I'm curious to see what everyone deems acceptable for a 3rd party company producing models and bits.
The biggest case of this right now is GW vs CHS, but lets generalize. When other miniature companies get as big as GW, they are bound to run into the same problem of another company 'leaching' from them.
here are a couple steps I see.
step 1: 3rd party bits and upgrade kits that enhance a model from another company. (head swaps, extension kits, . . )
step 2: 3rd party models, but only for units with rules, but no models (Mycetic spore, belial, . . . )
step 3: 3rd party models that replace the original company's modes (CHS kroxigor, farseer . . . )
I draw the line between step 2 and 3. and here is why:
at step 1, upgrade kits and extra bits do not take any customers away from the original company, as the customer still has to buy the original model in order to modify it. In fact this should be encouraged. I know of a few who refused to accept the stupid looking Storm Raven until they saw the extension kit for it.
at step 2, buying a model for a unit with rules but no model does not take away any revenue away from the original company. They have no product out there to sell, so they can't claim rights over it.
at step 3, buying a replacement model takes sales away from the original company and hurts them. The original company invested time and money to make rules and the model for the game, so other companies should not be able to sell a model as a replacement.
Step 2 gets murky when a model is later released by the original company. I am unsure of what to say in this gray area (TWC and Tervigon).
Step 3 has some exceptions. If a model is designed for use in one game, but customers want to use it in another game (good exampler: zombies are very common in many games). I think that is ok. The model is not built with the purpose of replacing another model, but is used as a replacement. That is something that goes with customer preference to use one model over another. It does not show a 3rd party company's intent to undermine the original company.
So I'm curious to see what you think is ethically correct.
this is a heated topic, so please try to keep the debate civil and polite.
If you are playing in a company's store, like GW, you should honor their rules about 75% having to be GW. Your playing is a form of advertisement for them, and that's your 'charge' to play in the store. In any FLGS, your game, your models, your choice. You can use any models you want, third party or otherwise. If I played in GW, I would honor their requests so they can sell models. If I play in any FLGS, I'll use third party minis because I don't need to advertise for GW and there is no line between right and wrong.
Moronic Nonsense wrote: I'm curious to see what everyone deems acceptable for a 3rd party company producing models and bits.
step 3: 3rd party models that replace the original company's modes (CHS kroxigor, farseer . . . )
Let's have a hypothetical example. I license Isaac Asimov's Foundation series to make a wargame and produce Foundation miniatures in 28mm scale. People start using every Foundation miniature for 40k... not because I produced miniatures as replacements for 40k, but because 40k's Imperium is lifted whole cloth from Foundation, so there's a lot of crossover.
Let me put it this way. You, as a person, are freely playing a game. You may use whatever you want to play that game. If you and I are going to play a game of Warhammer, and I have a whole army of Thunderbolt Mountain Miniatures elves, would you really complain? I hate the Catachan models, but I love the Copplestone Jungle Troopers... would you really complain if I used them as a 1:1 replacement? Would you refuse to fight me? Would you refuse to take a ride in my Camaro if I had a non-Chevrolet aftermarket spoiler or carbon-fiber hood on it?
I can certainly understand the manufacturer wanting only their figures at officially sanctioned games/tournaments, but does it really matter in non-official games if a player uses another manufacturer that makes a space elf or alien monster beastie? Especially if I, as a consumer, find it more aesthetically pleasing than the "official" one?
PS Specifically referencing the CHS Kroxigor - what if I liked the old-style 5th edition Lizardmen and had an army of those, but I couldn't get an old-style Kroxigor for cheap, or I liked the CHS one better? It fits the OOP models better.
I think the main line GW drew over Chapterhouse was the use of GW's trademarks in their sales literature. Maxmini, Scibor, Kromlech all have pretty simple ways around directly referencing Space Marines, Tyranids and the like.
That being said, I really don't care about seeing them on the table as long as they are the same size as the GW models. There really aren't that many companies producing models significantly cheaper, especially considiring the time and costs to convert a lot of them to a relative standard.
Moronic Nonsense wrote: I'm curious to see what everyone deems acceptable for a 3rd party company producing models and bits.
step 3: 3rd party models that replace the original company's modes (CHS kroxigor, farseer . . . )
Let's have a hypothetical example. I license Isaac Asimov's Foundation series to make a wargame and produce Foundation miniatures in 28mm scale. People start using every Foundation miniature for 40k... not because I produced miniatures as replacements for 40k, but because 40k's Imperium is lifted whole cloth from Foundation, so there's a lot of crossover.
Let me put it this way. You, as a person, are freely playing a game. You may use whatever you want to play that game. If you and I are going to play a game of Warhammer, and I have a whole army of Thunderbolt Mountain Miniatures elves, would you really complain? I hate the Catachan models, but I love the Copplestone Jungle Troopers... would you really complain if I used them as a 1:1 replacement? Would you refuse to fight me? Would you refuse to take a ride in my Camaro if I had a non-Chevrolet aftermarket spoiler or carbon-fiber hood on it?
I can certainly understand the manufacturer wanting only their figures at officially sanctioned games/tournaments, but does it really matter in non-official games if a player uses another manufacturer that makes a space elf or alien monster beastie? Especially if I, as a consumer, find it more aesthetically pleasing than the "official" one?
In your hypothetical example, I'd be ok with that. As foundation minis were created for their own game, not as a replacement for GW models. It is up to the customer how they use them. I see the problem arise when models are made for no game in particular. Which takes away from the original company who invested time and money to create rules for a game, and make money by selling models for that game.
If the company copies the models or parts there is a problem
ie if company A's heads are near straight copies of company B's there is an issue unless they are both based on the same real thing (ie british WWII helmets)
I don't care if company A come up with an alternative model for something company B does as long as it looks reasonably different (and they dont abuse the name ie call them space knights, power armour troopers etc not space marines)
And if a company A is making conversion kits/bits they may not be able promote them with a big picture of company Bs model, and the name of company Bs line all over the box
(this plays into patent parts for cars, yes other companies make them, but they dont advertise a pattern part exhaust with a shot of a mercedes and only a tiny bit of the exhaust poking out)
as to playing with stuff, if it looks good and is mostly the right size I'm happy
(and it needs to be consistant, the same random grunt model cant sub for a space knight, engineer & cavalry man all at the same time.... in different games maybe, but one at a time only)
if you want to play in a shop/tournament whatever they say goes
Moronic Nonsense wrote: I see the problem arise when models are made for no game in particular. Which takes away from the original company who invested time and money to create rules for a game, and make money by selling models for that game.
So you would disagree with me using Thunderbolt Mountain Elves or Copplestone Jungle Troopers? They are both made for no game in particular.
Why should this be an ethical question? This subject is regulated by copyright laws and GW store and tournament policies. As long as you aren't violating any of them, do whatever you want.
Why is it unethical to create an original model which happens to be a good replacement for a certain Warhammer piece? I agree it is unethical to advertise it as such, but otherwise it's a work of art which (unless proven otherwise) has any right to exist and sell. Otherwise, let's prohibit any creativity at all, because any new book, movie or picture is based on already existing ones and can somehow hurt the profits of their owners.
