What constitutes - 5 = gaming standard

[nels0nmac]

Recently I have been doing my best to contribute to the site by doing some voting during my lunch break at work. I have noticed a large variation in ranking on minis that I would judge to be of the same standard, both in terms of being scored too high and too low. Now I realise that a lot of voting is subjective and subject to personal choice; but could also be because peoples idea of what is actually tabletop standard varies as well.

To me this is what I think of as tabletop standard....

This is the image of Marines that GW has on their site. Basic clean paint job, edge highlighting and simple flock/sand base. Maybe a bit of simple freehand.

Is this what most people think of as tabletop standard?

 

[ScottRadom]

No, those are defo above a 5 for tabletop. I\'d go around the 6-7 range personally. My tabletop \"5\" score goes to the model that looks okay from a distance of 3 feet, but it\'s flaws are shown up close.

a heavily drybrushed and washed mini with some effort put into it to not have messy paint all over the place and a finished base get\'s my 5.

Seriously if models were painted to that standard of the GW marines at my local tournies, or even the ones I travel too I would be amazed.

 

[GunjiNoKanrei]

I would rate these above 5 ... maybe in the 6-7 range like Scott. The paintjobs are basic, yes, but they are super uber crisp and they have a little extra (a simple freehand).

But I agree with your definition for TableTop standard: \"Basic clean paint job, edge highlighting and simple flock/sand base.\" You just didn\'t pick an example which goes with this description

 

[PegaZus]

I know when I\'m doing that rare effort of voting that I\'d consider a 5 something that has paint where it is supposed to be (ie, no flesh tones on clothes and vise versa) and that some effort was made for the base. A dip in sand or flock works. Going to a six would be having the base done up a little nicer (some plants, or rocks). Then the amount of extras (highlights, basing, freehand) from there make me score upwards.

Bit of a timely subject for me right now. My latest submission was at 4.1 prior to the readjustment that happens. It\'s now back up just under 5, but reverse engineering the votes with the lower score revealed several \"1\" votes. I know I didn\'t do a great job, but it amused me that some people took the effort to give it such a dismal score for no real apparent reason. Doesn\'t matter much as my \"customer\" loves his gift from Daddy.

Oh, and these would get a six from me were I voting. Possibly even seven depending on my mood at the time.

 

[pez5767]

Here we go again! lol

I would also put these guys at a 6-7 myself. Good detail. Very clean. 7 = top notch table top minis. 8+ is for show quality.

I look at a clean paint job, basic highlight and shadding, finished base as a 5. As others have said, as a player if my opponent put an army of 5 quality models on the table across from me, I would be fine with playing against it. Not amazing at all. Just basic and fully finished.

CMON would greatly benefit from a restart... I know it won\'t ever happen, but seriously, using the 1-10 scale with 3 being basic table top and 10 being uber would be nice. How about a \"How to Vote\" post for the powers-that-be with pictures of 5-10 level modesl? The system is too tight now... case and point:

Same model, same pic 1.2 variantion? Figure that out!?

http://www.coolminiornot.com/218415

http://www.coolminiornot.com/188473

 

[Gilvan Blight]

These would get a 6-7 on me as well, depending on my mood at the time and how many space marines I had seen in a row that day.

Technically the GW standard for Tabletop is at least Three Colours and a finished base. As the voting says we are to pretend we are a Golden Demon judge that should be the requirement for a 5.

Personaly I stoped following that rule to the T as unpainted minis would get a 1 (greens), and the range of 1-5 is pretty useless if a 5 only requires 3 colours and a base... what\'s a 4 then: no finished base? A 3: only two colours and no base?

 

[skeeve]

Originally posted by pez5767
Same model, same pic 1.2 variantion? Figure that out!?

http://www.coolminiornot.com/218415

http://www.coolminiornot.com/188473

Actually this is very easy. First image is dark and ever so slightly out of focus. I am trying to figure out what exactly you were focusing on and it feels like it was outer edge of the base.

As for these marines. The image of them are above TT by almost any standards. Simple, certainly, but very smooth and clean. Keep in mind though, since they came from GW site these guys most likely were photoshoped to death before posting.

