Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Gert wrote:
Regardless why does any of that give you the right to tell me that I'm the same as racists and sexists because I think that using a 40k army with no HH stuff isn't a good idea?

I said no such thing. And if you're going to resort to hyperbolic false accusations there is no point in having any further conversation with you.

 ThePaintingOwl wrote:
Obsessive rivet counting and gatekeeping people who don't comply with your specific vision of how 30k marines look is toxic as hell and the people doing it aren't the people you want to engage with anyway.

Right yeah, I'm the one being hyperbolic. Your first post in this thread might I add.

Also brilliant that once again you choose to ignore the vast majority of my post because it actually challenges your viewpoint and you can't just dismiss it out of hand.

Removed - rule #1 please

 ThePaintingOwl wrote:

 lord_blackfang wrote:
But if a marine is a marine, why bother transferring to 30k, why not just keep playing 40k

Because this thread was asking about models which no longer have 40k rules.

Why would it be okay to proxy them for 30k if it's not okay to proxy them for 40k?

 lord_blackfang wrote:
Why would it be okay to proxy them for 30k if it's not okay to proxy them for 40k?

Because they aren't being proxied in 30k. They're being used as fully WYSIWYG models matching the 30k rules.

If you are not willing to do the effort, nope, then you are permanently proxying.

Not Online!!! wrote:
If you are not willing to do the effort, nope, then you are permanently proxying.

They are not proxies. They are fully WYSIWYG representations of 30k units.

 ThePaintingOwl wrote:

 lord_blackfang wrote:
Why would it be okay to proxy them for 30k if it's not okay to proxy them for 40k?

Because they aren't being proxied in 30k. They're being used as fully WYSIWYG models matching the 30k rules.

If that were true, this thread wouldn't exist.

The wargear might be WYSIWYG in the sense that it's clear what is what, but the base models are not visually representative of 30k units.

They're WYSIWYG in the same way these are WYSIWYG

 lord_blackfang wrote:
The wargear might be WYSIWYG in the sense that it's clear what is what, but the base models are not visually representative of 30k units.

They are absolutely WYSIWYG. WYSIWYG is about the rules of a model being clearly represented so that you can look at a model on the table and know what its rules are. A shoulder pad having a slightly different shape has no rules meaning and is therefore unrelated to WYSIWYG.

What we are discussing here is your personal aesthetic preference for one shoulder pad shape over another, that in addition to being WYSIWYG models must aesthetically match the interpretation of the 30k lore established by FW in the official kits. And let's be honest here, most of the details in question are extremely minor ones that are not visible at tabletop distance. Nor would anyone but the most devoted rivet counters be able to look at different armor pieces and tell which ones are 30k vs. 40k era parts.

They're WYSIWYG in the same way these are WYSIWYG

Not at all. Those models are not WYSIWYG because they've diverged so far from the GW aesthetic that their rules are no longer clear based on looking at the model. Is that supposed to be power armor or terminator armor? Are those power swords on an entire unit or are they meant to represent chainswords? Their guns look like they might be bolt pistols, but then they have some bits underneath the barrel that look like they might be intended to be combi-weapons.

A 40k Land Speeder, on the other hand, is still clearly a Land Speeder with clearly identifiable weapons even if a close inspection might reveal that the crew have shoulder pads that aren't quite the same shape as the shoulder pads you prefer.

Oh really, NOW the aesthethique doesn't fit GW's then it's an issue, but GW also has a distinct aesthethique for 30k and 40k models don't fit that either.

A can not be at the same time not A.

Not Online!!! wrote:
See lord blackfangs post.

End of story.

It is not end of story. WYISYWG is about rules being clearly identifiable based on the model, not your subjective aesthetic preference for one shape of shoulder pad over another.

 ThePaintingOwl wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:
See lord blackfangs post.

End of story.

It is not end of story. WYISYWG is about rules being clearly identifiable based on the model, not your subjective aesthetic preference for one shape of shoulder pad over another.

Again, A can not be not-A at the same time. You are breaking baseline logical foundations for personal preferences because you can't be bothered to convert.

Especially since for your meassure above you use aesthethique for a qualifier and yet don't apply that consistently.

Not Online!!! wrote:
Oh really, NOW the aesthethique doesn't fit GW's then it's an issue, but GW also has a distinct aesthethique for 30k and 40k models don't fit that either.

A can not be at the same time not A.

The aesthetic of the third-party models is a problem because, as I clearly explained, the rules are not identifiable based on the model. A 40k power armored marine with a bolter is clearly identifiable as a power armored marine with a bolter when used in 30k even if the shape of the shoulder pad doesn't match your version of the 30k lore. But I have no idea if those third-party models are supposed to be terminators or power armor, if the melee weapons are power swords or chainswords, etc.