OrlandotheTechnicoloured wrote: And if a company A is making conversion kits/bits they may not be able promote them with a big picture of company Bs model, and the name of company Bs line all over the box
(this plays into patent parts for cars, yes other companies make them, but they dont advertise a pattern part exhaust with a shot of a mercedes and only a tiny bit of the exhaust poking out)
Actually, yes they do - here's a nice site showing a lot of 3rd party manufactured upgrades and parts for the Chevy Camaro - http://www.phastekperformance.com/ It is, usually, the only good way to see that an expensive conversion or upgrade part fits aesthetically with your expensive car before spending a ton of money on purchasing, shipping, then possibly even painting and color matching.
Here's a $500 carbon-fiber inlay... how would you know what it looked like or how it fit without first seeing it installed on an official Chevrolet Camaro? http://www.phastekperformance.com/2010-Camaro-RK-Sport-Rear-Trunk-Spoiler-Carbon-p/rksport-camaro-rear-spoiler.htm
and here's some upgrade kits from 3rd party manufacturers for companies who also make toy soldiers and model kits, like Citadel:
well i think that as long as you dont walk into a GW with an army case full of 28mm napoleonic armies and start to play a game and tell people that their cheaper to buy in bulk than at GW it should be fine.
Moronic Nonsense wrote: In your hypothetical example, I'd be ok with that. As foundation minis were created for their own game, not as a replacement for GW models. It is up to the customer how they use them. I see the problem arise when models are made for no game in particular. Which takes away from the original company who invested time and money to create rules for a game, and make money by selling models for that game.
So - miniature companies have to have rules?
Many companies only make miniatures - many companies only make rules. Some companies make rules and miniatures for those rules (in all reality - these companies are the minority in terms of numbers). Some of the companies who only make miniatures do target one game system or another - sometimes you will even have a rules company mention the miniatures from a miniature company or two in their rules.
Like everything else, competition is good - as is variety and choices. As long as your models don't break the rules (significantly larger or smaller than the model you are proxying for for example) I don't care what you use.
If you are playing in a GW store though, that is their store to sell their products. If you manage to find a GW tournament (as opposed to a WFB or 40K tournament held by an independent group) that is a tournament they are paying for in order to promote their products. In those cases, you should provide the respect to the company to use their products. It would be like picking up a pizza from Dominoes and then going to Pizza Hut to eat it because they have more comfortable booths.
Moronic Nonsense wrote: I'm curious to see what everyone deems acceptable for a 3rd party company producing models and bits.
The biggest case of this right now is GW vs CHS, but lets generalize. When other miniature companies get as big as GW, they are bound to run into the same problem of another company 'leaching' from them.
here are a couple steps I see. step 1: 3rd party bits and upgrade kits that enhance a model from another company. (head swaps, extension kits, . . ) step 2: 3rd party models, but only for units with rules, but no models (Mycetic spore, belial, . . . ) step 3: 3rd party models that replace the original company's modes (CHS kroxigor, farseer . . . )
I draw the line between step 2 and 3. and here is why: at step 1, upgrade kits and extra bits do not take any customers away from the original company, as the customer still has to buy the original model in order to modify it. In fact this should be encouraged. I know of a few who refused to accept the stupid looking Storm Raven until they saw the extension kit for it. at step 2, buying a model for a unit with rules but no model does not take away any revenue away from the original company. They have no product out there to sell, so they can't claim rights over it. at step 3, buying a replacement model takes sales away from the original company and hurts them. The original company invested time and money to make rules and the model for the game, so other companies should not be able to sell a model as a replacement.
Step 2 gets murky when a model is later released by the original company. I am unsure of what to say in this gray area (TWC and Tervigon).
Step 3 has some exceptions. If a model is designed for use in one game, but customers want to use it in another game (good exampler: zombies are very common in many games). I think that is ok. The model is not built with the purpose of replacing another model, but is used as a replacement. That is something that goes with customer preference to use one model over another. It does not show a 3rd party company's intent to undermine the original company.
So I'm curious to see what you think is ethically correct. this is a heated topic, so please try to keep the debate civil and polite.
Why does it matter what models you use to play a game? Only GW insist you use their models with their games, and that's because they are a business. What you do outside their shops doesn't matter.
Looking at your steps 2-3 in particular... the idea that as a customer if you buy a ruleset you are somehow duty bound to buy only their models to use with it, is the most bizarre of thoughts. You're not 'taking revenue away' from them and 'hurting them', you've just bought their rules. What you do with them is your own business, you don't owe them some ongoing contract. Hell, by buying someone else's models you're spreading the wealth around and supporting the wider industry. Maybe you'll pay GW back some day by using their models with someone else's ruleset if it makes you feel better. It doesn't matter one jot if you use different models in your army to those supplied by GW, whether they're released specific figures or not to match their rules.
I didn't worry about playing with all my toys together when I was a kid. I imagine that Barbie has teamed up with Action Man many times in homes everywhere without any issues about them being made separately by Mattel and Hasbro. Why should people care because they're adults? Don't turn GW into a fashion label, it doesn't matter if you mix and match their models with others and play with any old set of rules. Do you think military modellers think twice about kitbashing models from two different companies together? Of course not.
This 'GW purity' thing is something most strongly expressed among GW players I find, and it makes very little sense unless you specifically want to play in their shops. Divorce the idea of choosing a preferred wargames rule set from your preferred choice of wargames figures, the two need not be linked. You don't owe GW loyalty for buying their ruleset and you're not hurting them by buying someone else's toys.
My only rule is it has to look cool, and since GWS has closed all of their stores in my area I really don't care how much of the army is composed of GWS models.
If I can tell what its supposed to be from across the table, its good enough for me.
Moronic Nonsense wrote: at step 3, buying a replacement model takes sales away from the original company and hurts them.
Does it?
Taking a recent case in point, I absolutely detest GW's current Kroxigor models. If I ever get around to finishing off my Lizardmen army, I would not be buying them, because I refuse to use models that I don't like. So for me, that would have meant tracking down more of the original Krox on eBay. GW wouldn't have seen a cent from me... and if eBay hadn't been an option, I simply wouldn't have used Krox.
Chapterhouse have now provided an option that saves me from going to eBay. But buying the Chapterhouse model doesn't cost GW a sale, because I wouldn't have bought GW's version if Chapterhouse's wasn't available.
All that having the other company making alternative models does is give people more options. And more options mean more chance that someone will start an army.
While I don't agree with some of CHS's early naming conventions, and I don't care about the court case for the most part, but look at it this way:
I bought an undead army from Mantic, and bought several of the bigger kits for the Vampire Counts and several of the single sprue characters.
If it weren't for the undead army deal from Mantic I wouldn't have started a Vampire Counts army, also which means I would have stuck with my Warriors of Chaos army which I bought second hand anyways...
So GW made money off of me based on third party models.
Not sure if a thread started by a poster who named himself "Moronic Nonsense" is serious.
Anyway. If a product is a direct copy of an existing product, it is illegal and I wouldn't buy it.