From GD point of view, a squad painted to this standard would probably make first cut (at least in US), since there is no obvious technical mistakes, but that\'s about it.

 

[uberdark]

i would have to put them at a 7.5...definitely above tabletop. its nicely done and well detailed. as for the one with the demon the reason it scores lower is obviously because of the picture quality that skeeve pointed out. in the end its all up to the viewer and their own aesthetic tastes.

 

[hestan101]

tabeltop seems to be flat, failry neat colours, with some ATTEMPT or highlighting and shading

 

[Amazon warrior]

Is it that time of the month already?

The marine posted would probably garner a 6-7 from me too, for all the reasons already stated.

I do tend to stick to the \"three colours and a base\" when assigning \"table-top\" quality scores. For a five, I expect the colours to be in the lines and a bit of static grass or grit on the base. Points get knocked off for things like messiness, lack of a base (or a name!!!!!!) and construction issues. Alternatively, points are added for things like shading and highlighting (assuming it\'s been done to a sensible standard), freehand, imagination, and so on.

 

[nels0nmac]

It seems my ideas of table top are a little higher than generally accepted. I would agree that the current rating system could be refined so that table top standard is lower than a 5, but as has been pointed out it is probably not going to get changed. This is the system --- live with it.. kinda thing.

I would also second the idea of the moderators getting together and picking a mini that best represents each of the scores from 5-10 say. At least that way most people will have something by which to compare what they see with what they vote and hopefully get a more balanced overall voting system.... vote riggers aside.

@PegaZus there will always be people who will vote 1 for everything because they have nothing better to do with their time than to \"mess up the voting rating\". They affect everyone from the top to the bottom. Me in the middle ish.... I know I have definitely had several on my most recent images.

To the posting freaks out there --- what has been the general feel from previous threads on this topic?

 

[pez5767]

I don\'t know that I\'m a posting freak, but the general feedback I get from painters and the forums is not to take the scores on CMON too seriously. Because the score system is so narrow, and the criteria for a score so loosely defined, there is NO way to know where your painted mini really ranks among the painted masses. It\'s fun to do, but ultimately pointless. Most people just say, \"If you want feedback go to the forums.\" Case and point, I posted the exact same model twice and had scores with more than a full point of difference... FYI the photos are the same photo, ones cleaned up the other isn\'t.

The Exception to the Rule:
If you are working toward a GD or ReaperCon or GenCon or something, then the score system does have some merrit. It is safe to say that if you score 8.6 (ish) or higher with a model you are painting at a very high level. (ready for competition in the U.S.) A score of 9+ is insanity and you already know you\'re a paint god. (go to Europe comps) So, if you are trying to be a competition painter CMON rate system has some value.

 

[ScottRadom]

The scores here are so much more and less then a \"This is how well you painted your mini\".

-The popular ranges for gaming mini\'s and stuff will score higher (usually)

-A poorly sculpted but well painted model will score lower

-A poorly painted but well sculpted model will score a little higher (I mean inspiring and \"cool\" as opposed to technical stuff for both these points)

-Some painters reputations will affect there scores. Up or down.

-Frequent posters will often benifit from a curve of comparing their work vs. their past work. If you\'re improving around here and you\'re posting regularly I find it helps people give you a better score.

I put slightly less stock in the scores then I used to. I\'d love to get to 8.0 someday but the truth of the matter is just like any voting system it\'s the people using it that will make it what it is.

 

[Einion]

Originally posted by nels0nmac
Now I realise that a lot of voting is subjective and subject to personal choice...

As folk are reminded of many times, this is CMON, not CoolPaintjobOrNot...

...so quite apart from fanboys voting up stuff from friends (or product from companies they like) the simple fact of not liking the base mini will mark a mini down for one person and up for another who does like the mini, regardless if they both like the paintwork about the same.

Originally posted by nels0nmac
...but could also be because peoples idea of what is actually tabletop standard varies as well.

Yes, obviously. Even if there were really firm guidelines defining what Tabletop Standard should be (e.g. for a team of judges working separately, to try to make them as consistent as possible) it\'ll still vary. Nothing to be done about that.

Originally posted by ScottRadom
No, those are defo above a 5 for tabletop.

