Whew! It was a really long weekend of gaming. And you know what? I had an absolutely fabulous time. I want to take a moment, now that I’ve recovered from the exhaustion of 24 hours of being “on” in a gaming sense to share some of my thoughts on the event from the three pillars of the hobby perspective. Before I do though, huge thanks to Christian and Mike for running the event. So much fun. I’ll definitely go again next year. And now… Let’s start with…
Wow. So I was a bit humbled. I know that my models are probably high tabletop quality and not much else but there were some superb armies on display. Tons of custom display trays that were built to highlight the army, amazing paint jobs and great conversions. Here’s some of the ones I really liked.
These guys have a grudge against the Tau. Fabulous army. I voted one of his guys as the best individual model.
So, the full results of the event haven’t been posted yet so I’m not sure where my appearance/painting score falls relative to other folks but I think I’m not unhappy with my score. I received a 20 on that front out of a total of 40. Yeah, 50% doesn’t sound terribly good, does it? Well… It is, actually. I’m kinda thinking that getting all 40 is a bit tricky – especially since 10 of those points are for conversions and since a) I’m not a sculpture at all and the few times I’ve tried it ended badly for all involved and b) I like the aesthetics of the armies as they are, I have no intention of getting on the conversion bandwagon anytime soon. Here’s how I did on the various sections:
Display: 2/3 “Nice display system which complements the appearance of the army”. Unless I do something drastic this will be my lot. :> I used a tile of my city board and a building. It works. It’s done. Yay.
Conversions: 1/10 “A few minor conversions. (Weapon, head, repositioning of arms, etc)”. Totally cool with this as indicated above. That’s what I do for conversions.
Basing:1/2 “Attractive – Simple flock, with additional details. Nicely flocked or painted details/patterns” Yep. That’s what I do. I have a blasted wasteland template I use for all my bases and I like it. I think I could kick it up a point if I did a bit more on them – specifically finishing the whole army and adding a few bodies or something.
Brushwork: 13/20: “Many details and a more successful contrast range shown upon close inspection”. Gotta say I’m pretty happy with this. I’m smack dab in the middle of their “Expert” level and that’s pretty slick since I don’t consider myself a talented painter – I have to work on it and it’s hard for me. I think I could probably kick it up if I finished all the details on all the models.
Additional Effort: 2/3 “Expert Brushwork met / Several units or models which rise above the demonstrated appearance standard of the army”. This score is odd to me. So if you get to Expert do you get the two points? I paint all my models to the best of my ability so the second part is a bit confusing. Now, they’ve been painted over time so perhaps the newer models are what they’re referring to? Possibly it’s the Harlequins. Oh yeah! It’s the Harlies…
Judges Adjustment: 1/2 “+1 Harlequins”. Additionally the comments read, “Nice Army. Still Some more to do!” That’s very true. I need to dive in there and totally complete every single model.
So that’s my break down of my modelling score. As I say, I’m happy with it. I can’t wait to see how I compare with other folks.
Now, some additional thoughts on the modeling bits as a whole. I absolutely loved the fact that EVERY army was painted to one degree or another. There was not a single grey horde on the table. It was also really cool that I didn’t hear a single, “This model actually has a [insert weapon here]” comment. Everybody that I saw was WYSIWYG and painted. The terrain was largely beautiful and so it was a joy to play every army.
Generally I liked the appearance scoring. It’s pretty in depth and not as subject to “subjectivity” as some of the scoring methods I’ve seen. Lots of categories with clear descriptions on what they’re looking for in each category. That’s awesome ‘cause it does provide feedback on how to improve even without lots of handwritten commentary. But let’s go back to the conversions section. I get why it’s there but I think I’d a) reduce the number of points or b) change it to something like, “uniqueness” or something. Conversions used to be a really big part of the hobby because the model ranges were smaller. There wasn’t necessarily a way to have 10 unique guys carrying a shredder ‘cause there were only two metal sculpts. Today, that’s a bit different. We’re spoiled for choice on how to assemble stunning plastic kits with every option imaginable. And the models are superb. Converting them, to me, ruins the consistency of theme (unless you’re REALLY good at it, which I am not). I mean, especially if you really like the aesthetics of the models the way they are. I don’t WANT to convert my beautiful harlequin models. So that’s what I’d change if I was running the event.
Well, if you’ve made it this far then that’s my thoughts on the modelling elements of the Astronomi-con Toronto 2016 Tournament. I am humbled. I am inspired. My armies WILL look better.
As this has gotten a bit longer than I originally thought it would, I’m going to break this up into sections. The next blog topic? Narrative elements at Astronomi-con Toronto 2016 from my perspective.
Glad you had a fun time man. Heard you got to play against Josh and his Eldar, did you see how amazing his display board was!? :O I like how Curtis used the wrecked devilfish with the same paint scheme as Brandon's Tiger Tau who was also there.