If it is not a direct copy but features a minimum amount of originality (in this case: is a new sculpt), then it is legal and fine for me.
Copyright is to protect creativity of all sides. 3rd market products are certainly legal, even if GW doesn't believe that. Copyright is not to give one company a monopoly on sculpting skulls or arrows (even if GW doesn't believe that). GW thinks it is a monopolist and has a right to destroy everyone challenging that monopoly. But other companies don't "steal" customer oney from GW, they get money from an independent customer in a competition with GW. Competition is not illegal and not a bad thing.
In the case of Chapterhouse: With only a few exceptions, every Chapterhouse product requires you to buy GW products worth 2-3 times as much, so promoting sales of GW products. And if GW neglects customer demand for a female Farseer or a Farseer on jetbike for 15-20 years, their fault if someone else covers that demand.
Creativity is fed by inspiration taken from movies, literature, collegues and other things. GW creative staff knows that as they work that way since the beginning. Necrons, genestealers, Space marines and all Tolkien stuff is a proof for that. Only legal types try to claim that inspiration is illegal, making the creative process more difficult for everyone.
In the end, competition and greater diversity of products only helps and enhances the hobby. This is a good thing and I support that.
Kroothawk wrote: Not sure if a thread started by a poster who named himself "Moronic Nonsense" is serious.
I am serious. I really want to see differing opionions on 3rd party models. I have my own, but I'm not stubborn and I wanted to see some other point of views.
and about the name, online I use the name 'Moron' because it is just a silly mis-spelling of my last name that I've grown to accept.
In all fairness, if a lot of people bought 3rd party minis instead of GW minis to play WHFB/WH40k, then GW would just do what they've been doing for years and raise their prices miles over inflation to compensate.
WaaaaghLord wrote: In all fairness, if a lot of people bought 3rd party minis instead of GW minis to play WHFB/WH40k, then GW would just do what they've been doing for years and raise their prices miles over inflation to compensate.
Send in the white knights.
But a lot of people WON'T buy 3rd party models because GW is all they know. Can't fault those that buy 3rd party because they like the rules, but dislike something else about the game. Maybe I like the zombie sculpts from Mantic better (I do, but they're cheaper).
I, personally, don't see a problem with companies producing things that upgrade current kits (shoulder pads etc) or for kits that are in rules but not actually produced by said company. I won't buy copies of space marines even if they are cheaper though. If someone wanted to use an army composed of models that aren't GW then more power to them. I don't see anything as being unethical here since it isn't like they stole them or anything. I would ride around in a honda civic built to look like a camero, so long as i knew it wasnt a camero.
If company A has models for units that I don't like the look of and company B has models that will do the job, and I prefer their look, then company B's stuff gets the job.
Only playing company A's rules with company A's miniatures? What kind of daft straightjacketed nonsense is this?
Do historical gamers care who made their figures to go with their rules? Apart from normal preferences for a given unified look, not generally.
I've played 40k with Stargrunt, Warzone and Void figures. I've played Stargrunt with 40k figures. I've played Tomorrow's War (which does have an official line of minis, but they're 15mm) with my GW stuff.
I have mates who use Wargods of Aegyptus stuff by Crocodile games in their Lizardmen armies (Sebeki, specifically) or other human forces in their Tomb Kings armies (Living Tomb Kings - no skellies to be seen, just rank upon rank of still living servants).
I feel no guilt about this. There are no gaming commandments. There is no "Thou shalt have no other games before X". There is no "Thou shalt only play game X with game X's models".
(Unless you must play in a store run by the company that makes game X, in which case you have my deepest sympathies. Playing games in a GW store is like going to gaol for sex. It'll happen, but it's not going to be pleasant.)
personally, i, as a seller of painted minis, hesitate to put any 3rd party products on one of my GW minis simply because i want my customers to be able to walk show off their minis at a GW store or event without worrying about getting hassled...
i don't feel like there is really an ethical issue with 3rd party products...
i do think that CHS's cheeky behavior has left a bad taste in some people's mouths...
they are more than welcome to try and sell their sculpts, but GW also has the right to try and defend their IP...
there are arguments for both sides...
i vote with my wallet, and don't buy third party stuff...
i feel it is my responsibilty to be able to produce a customer's vision with just GW and FW parts, plus a helping of Greenstuff...
that doesn't mean i don't drool over the great pieces by Kromleck and Maxmini...
I have absolutely no problem with third party models as long as it isn't difficult to keep track of what is what; same attitude I have towards other people using proxies or counts-as armies. I'm going to have a hard time accepting a scrawny human with a rifle as a Space Marine regardless of if it's a GW model or not, but if you want to pull out some Kingdom Death minis to use in your Chaos army? By all means go for it as long as the scale stays reasonable. If you want to use GW models to play Infinity? Same thing... go right the heck ahead, but try to match the correct aesthetic.
I'd be a little sad to see a company that I like go out of business because nobody was buying their models, but I think that's just the risk you have to accept with a relatively free culture.
That said I play a lot of my 40k games in a GW store (plenty of space, nice tables, mostly friendly staff... I enjoy the place.) When I go there I bring only GW/FW models. Similarly I would have never brought proxies to play a game of Magic to a WotC store (when they still existed) but happily used them when I was playing with friends. I also make a point of trying to at least buy *something* whenever I play at an independent store... it costs them money to provide the space to play, and I don't want to be a mooch. When I'm nerding out in my basement though? PDF codices and Coca-colafexes ahoy! Well, okay, no sodacans because they look like hell, but other than that...
This thread is timely, because I wanted to respond to something HBMC said in the last CHS thread but it was offtopic.
H.B.M.C. wrote: I say just lock it. Every time CHS posts anything it's just a siren call to our resident White Knights to come a'charging.
Respectfully, I disagree. There is no reason to support a status quo where one manufacturer can't post new releases because people can't stop coming in and crapping in it; the answer is not shrugging and saying "ah well, guess they win again".
I'm not a huge fan of CHS simply because I'm not really into their sculpts generally (although I did get the Stormraven extension which is great) but the nonsense that happens in their threads every single damn time has got to stop.
Ouze wrote: This thread is timely, because I wanted to respond to something HBMC said in the last CHS thread but it was offtopic.
H.B.M.C. wrote: I say just lock it. Every time CHS posts anything it's just a siren call to our resident White Knights to come a'charging.
Respectfully, I disagree. There is no reason to support a status quo where one manufacturer can't post new releases because people can't stop coming in and crapping in it; the answer is not shrugging and saying "ah well, guess they win again".
I'm not a huge fan of CHS simply because I'm not really into their sculpts generally (although I did get the Stormraven extension which is great) but the nonsense that happens in their threads every single damn time has got to stop.
I created this thread because I realized that I was one of those people getting that thread off topic. I am not trying to burn CHS down, but when I saw the 'lizard-ogres' I was just kinda shocked. I am fine with bits and upgrade sprues, but I'm stil unsure of how to proceed when it comes to selling a replacement model for another company's game.