Agree.

Those are low 7s for me, maybe a high 6 if I were feeling uncharitable that day and I thought the unimaginative basing showed too little effort.

Einion

 

[Beelzebrush]

I agree with Einion (again - twice in one night sPo0Ky \\0o/)

7s for me too - them\'s nice paintjobs

 

[Shades]

I\'m encouraged by this discussion. I\'ve witnessed some harsh scores and critiques. A couple of times, I checked out the gallery of a poster who had a lot of criticism, only to find out that their own miniatures compared miserably to the one they were criticizing. One time, the poster didn\'t even have any of their own entries! I agree with the 6-7 range. I also second the suggestion to have a samples page, having several examples for each score.

 

[ScottRadom]

Originally posted by Shades
I\'m encouraged by this discussion. I\'ve witnessed some harsh scores and critiques. A couple of times, I checked out the gallery of a poster who had a lot of criticism, only to find out that their own miniatures compared miserably to the one they were criticizing. One time, the poster didn\'t even have any of their own entries! I agree with the 6-7 range. I also second the suggestion to have a samples page, having several examples for each score.

This is a thing in itself, when harsh crit\'s are given and you check out the source and come up scratching your head.

My advice Shades is to truly improve, focus solely on the crit. Most crit\'s be they harsh or not are not made without merit. So there\'s my two cents. It can be frustrating, especially if you\'re working hard to improve. My latest efforts have score pretty low compared even to some of my previous work, but I think the scores are pretty close in most instances.

I\'ve had some people say absolutely blasting things about my stuff, and no matter how I feel about their work they\'re usually not far off the mark.

 

[Shadzar]

7 for the Eavy Metal team from me also. They are nice and clean, but just look mass produced, like there is no feeling in the painting.

Tabletop to me means the mini is painted, not just primed, but all painted. It doesn\'t have to be painted they way I would do it, such as highlighting and shadows, what little I can, but at least coloring in the lines on details that ARE painted as details.

For examples of tabletop fromt he industry, I would consider Mage Knight, DDM, etc from WotC to be tabletop quality form a mass-produced standpoint.

For non-companies, just getting everything painted, and the paint where it goes, is tabletop quality. Enough so that you can tell the gun/knife is not part of the arm (when it isn\'t). The clothes are separate pieces etc when looking down on the table in a gaming environment.

The kneepads here are extra details beyond tabletop quality, as are the shoulder pad emblazonments, and purity seals inscriptions, and highlights.

Remove all that and leave some of the shadowing; basically all the extra touches that make them appear as display models, those thing that get lost when used in actual play even when properly sealed, and you have table top quality.

Thus why the prepainted minis are most often what I judge as tabletop quality. Enough to tell you what it is, and nothing really lost when bumping around on the table.

Most often for me a range of 4-6 is hard to distinguish, and often times can be more defined by the mini itself, rather than the effort into painting it. Some minis just need a little more to get to table top quality because of the sculpts, and others have sculpts that less work presents a tad over table top quality.

Check my Santa Brawler, and that is an example of what I would consider tabletop quality. What the minimum to make a figure look like something distinguishable from just grey plastic/white metal should look like. My Tau Chai Suit is less than tabletop quality to my eyes, but it seems the overall look of it gives people more to wanting to see it on the table for its style so is rating higher that tabletop quality a bit now.

There is no real standard as all art is subjective to the viewer of it, but the minimum I think for tabletop should be at least coloring in the lines, and getting it all painted, with not too much paint glopped on. (which stock DDM and Mage Knight suffers from paint glopped/caked on them. )

 

[Infidel Castro]

Tabletop implies just having paint on a piece to use in gaming. The example pieces are done by a decent painter who knows where to put paint to make it all work. 7 I\'d say.

So, 5 is something with basic coats painted where the paint should be.

In my eyes anyway

 

[pez5767]

Originally posted by reverend
Tabletop implies just having paint on a piece to use in gaming. The example pieces are done by a decent painter who knows where to put paint to make it all work. 7 I\'d say.
So, 5 is something with basic coats painted where the paint should be.

I\'d argree with this... this and a finished base. Again, nothing special, but finished either painted, flocked whatever.