If they were third-party models that clearly represented their relevant rules attributes then they would be WYSIWYG. But those particular models do not and so they are not.

 ThePaintingOwl wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:
Oh really, NOW the aesthethique doesn't fit GW's then it's an issue, but GW also has a distinct aesthethique for 30k and 40k models don't fit that either.

A can not be at the same time not A.

The aesthetic of the third-party models is a problem because, as I clearly explained, the rules are not identifiable based on the model. A 40k power armored marine with a bolter is clearly identifiable as a power armored marine with a bolter when used in 30k even if the shape of the shoulder pad doesn't match your version of the 30k lore. But I have no idea if those third-party models are supposed to be terminators or power armor, if the melee weapons are power swords or chainswords, etc.

If they were third-party models that clearly represented their relevant rules attributes then they would be WYSIWYG. But those particular models do not and so they are not.

Nope, by your own logic these are clearly normal assault marines.
Try again.

Not Online!!! wrote:
Nope, by your own logic these are clearly normal assault marines.

Assault marines can take power swords on every model?

 ThePaintingOwl wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:
Nope, by your own logic these are clearly normal assault marines.

Assault marines can take power swords on every model?

No power node.

Actually the correct model replacement would be reivers in hindsight, but in essence a reiver is just a primaris assault marine to resell you an assault marine so.

Not Online!!! wrote:
No power node.

Actually the correct model replacement would be reivers in hindsight, but in essence a reiver is just a primaris assault marine to resell you an assault marine so.

Thank you for demonstrating my point nicely. The weapons in question don't have the power node for a power weapon, but they also don't have the chainsaw teeth for a chainsword. And you can't even decide which unit they're supposed to represent. They are clearly not WYSIWYG, independent of any aesthetic preferences about their style or compliance with any particular lore interpretation.

OTOH if I show you a picture of this model:



It is very clear what it represents in the 30k rules even if the shoulder pads on the crew aren't the ones that match your personal subjective aesthetic preferences.

A croc on a flight stand is also very clearly a land speeder.

 lord_blackfang wrote:
A croc on a flight stand is also very clearly a land speeder.

No it isn't. Please do not waste time with absurd arguments.

 ThePaintingOwl wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:
No power node.

Actually the correct model replacement would be reivers in hindsight, but in essence a reiver is just a primaris assault marine to resell you an assault marine so.

Thank you for demonstrating my point nicely. The weapons in question don't have the power node for a power weapon, but they also don't have the chainsaw teeth for a chainsword. And you can't even decide which unit they're supposed to represent.

OTOH if I show you a picture of this model:



It is very clear what it represents in the 30k rules even if the shoulder pads on the crew aren't the ones that match your personal subjective aesthetic preferences.

No you don't got a point for above, because you can use a reiver easily for an assault marine.

and on the later : Because this thing actually is perfectly valid for a scouring era force, aka LATE HH after the siege of terra. But then again since you have once again proven to not put in the effort you wouldn't have known that bit now would you. The only problematic bit in them is, as has been brought up, the marines in them, which can easily be rectified.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 lord_blackfang wrote:
A croc on a flight stand is also very clearly a land speeder.

Nay bother.

It's clear that he isn't willing to actually engage in the HH hobby from a good faith position, else he would've realised that he COULD build a scouring era force, that would be perfectly fine using this pattern of Land Speeder, so long you replace the torso and helmet, wich is easy.

Not Online!!! wrote:
It's clear that he isn't willing to actually engage in the HH hobby from a good faith position, else he would've realised that he COULD build a scouring era force, that would be perfectly fine using this pattern of Land Speeder, so long you replace the torso and helmet, wich is easy.

This is exactly the sort of toxic gatekeeping I was originally referring to: the model is fully WYSIWYG but it doesn't match your personal and subjective aesthetic preferences so you insist that it must be modified to match your demands or the person using it isn't "engaging in the hobby in good faith".

 ThePaintingOwl wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:
It's clear that he isn't willing to actually engage in the HH hobby from a good faith position, else he would've realised that he COULD build a scouring era force, that would be perfectly fine using this pattern of Land Speeder, so long you replace the torso and helmet, wich is easy.

This is exactly the sort of toxic gatekeeping I was originally referring to: the model is fully WYSIWYG but it doesn't match your personal and subjective aesthetic preferences so you insist that it must be modified to match your demands or the person using it isn't "engaging in the hobby in good faith".

You are considering playing a hobby that is set up as a quasi historical.

Quasi historicals are loser on those things but still require atleast the force to be internally fitting enough.

I pointed out to you, that if you'd done the most basic hobbying in such a fashion that'd it would be easy to make said model fit in. Or understand that if you want said model a Scouring Era force is where you are headed.

You didn't and claim that i am a toxic Gatekeeper.