I created this thread because I realized that I was one of those people getting that thread off topic. I am not trying to burn CHS down, but when I saw the 'lizard-ogres' I was just kinda shocked. I am fine with bits and upgrade sprues, but I'm stil unsure of how to proceed when it comes to selling a replacement model for another company's game.
What's wrong with giant lizard men? Lizard men are generic fantasy and have been since at least Conan in the 1920's and earlier mythology. It's entirely plausible that I'd like to make a Lizardman army for Kings of War and like those giant lizard men sculpts better than any other manufacturer's. Hell, that gives me an idea to use the KOW Orc army list, use piles of cheap 5th edition Lizardmen as normal Orcs and use 5th Skinks w/ bows as Sniffs, the CHS giant lizardmen as trolls, etc. Or as another poster pointed out earlier, wanting to use them as Kroxigors in his WHFB Lizardman army because he doesn't like the current sculpts and wouldn't buy them anyway. Consumer choice = best.
I'd also like to add that while I love GW's Beastman models, I really dislike their Minotaurs. I would much prefer to use, say, Heresy or Avatars of War Minotaurs in a WHFB Beastman army. Of course, in a GW store, I coudln't use them, but definitely use them with your fellow gamers in a less-restrictive setting. Isn't one of the visually appealing aspects of the hobby to have a really cool looking force?
Ouze wrote: Respectfully, I disagree. There is no reason to support a status quo where one manufacturer can't post new releases because people can't stop coming in and crapping in it; the answer is not shrugging and saying "ah well, guess they win again".
Well, also, releasing cheap alternatives doesn't shield you from criticism if your cheap alternatives are terrible.
What's wrong with a replacement model? Nobody is forced to buy it. If enough people are buying the alternative/replacement model instead of the original, then the original company is perfectly free to go about and create a miniature that's more in that style. Personally I think it's bizarre to suggest that you should feel obligated to buy a miniature you dislike in order to play a game when there are perfectly reasonable alternatives; if GW decided to put out a new Tyranid that was little more than walking genitals, I'd certainly not want to have to use that particular model just because I want to include a Dentatafex in my army. Replacement models fill a demand that the original company is not meeting.
I can see why the original company might not like this, but I'm not sure why I should care. We're not going to run out of people that want to design new games. We're not going to run out of people that want to sculpt new miniatures. I certainly don't want people to go hungry and without a home, but I'm not terribly concerned with making sure that they can make a living doing some particular task.
Moronic Nonsense wrote: [I created this thread because I realized that I was one of those people getting that thread off topic. I am not trying to burn CHS down, but when I saw the 'lizard-ogres' I was just kinda shocked. I am fine with bits and upgrade sprues, but I'm stil unsure of how to proceed when it comes to selling a replacement model for another company's game.
What gives GWS the god-given, sole, unassailable right to make a generic lizard holding a mace?
Moronic Nonsense wrote: [I created this thread because I realized that I was one of those people getting that thread off topic. I am not trying to burn CHS down, but when I saw the 'lizard-ogres' I was just kinda shocked. I am fine with bits and upgrade sprues, but I'm stil unsure of how to proceed when it comes to selling a replacement model for another company's game.
What gives GWS the god-given, sole, unassailable right to make a generic lizard holding a mace?
I am just surprised that anyone could be surprised by a lizard man, ogre size or otherwise holding any weapon at all. I think I have lizard men from at least 25 or 30 different manufacturers holding pretty much any weapon that you can think of and coming in sizes from about 1/2" tall all the way up to about 2" tall. GW no more invented the concept of lizard men who live in jungles then they did...well, the moon.
Ouze wrote: Respectfully, I disagree. There is no reason to support a status quo where one manufacturer can't post new releases because people can't stop coming in and crapping in it; the answer is not shrugging and saying "ah well, guess they win again".
Well, also, releasing cheap alternatives doesn't shield you from criticism if your cheap alternatives are terrible.
The criticism goes both ways. There's plenty of terrible GW sculpts where the alternatives are superior.
Ouze wrote: This thread is timely, because I wanted to respond to something HBMC said in the last CHS thread but it was offtopic.
[snip my quote]
Respectfully, I disagree. There is no reason to support a status quo where one manufacturer can't post new releases because people can't stop coming in and crapping in it; the answer is not shrugging and saying "ah well, guess they win again".
I'm not a huge fan of CHS simply because I'm not really into their sculpts generally (although I did get the Stormraven extension which is great) but the nonsense that happens in their threads every single damn time has got to stop.
Ouze! Ya damned dirty apologist!!!
Actually I do agree with you – it shouldn’t happen that way, and it needs to stop. The thing is that I don’t see it stopping and that’s why I suggested locking it. The battle’s been fought a dozens of times and always ends the same way – red text and a thread lock. I just figured we’d skip to the end as the middle is never fun.
Like you I’m not CHS’s biggest fan. I find a lot of their sculpts to be ‘wonky’ (those Thunder Hammers and early pads especially) and not of the quality I’m used to from other 3rd party manufacturers (mock Hi-Tech Miniature’s over-the-top-ed-ness and Scibor’s press-moulding all you like, their sculpts are perfect!). I also think the hubris they displayed on their original website in the way they labelled their products is what directly resulted in the current court case (if they hadn’t used GM’s product names everywhere they wouldn’t have garnered the attention). Nevertheless, as you said, they shouldn’t be hounded by this sort of moronic nonsense*** in every thread they made. They don’t deserve it and they shouldn’t be singled out as they often are.
At the end of the day there’s nothing wrong with 3rd party miniatures. None of them are saying “We make GW minis” in the way a Chinese “Apple Store” isn’t really an Apple store. If they’re making parts that are similar then so what? There’s no moral quandary for finding alternative products with similar products that aim to meet the same goals.
I don’t see any of these products as “replacements” either. The CHS not-Farseer doesn’t replace the GW Farseers. It’s just another Farseer. I’d buy a CHS Farseer to have an additional and different Farseer model, not as something to buy in place of GW’s Farseers. I’d buy Puppet’s War’s not-Razorback turrets ‘cause I think they look ace, not because I don’t want to get GW’s.
This applies doubly in cases where alternatives don’t exist. GW doesn’t make AdMech models, so my AdMech army is almost entirely 3rd party (except the Tech-Priests and Servitors). Now if some 3rd party group started making Servitors tomorrow that didn’t look like gak I’d probably buy lots of them, not instead of GW’s ones though, but to have models that are different. By the same token I have virtually every single one of Heresy Miniatures trenchcoat gangsters, but not so I don’t have to buy GW’s Delaque models but so I can have more Delaque models that are different. At no point did any of these models ‘replace’ their originals. They simply added to and enhanced the existing ones.
H.B.M.C. wrote: At no point did any of these models ‘replace’ their originals. They simply added to and enhanced the existing ones.
And even if they did, all the better! That's both progress in itself, and motivation for others to do better yet.
Bleedin' feth, that's how we got out of caves and how we're no longer using our 8086 boxes to post this debate on a crappy BBS
-Is the product being sold something I can use to enhance one of my current armies or something I need for a current project?
-Is the price being asked, after the shipping cost, lower than what I would pay for a comparable GW product?
