been spawned by a clubmate who was at the SCGT and was raging over receiving a points hit on his painting on our club forum.  I haven’t taken his exact words but it was the usual ‘tournaments are for gaming not painting, why should painting ever impact final positions’. 

 Before I’ll go into any of the discussion I’ll restate the SCGT paint scoring:



“There are 20 painting points available at the SCGT the first 15 are for having an entire army of minimum standard models and trays etc as outlined earlier in the pack. If even one model in the army is not to this standard then you forfeit the points. 5 points will be added for a cohesive army, so all models and trays based the same etc (ie not borrowed or from different armies and looks like an army).”

So basically the only deduction is where the army was painted but not cohesive.

This is one of the topics which comes up on tourneys on a fairly consistent basis and I suppose it has its place in any valid discussions on tournament scoring.

Coolest Army at SCGT - Steve Foote.  Hard to argue

Why paint hit?

For me this is incredibly obvious, if the visual aesthetic side of the game is required for a tournament then it has to be the full thing or why bother at all?

I could play Warhammer with scraps of paper on the table and I just score through the box when a model dies, I can write on the unit name and it is very clear to my opponent what the unit is and the only thing you need to work round is TLoS on what has become a 2d game, but given UB is basically a more advanced version of this it clearly works.

Or I could play with nicely sculpted models which are various shades of grey plastic (or metal)as sold by manufacturers in their unpainted state, I guess most people would say that this is visually an improvement over bits of paper.  So why does nobody challenge the need to have models if all it is changing is the aesthetic but they push back furiously against the next step which is to require the models to be painted?



My thinking is that most figure designers release these models with the intent of them being painted, it’s often mentioned on the box or similar, so if that is part of their intent for the models then it seems a quite reasonable expectation that playing the game with painted models is a sensible format (not saying it should always be the case, but it is one reasonable approach).

And that is as far as I need to go to justify paint scores to myself. 

In summary

1. Do you need models? –expect these to be fully built & appropriate (to comply with WYSIWIG requirements this will become a requirement)
2. Should they be painted? – If the TO requires painted yes, and these should therefore painted to an acceptable standard (basically the same reason as assembled in that it makes it better to tell what is what).

So having accepted that paint scores should be a thing, what do I think is an acceptable standard and how to translate that to a scoring system?

Well SCGT takes one very simple approach, as long as it is fully painted such that their judges consider it painted you get to play with the models.  If they don’t feel that is the case then your models get taken off.  As you would expect with this the reality is everyone and there are no zeros.  So the total impact of not having a cohesively painted army is 5pts.  Effectively there is one metric that needed to be hit and 23 out of 190 players got hit with this penalty for not having cohesive armies.

Best Painted at SCGT - Steve Wren

I honestly can’t see how anyone can really have an issue with this, they knew going in the only metric (assuming they read the pack), so to not put the relatively small amount of effort required to make the basing the same across the army and (where relevant) the paint scheme the same within each unit.  Different units looking different will always be acceptable so I can’t see anyone getting penalised for that as long as based the same.

To my mind this still allows armies which look total junk to be taken to the event and even score full points.  The next event I’ve just been to has a slightly more complex system.

It's painted, what's the problem?

CTW Paint Score

Best Painted at CTW - A touch beyond bare minimum!

Base Colours (4 Points)

All parts of each model have appropriate colours neatly applied. Colours do not overlap into adjoining or inappropriate parts of the model. Neither undercoat nor the material the model is made from should be visible unless it is clearly appropriate as a base colour (e.g leather areas being unpainted brown undercoat).

Bases (4 Points)

All bases are textured and painted. As a minimum, the top of each base is covered with flock, sand or another basing material, or a pretextured base (such as a sculpted resin base) is used. The sides of each base are painted in a complementary or contrasting colour. Neither undercoat nor the material the base is made from should be visible unless it is clearly appropriate as a base colour.

Movement Trays (4 Points)

All units of two or more models have an appropriately sized movement tray. Appropriate movement trays are large enough to fit all models in the unit, without being significantly larger than necessary. If the movement tray is for a unit that can get larger during the game, extra space for the potential new models is acceptable. If the movement tray is for a skirmishing unit, a way of clearly marking the appropriate distance between each model should be present. This can include physical dividers or a magnetised tray and models.

Movement trays are painted and textured in the same way as bases. Actually not enforced, plain painted movement trays was fine.

Tidiness (4 Points)

Is the painting tidy i.e. are the colours used in the correct areas of the models or does the paint look like it has been ‘blobbed on’? Excessive amounts of transparency showing undercoat or other base colours where inappropriate may also be marked down.

Highlighting/Shading (4 Points)

All large areas of each model have some form of highlighting and / or shading. Areas such as belts, straps, small claws and teeth do not need to be highlighted or shaded. All methods are acceptable, including, but not restricted to, dry brushing and over brushing, layered highlights, blending and shading or washing with inks or products such as Army Painter Quick Shade.

Cohesiveness (4 Points)

All models in the army are clearly identifiable as belonging to that army. Armies containing models that are clearly from a different army or painted in a colour scheme that is not consistent with the rest of the army will not receive these points.

All bases and movement trays should be in the same consistent scheme. Movement trays should match bases or be in a complementary contrasting scheme.

As with SCGT there is a cohesive requirement which people must adhere to but in addition to that there are a number of sub categories around ‘painted’ to ensure model, base & movement trays are all painted and then 2 marginally more advanced requirements which are basically paint where it should be (tidy) and not just flat colour (highlight/shading).

One of my many basic but cohesive armies - full points!

On looking through the scores the vast majority of people picked up most of the points, so there was no significant issues it would seem.  I was very pleased to see the 3rd placed player (would have won it if not for paint hit) didn't complain but just stated:

"Was pretty pissed at myself for losing the cohesive points and dropping from 1st to 3rd. Could have easily finished them if i had have thought about it." 

Fantastic to see a player hold his hand up and accept fault due to lack of effort on his part rather than the usual claims you see of 'unobtainable standards' or 'this is a gaming event, painting shouldn't matter' yada yada.

Sure I don't have a problem with paint awards having no bearing on a tournament result, but I like to see a pack promote a basic level of painting that is achievable to all (you're deluding youreself if you say otherwise outside a disability) so for me I hope these requirements continue as I feel they only benefit the overall appeal of events.