Fine then, think of me as toxic for pointing something out to you I can live with that.

 ThePaintingOwl wrote:

This is exactly the sort of toxic gatekeeping I was originally referring to: the model is fully WYSIWYG but it doesn't match your personal and subjective aesthetic preferences so you insist that it must be modified to match your demands or the person using it isn't "engaging in the hobby in good faith".

And you likewise have an entirely personal, pick and choose threshold of what is and isn't WYSIWYG depending on what suits you at the moment (where a guy in power armour with a bolt gun for some reason can't be a 40k marine but can be a 30k marine even though it does not match the lore of how marines looked in that period) and are expecting others to conform to it.

 ThePaintingOwl wrote:
toxic gatekeeping

*Ding Ding Ding* There it is! I'm surprised it took this long to appear.
If I never hear that term again in my life it'll be too fething soon.

You (the general you, not the specific you) come into a hobby (any hobby, not just this one) and want to be a part of it, and that's fantastic. No one's stopping you and you're more then welcome. But as soon as there's but a single thing you don't like about hobby or don't agree with, you start demanding that those already in hobby change to suit your desires, while not being willing to do the same yourself. And when you don't get your way you cry "gatekeeping" and immediately begin to do everything you can to exclude those same people from what has already established. Which is (although you don't like to admit it) just another form of gatekeeping.

Damn, I was thinking about branching out to HH but the staggering amount of elitism is a huge turn off.

Yeah, gotta say - accusing hobbyists of gatekeeping because they insist on other hobbyists meeting the baseline expectations of engaging in that hobby is a wild hot take. The expectation of anyone playing any wargame is that they model a force reflective of the setting being played, for 30k that means a force that is equipped and structured using the technology and equipment that actually existed in that fictional time period. Its not gatekeeping to decline to play against someone showing up with a 40k army they have tried to pigeon-hole into the game. Nor is it gatekeeping to decline to play a 40k match against a 30k force, or an Angry Marines force, or a Misters of Battle force, nor any of the other ridiculous meme armies that people have made over the years.

Your individual right to hobby how you want to hobby does not supercede my individual right to hobby how I want to hobby. If the overall community is in collective alignment on their collective hobby preferences (i.e. not welcoming in 40k armies) and that makes it hard for you to find opponents, then thats a tough break for you. Stomping your feet and accusing people of gatekeeping because you don't like it is immature and not a good way to gain acceptance of your point of view.

You aren't being "gatekept" - nobody is preventing you from participating in the hobby on the basis of your identity or any other factor, people are simply choosing not to oblige you with a game because your approach to playing the game is immersion breaking for the people in question and ruins their experience of the game, just like how someone playing a game set in the Punic Wars might be put off if you showed up with an army for the Hundred Years War.

 niv-mizzet wrote:
Damn, I was thinking about branching out to HH but the staggering amount of elitism is a huge turn off.

You should read the earlier bits of the thread where people were very clear that they would welcome new players if they intended to adapt to the system.

Limiting oneself to only 40k minis is also needless and harms your chances of an enjoyable game. You'd be missing out on loads of cool units like Contemptors, Primarchs, or unique Legion units such as Palatine Blades or Phalanx Warders.
Converting and kitbashing are also massively encouraged and it's one of the foundational pillars of HH.

The above exchange is one poster trying to play victim because people won't agree with their absolutist stance that everyone has to share their very specific opinion.

Not Online!!! wrote:

It's clear that he isn't willing to actually engage in the HH hobby from a good faith position, else he would've realised that he COULD build a scouring era force, that would be perfectly fine using this pattern of Land Speeder, so long you replace the torso and helmet, wich is easy.

If a Scouring Era force is valid for Horus Heresy, then literally nothing about that speeder needs to be changed, even the torso and helmet.

So if Scouring Era forces are valid for Horus Heresy, then mark 7 armor in general are valid for Horus Heresy (as suits of it were used during Siege of Terra). And Aquila on armor also started during Siege of Terra to identify loyalty to the God-Emperor.

And GW is quickly moving to the point where nothing matters, anyways. I wouldn't be surprised to see them release a Mark 7 armor kit. Or, as my friend speculates, re-releasing the 40k assault marine kit as a 30k kit. Clutching onto specific armor marks and details as "authentic 30k aesthetic" is dying, and it's being killed by GW itself.

Yeah no rhigu.

It’s perfectly valid for people to want an authentic look and feel to a setting and era, and it’s more unfortunate that marines of all models are becoming obsolete in such a way.

Really depends on the community I would suspect here, as most of the 30k people outside event days I have met have been using a fair bit of 40K painted up to fit their 30k forces.
As well as legacy army’s made before 30k was really supported at all by GW setting super specifics on things.

GW issues.