-Does my buying this product in some small way harm GW by depriving them of a sale?
if the answer to all three questions is "yes" then I'm fine with the purchase of that product. It's the same questions I ask msyelf before buying someting on the second hand market, doing business with known recasters, etc.
On a related note, I feel that the whole issue about using third party products in GW stores/events is largely over-blown and represents yet more "internet fear-mongering". Honestly how close attention do GW staff members pay to armies used in their stores? be honest now. Has any one ever had a GW staffer come and examine their army closely in an effort to sniff out "illegal" (ie non-GW, recasts, etc) miniatures? How many staffers have extensive enough knowlegde of GW's figure lines, past and present, and what is out there in the way of third party figures at any given moment to spot such things?
As an example, I have not played in a GW store for many years, but I used to slip in an old Engima Miniatures (the old Enigma that used to produce GW knock-offs from the later '90s, not the current company) "Space Marine" figure that had been painted to match my exsiting army into the mix just to see if anyone would notice and as a quiet little "eff you" to GW's "Only use our toys" policy. no one ever noticed...despite the fact that the Enigma miniature was a poor knock-off. Much the same could be said about third party figures and bits in today's world.
Well, in my local, you can't turn around without having a GW staffer hovering at your shoulder (because the store is soooo small, they have to be to get around the store.
They also tend to notice conversions (not so au fait on the older GW sculpts though. I've been called out on having some "non-GW" stuff by a younger staffer (they're all younger than me).
Why does it matter what models you use to play a game? Only GW insist you use their models with their games, and that's because they are a business. What you do outside their shops doesn't matter.
Looking at your steps 2-3 in particular... the idea that as a customer if you buy a ruleset you are somehow duty bound to buy only their models to use with it, is the most bizarre of thoughts. You're not 'taking revenue away' from them and 'hurting them', you've just bought their rules. What you do with them is your own business, you don't owe them some ongoing contract. Hell, by buying someone else's models you're spreading the wealth around and supporting the wider industry. Maybe you'll pay GW back some day by using their models with someone else's ruleset if it makes you feel better. It doesn't matter one jot if you use different models in your army to those supplied by GW, whether they're released specific figures or not to match their rules.
I didn't worry about playing with all my toys together when I was a kid. I imagine that Barbie has teamed up with Action Man many times in homes everywhere without any issues about them being made separately by Mattel and Hasbro. Why should people care because they're adults? Don't turn GW into a fashion label, it doesn't matter if you mix and match their models with others and play with any old set of rules. Do you think military modellers think twice about kitbashing models from two different companies together? Of course not.
This 'GW purity' thing is something most strongly expressed among GW players I find, and it makes very little sense unless you specifically want to play in their shops. Divorce the idea of choosing a preferred wargames rule set from your preferred choice of wargames figures, the two need not be linked. You don't owe GW loyalty for buying their ruleset and you're not hurting them by buying someone else's toys.
Completely agree, although I think generally it's something that is a little stronger on the internet than you will find in most clubs/FLGS. At least in my area it's rare to find a WFB that doesn't have some Mantic 'filler' in it somewhere, even entire units (people fielding undead especially, using the zombies and ghouls). And with absolutely zero criticism, you are more likely to be praised for getting an army together for a bargain.
I'm not sure why there is this form of almost 'GW only' elitism (although it is thankfully not the majority opinion) - if you play historical games for instance, its extremely rare to find someone playing FoWwithout at least some models from another manufacturer in their force. Perhaps it's because of the price of some GW minis, people who have paid that money then feel resentment that someone using other models (regardless of quality/sculpting issues) is taking part in the same game without having to make the outlay? Who knows, I'm sure there are all kinds of psychological issues and misconceptions at play here.
I live in Australia. On average, Games Workshop stuff costs 25%-50% more here than it does anywhere else. For my first few years of wargaming, I bought at their prices, but the internet made me realise how much I was being ripped off by. So I said- "Stuff you, GW" and now i almost exclusively use third party models, and if i use GW models, I acquire them second hand through ebay. I still play with GW rules, since they are all that I have known, but my Norscan army (Grim Squeaker's fandex, that is) is made up mostly using Warlord Games Celt's and Gripping Beast Vikings.
Of course, I dont plan on taking them into a GW anytime soon.
As I've said before, if models were made for another game system (the reptus minis) then I think it is ok. I draw the line when models are made for no reason other than to fit into a different company's game.
I'm sure there are plenty of other examples out there other than the 'not-kroxigors', but that is the example I used.
Which are not for Warlord, they probably could be used, but they don't come with the stat cards, and are just generic fantasy miniatures. The most probably reason for those lizardmen? For us in a dnd game, which uses Wizard's game and rules.
This idea that it's somehow wrong for a figure manufacturer to make a miniature for use with some other company's rules is just nonsense. The majority of miniature manufacturers do this. Reaper makes for D&D/RPGs which they don't publish. The vast majority of historical producers don't even make rules.
In fact, it's actually *better* when miniatures and rules are not made by the same company because then the rules and the miniatures have to stand on their own merits.
timetowaste85 wrote: If you are playing in a company's store, like GW, you should honor their rules about 75% having to be GW. Your playing is a form of advertisement for them, and that's your 'charge' to play in the store. In any FLGS, your game, your models, your choice. You can use any models you want, third party or otherwise. If I played in GW, I would honor their requests so they can sell models. If I play in any FLGS, I'll use third party minis because I don't need to advertise for GW and there is no line between right and wrong.
^This.
Regulations. You want to play in GWs yard, you play by their rules. If this means you don't buy, or you purchase just a little, from 3rd party sources then that is what you do. But if GW events mean nothing to you, then don't worry about it.
Why does it matter what models you use to play a game? Only GW insist you use their models with their games, and that's because they are a business. What you do outside their shops doesn't matter.
PP's tournaments, reputedly, have a "Only PP models" rule.
Flames of War has a "Only Battlefront models" rule for their official events as well from my understanding.
Of the two, FOW is the only one where it really matters since there isn't some guy in a garage making Not Warjacks.
This 'GW purity' thing is something most strongly expressed among GW players I find, and it makes very little sense unless you specifically want to play in their shops. Divorce the idea of choosing a preferred wargames rule set from your preferred choice of wargames figures, the two need not be linked. You don't owe GW loyalty for buying their ruleset and you're not hurting them by buying someone else's toys.
Or if you want a certain aesthetic, or if you want to do a campaign game, etc.
I have no problems with people using other company's models in friendly games. But when it comes to a tournament setting and the individual is known for jumping codices but never replacing their "Discount Brand Space Mans"--it becomes a very different ballgame, in my opinion.
As I've said before, if models were made for another game system (the reptus minis) then I think it is ok. I draw the line when models are made for no reason other than to fit into a different company's game.
I'm sure there are plenty of other examples out there other than the 'not-kroxigors', but that is the example I used.
I call bs.
A generic lizardman with a weapon is a generic lizardman with a weapon. Why do you think that Reaper sells so many of these? People just like painting lizardmen? No, for Dungeons and Dragons, or Fantasy Warhammer, and other RPGs or table-top games. All of these are games that Reaper doesn't make. Take a look at their miniature line and you are reading through a who's who from the D&D monster manuals and nearly every class/race combination available.
As I've said before, if models were made for another game system (the reptus minis) then I think it is ok. I draw the line when models are made for no reason other than to fit into a different company's game.
I'm sure there are plenty of other examples out there other than the 'not-kroxigors', but that is the example I used.
As I've said before, if models were made for another game system (the reptus minis) then I think it is ok. I draw the line when models are made for no reason other than to fit into a different company's game.
I'm sure there are plenty of other examples out there other than the 'not-kroxigors', but that is the example I used.
Your argument really is floundering here.
Most minis are made to fit around different game systems.
If you are looking at lack of originality, then look no further than GW who have virtually dumped their game systems (and at the moment refuse to pursue different flavours) other than 40k and WHFB and rehash the same product over and over and over. 3rd party makers are satisfying a small niche with their wares, with items that fit the aesthetics of GW 's game ranges. Sure, a lot cannot be used for anything else but games like 40k but the majority of mini production is built around creating minis that appeal to gamers and hobbyists who will use the minis in any way they see fit.
YMMV as I buy minis on their utility (in different game systems) and attractiveness.
As I've said before, if models were made for another game system (the reptus minis) then I think it is ok. I draw the line when models are made for no reason other than to fit into a different company's game.
I'm sure there are plenty of other examples out there other than the 'not-kroxigors', but that is the example I used.
Cool lots of lizards. Some of those were made for their own game, I'm fine with that. Some of those were made as replacements, I'm not ok with that.
I don't know all of these examples, but thanks for pointing them out to me. I might actually get some of these for use in some other games I play.
General statement to everyone here: I made this thread not to argue GW vs everybody else, but so we could discuss what everyone thinks of 3rd party models. So if you have something to add, maybe your opionion on what should and shouldn't be allowed by third party companies, go ahead. If all you have is GW hate or just overall negative words, then please leave.
This is an issue that covers more than just GW. I know other games are growing in popularity (warmahordes, malifaux, . . . I'm sure ya'll can list more). As those other games get bigger, they will have to start dealing with their own 3rd party companies issues.
As I've said before, if models were made for another game system (the reptus minis) then I think it is ok. I draw the line when models are made for no reason other than to fit into a different company's game.
I'm sure there are plenty of other examples out there other than the 'not-kroxigors', but that is the example I used.
I've got a mental image of you standing in a games store with a miniature in your hands just staring at it for hours trying to decide if the manufacturer made a "legit" miniature, or if they secretly "intended" it to be used with another company's game.
What if it was made for another game but then sometime later the company made their own game? What if it's made for another game that you've never heard of, but you want to buy it for Warhammer - is it ok then? What happens if you just 'think' it's made for another game system and in, fact it was sculpted long before that system was invented?
What complicated imaginary moral hoops you must jump through...
As I've said before, if models were made for another game system (the reptus minis) then I think it is ok. I draw the line when models are made for no reason other than to fit into a different company's game.
I'm sure there are plenty of other examples out there other than the 'not-kroxigors', but that is the example I used.
I've got a mental image of you standing in a games store with a miniature in your hands just staring at it for hours trying to decide if the manufacturer made a "legit" miniature, or if they secretly "intended" it to be used with another company's game.
What if it was made for another game but then sometime later the company made their own game? What if it's made for another game that you've never heard of, but you want to buy it for Warhammer - is it ok then? What happens if you just 'think' it's made for another game system and in, fact it was sculpted long before that system was invented?
What complicated imaginary moral hoops you must jump through...
I like to support the company that I play the game of. So GW, makes a game I love playing, I buy their models in support of them. There are a few things they lack, and I do have some models and bits from other companies. I just wanted to see what others thought.
Moronic Nonsense wrote: Cool lots of lizards. Some of those were made for their own game, I'm fine with that. Some of those were made as replacements, I'm not ok with that.
I don't know all of these examples, but thanks for pointing them out to me. I might actually get some of these for use in some other games I play.
General statement to everyone here: I made this thread not to argue GW vs everybody else, but so we could discuss what everyone thinks of 3rd party models. So if you have something to add, maybe your opionion on what should and shouldn't be allowed by third party companies, go ahead. If all you have is GW hate or just overall negative words, then please leave.
This is an issue that covers more than just GW. I know other games are growing in popularity (warmahordes, malifaux, . . . I'm sure ya'll can list more). As those other games get bigger, they will have to start dealing with their own 3rd party companies issues.
So you're not okay with all of the reaper minis that were produced for DnD or Pathfinder, or any other generic fantasy RPG game? This isn't just about a GW thing yes we can clearly see where your dog lies in this fight, but at the same time you keep telling us over and over that you're not okay with 3rd party miniatures unless there are game rules to accompany them. Well, Wizards of the Coast doesn't produce miniatures very much anymore. If I want to play 4th edition DnD (let's face it, no one wants that), then by your stance on this situation, I'm only allowed to play with their heavy card board tokens. I can't simply use Reaper's minis because they're not for Reaper's own game. Can I use the official Pathfinder minis made by Reaper in Wizard's DnD?
As to these other games like Warmchine/Hordes and Malifaux, they most likely won't have that issue, even if they get bigger. Wyrd releases 1 book a year and from that point till the beginning of next year (they release at GenCon, so from GenCon to GenCon), they stagger their releases. Book 3 came out in 2011 and the Avatar model for C. Hoffman is supposed to be out this last month or sometime this month (that's over a year) and yet no one is scrambling to third party minis makers for their unreleased models.
Moronic Nonsense wrote: Cool lots of lizards. Some of those were made for their own game, I'm fine with that. Some of those were made as replacements, I'm not ok with that.
I don't know all of these examples, but thanks for pointing them out to me. I might actually get some of these for use in some other games I play.
General statement to everyone here: I made this thread not to argue GW vs everybody else, but so we could discuss what everyone thinks of 3rd party models. So if you have something to add, maybe your opionion on what should and shouldn't be allowed by third party companies, go ahead. If all you have is GW hate or just overall negative words, then please leave.
This is an issue that covers more than just GW. I know other games are growing in popularity (warmahordes, malifaux, . . . I'm sure ya'll can list more). As those other games get bigger, they will have to start dealing with their own 3rd party companies issues.
So you're not okay with all of the reaper minis that were produced for DnD or Pathfinder, or any other generic fantasy RPG game? This isn't just about a GW thing yes we can clearly see where your dog lies in this fight, but at the same time you keep telling us over and over that you're not okay with 3rd party miniatures unless there are game rules to accompany them. Well, Wizards of the Coast doesn't produce miniatures very much anymore. If I want to play 4th edition DnD (let's face it, no one wants that), then by your stance on this situation, I'm only allowed to play with their heavy card board tokens. I can't simply use Reaper's minis because they're not for Reaper's own game. Can I use the official Pathfinder minis made by Reaper in Wizard's DnD?
As to these other games like Warmchine/Hordes and Malifaux, they most likely won't have that issue, even if they get bigger. Wyrd releases 1 book a year and from that point till the beginning of next year (they release at GenCon, so from GenCon to GenCon), they stagger their releases. Book 3 came out in 2011 and the Avatar model for C. Hoffman is supposed to be out this last month or sometime this month (that's over a year) and yet no one is scrambling to third party minis makers for their unreleased models.
As I stated in the begining, In the case of unreleased models or a game that has no models, I am completely ok with getting the models from anywhere. As there are no originals to copy.
Moronic Nonsense wrote: Cool lots of lizards. Some of those were made for their own game, I'm fine with that. Some of those were made as replacements, I'm not ok with that.
My buddy is sculpting a giant, and it's coming along fantastically. He plans on casting it up, or having someone cast it, to sell.
By your own definition, you are not okay with him selling his creation because someone could maybe use it for Warhammer?
Moronic Nonsense wrote: Cool lots of lizards. Some of those were made for their own game, I'm fine with that. Some of those were made as replacements, I'm not ok with that.
My buddy is sculpting a giant, and it's coming along fantastically. He plans on casting it up, or having someone cast it, to sell.
By your own definition, you are not okay with him selling his creation because someone could maybe use it for Warhammer?
That is the gray area of ethics I'm trying to understand here. I aplaud his efforts, and I'd like to see it succeed, but I'm just unsure of how to market it without infringing on other peoples/companies work.
Moronic Nonsense wrote: Cool lots of lizards. Some of those were made for their own game, I'm fine with that. Some of those were made as replacements, I'm not ok with that.
My buddy is sculpting a giant, and it's coming along fantastically. He plans on casting it up, or having someone cast it, to sell.
By your own definition, you are not okay with him selling his creation because someone could maybe use it for Warhammer?
That is the gray area of ethics I'm trying to understand here. I aplaud his efforts, and I'd like to see it succeed, but I'm just unsure of how to market it without infringing on other peoples/companies work.
Okay, but _whose_ work?
He's directly made it from his own imagination, using sculpey and green stuff and wire armatures.
Ok, gotcha. Similarity is not illegal. Nor is it unethical. Do you drive any car other than a Ford? The other cars on the road sure are similar to Ford cars, and they were the first. How's your computer? Is it an IBM PC?
I see you play Necrons.
Do you feel bad for not using the Leading Edge Games Terminator miniatures for your Necrons? Necrons are SO similar to Terminators, and Leading Edge were the first manufacturers of Terminator endoskeletons in miniature.
I understand your position:
"I like to support the company that I play the game of. So GW, makes a game I love playing, I buy their models in support of them. There are a few things they lack"
and I applaud that you want to support the company financially. I agree, I love certain companies and support them when I can - but I personally won't support a company carte blanche if they have a bad product or someone produces a superior product. Blind support leads to mediocrity - if GW makes a terrible model and still a million people buy it, they have no reason to resculpt it. If GW releases a terrible model and they sell five, but they hear that SomeOthercompany sold a million of a similar model, that would incentivize GW to up their game. It's how the free market works - competition is good for the consumer
RoninXiC wrote: GW owns the iea of giants ladies and gentlemen!
Clearly the idea of really really REALLY tall humans, could only ever come to a single person and the author of the old testament (I can't think of a written occurrence of a giant before this), has been sent a letter by GW so that it could clarify that the rights to the original idea of a really really REALLY tall human has been accordingly granted to GW. [/sarcasm-just-in-case-anyone-is-silly-enough-to-think-I-was-actually-serious-about-this]
Let me put it this way, with a real example. I have a giant Orc army. But, not GW Orcs. I personally cannot stand the aesthetics of GW's big floppy headed ape arm Orcs. I love Mantic's armored, proportionately sized upright Orcs. Those are two of many choices in the marketplace, and I, as a consumer, am the winner, because I am allowed to choose whose Orcs I prefer. If it wasn't for Mantic's Orcs, I wouldn't even own an Orc army, because I never found them appealing until Mantic made their style.
Arguments about "hurts the original company" hold no weight for me unless it's an actual legal issue (copyright, etc) and in that case GW can take them to court. the writers of a given game have exactly NO established right to demand that folks buy their miniatures to use for their games (I have an entire game club based on this). There is no "Grey area" where you should feel bad by "hurting" a given company by using other miniatures.
Thus, unless it's at a GW store or some store/tourney where the owner/operator has established guidelines (completely their right) I follow the following guidelines.
1) Size of non-GW units should be about the same as the unit is replacing.
2) Weaponry should be WYSYWYG or close to it. (laser rifles are Las rifles, Bazookas are missile launchers, etc)
3) Armies are consistent (don't have two of the same unit representing different units) I shouldn't have to guess which is which.
If the army does those things, than my opponent is not putting an undue hardship on me and we are good to go. The above guidelines are general gaming edicit so theres no reason to "draw the line" for models.
Lastly, though I should point out that if the army isn't painted or in progress I likely won't be playing them again, but that's a separate issue.
judgedoug wrote: Let me put it this way, with a real example. I have a giant Orc army. But, not GW Orcs. I personally cannot stand the aesthetics of GW's big floppy headed ape arm Orcs. I love Mantic's armored, proportionately sized upright Orcs. Those are two of many choices in the marketplace, and I, as a consumer, am the winner, because I am allowed to choose whose Orcs I prefer. If it wasn't for Mantic's Orcs, I wouldn't even own an Orc army, because I never found them appealing until Mantic made their style.
Thanks for the good debate, unlike some other people on here who just like to throw sarcastic hate around.
I undestand your postion on gw orcs, and I would be happy to play with you, even if you use the mantic orcs. but here we fall into one of my exception case. mantic made these orcs for their own game, not to replace gw models. It is up to the customer on how they are used.
Moronic Nonsense wrote: Cool lots of lizards. Some of those were made for their own game, I'm fine with that. Some of those were made as replacements, I'm not ok with that.
My buddy is sculpting a giant, and it's coming along fantastically. He plans on casting it up, or having someone cast it, to sell.
By your own definition, you are not okay with him selling his creation because someone could maybe use it for Warhammer?
That is the gray area of ethics I'm trying to understand here. I aplaud his efforts, and I'd like to see it succeed, but I'm just unsure of how to market it without infringing on other peoples/companies work.
Sell it a s an Xmm/Xscale miniature for use in TTG/ RPG etc. Job done. No hand winging ethical committee needed. It's up to the purchaser how it is to be used.
Moronic Nonsense wrote: Cool lots of lizards. Some of those were made for their own game, I'm fine with that. Some of those were made as replacements, I'm not ok with that.
My buddy is sculpting a giant, and it's coming along fantastically. He plans on casting it up, or having someone cast it, to sell.
By your own definition, you are not okay with him selling his creation because someone could maybe use it for Warhammer?
That is the gray area of ethics I'm trying to understand here. I aplaud his efforts, and I'd like to see it succeed, but I'm just unsure of how to market it without infringing on other peoples/companies work.
Sell it a s an Xmm/Xscale miniature for use in TTG/ RPG etc. Job done. No hand winging ethical committee needed. It's up to the purchaser how it is to be used.
that is what I'm leaning towards. I know chapterhouse has crossed that line a couple of times, which is why they are in a big legal case right now, and why they always seem to be the example used in these debates.
Moronic Nonsense wrote: As I stated in the begining, In the case of unreleased models or a game that has no models, I am completely ok with getting the models from anywhere. As there are no originals to copy.
I see that, but Wizards of the Coast made miniatures for DnD and the DnD miniatures game, they had the Chainmail figures for a long time and had a game based on that. Why should I not be able to use my Reaper figures that aren't for Warlord, Savage Worlds, or Pathfinder (2 games produced by other companies that license the model making to Reaper and 1 game by reaper).
No one is arguing that you shouldn't use GW models in a GW store or tournament. In fact if you look at the user Mechanicum John's Dark Eldar, he made his own kitbashed beasts using several GW gits as he didn't like the ones that GW made, and his local GW store actually made him take those models out of their display case because people were asking what kit those were from, and didn't like that it was from 3 or 4 separate kits, which is completely okay in the lines you've drawn, but at the same time it cost the store money because they couldn't get people to buy the official GW kit.
This line you have is hard and set, and allows for no variation. You either buy the models the company makes for THEIR game, or you don't play at all.
And while yes I know you said earlier in the thread that you don't care if someone makes a model for someone else's game as long as it's unreleased, no one is making their own versions of Colossals and Gargantuans because many of those models aren't officially out, and no one is making 3rd party Malifaux figs because both of those companies operate on the idea that their models will be out by the time the next book is released (aHoffman is th exception it seems). GW was KNOWN for their waves of releases. Look back through News and Rumors, and look for "Dark Eldar Second Wave" or "Necron Second Wave, pics on page 30", etc... GW would release rules and books with no models. Being the GIANT that they are, you're bound to attract the third party market. Couple that with the customization that you can put onto a single mini (look at how many poses you have for your average Tactical Marine), and couple that with the fact that GW leaves their fluff open for the reason of customizing your minis to your "narrative".
GW for the most part is the ONLY model company I can think of that has this problem, and the fans that say, "so and so is stealing GW's ideas!!!!1oneone! D:" I mean even Flames of War has a thread on here that tells you where to buy other 15mm tanks and what not because no matter where you go, a Sherman tank from the makers of FoW is going to be similar to the Shermans made by Company B.
I feel as though you're being unusually strict with this definition.
Automatically Appended Next Post: For the most part, CHS brought the Ever-seeing Eye of Kirby (i.e. GW Legal, etc...) upon them by using GW models in their pics and using GW naming conventions like, "Replacement alien head for Genestealer model."
Thanks for the good debate, unlike some other people on here who just like to throw sarcastic hate around.
I undestand your postion on gw orcs, and I would be happy to play with you, even if you use the mantic orcs. but here we fall into one of my exception case. mantic made these orcs for their own game, not to replace gw models. It is up to the customer on how they are used.
Ah, but only recently. Mantic originally made figures with no supporting rules system.
Howsabout this one: I use Red Box Games utterly beautiful goblins, as they are some of the best goblins I've ever seen, sculpted by one of the best sculptors on the planet, in my Goblin army, and I use their Goblin chief riding a bear as a Goblin on wolf/similar. I bought the miniatures and want to use them because they are so amazingly detailed, and Red Box is a one-man operation run by Tre Manor, so I know my dollars are directly putting food on the table for him and his family. I support the company, but I also want to use them because they are brilliant sculpts. No game system for them. How would you feel about me using them in Warhammer?
I don't care what models people play with so long as they are very close to the size and shape of the corresponding GW model (or at least idea of that model if it doesn't have one yet).
Moronic Nonsense wrote: [q
Cool lots of lizards. Some of those were made for their own game, I'm fine with that. Some of those were made as replacements, I'm not ok with that.
Just wanted to address this argument specifically as I think it is misguided and I see it quite often.
A few counter examples.
-As was said, most fantasy miniatures companies make miniatures for RPG's that they don't publish themselves. Many times these RPG's have their own miniature lines or have licensed their figs to another comany. Should I not use reaper, megamini or EM4 minis in a D&D game because D&D had their own prepainted figures?
-In the early days of fantasy miniatures (pre WHFB) GW made most of it's models pretty blatantly to appeal to D&D gamers, even though TSR had licensed the rights to make figures for their game to Ral Partha. You wouldn't even have GW if there hadn't already been D&D for them to make miniatures for.
-Many companies make aftermarket parts for cars when the car makers already make those parts. They don't have to consult car companies to do this. Is this a bad thing?
-Should I not buy resin ruined cathedral buildings because GW makes it's own?
This idea that you shouldn't use "replacement" figures may be a personal feeling, but it's silly for folks to suggest that it's based on anything other than that.
My advice to gamers has always been:
Pick the rules you like, pick the minis you like, pick the terrain you like. As long as you're not breaking any laws ignore anyone who trys to tell you to do otherwise.
Moronic Nonsense wrote: that is what I'm leaning towards. I know chapterhouse has crossed that line a couple of times, which is why they are in a big legal case right now, and why they always seem to be the example used in these debates.
Whether or not Chapterhouse crossed any lines has yet to be decided by a court, but I don't think they've done anything wrong.
I undestand your postion on gw orcs, and I would be happy to play with you, even if you use the mantic orcs. but here we fall into one of my exception case. mantic made these orcs for their own game, not to replace gw models. It is up to the customer on how they are used.
So Chapterhouse (the bad guys in your eyes) would be fine to use in 40K if they published their own rule set that uses their own figures? Do the rules need to meet any standards to be official or can they just slap together a couple of pages and provide stat sheets?
Would their lizard ogre be acceptable to use in warhammer if it had a stat line for Chapterhouses "Generic Fantasy Skirmish Rules" along with it?
I think the line is different; if it's from a generic idea (orge, giant, lizardman) or could be used in many games, then it's fine. If it's blatantly a rip off of a specific figure in a specific game (Blood Angels Sanguinor) then it's a bit iffy. But if no copyrights have been violated, let the best manufacturer win.
I think the GW high-ground is hilarious since they seem to have ripped off so many sources in the past*, and got started doing exactly what Chapterhouse does now; making figures for other peoples games.
* Tolkiens** Dwarfs, Elves, Orcs, Chaos & Halflings (The description of halflings in the Black Library books could easily have been photocopied out of LOTR pages describing Hobbits). Necrons are clearly Terminator rip-offs as well, as Tyranids are blatantly from the Aliens series.
** And all of the other standard fantasy tropes. I'm not sure if Skaven are new or borrowed.
Moronic Nonsense wrote: Cool lots of lizards. Some of those were made for their own game, I'm fine with that. Some of those were made as replacements, I'm not ok with that.
My buddy is sculpting a giant, and it's coming along fantastically. He plans on casting it up, or having someone cast it, to sell.
By your own definition, you are not okay with him selling his creation because someone could maybe use it for Warhammer?
That is the gray area of ethics I'm trying to understand here. I aplaud his efforts, and I'd like to see it succeed, but I'm just unsure of how to market it without infringing on other peoples/companies work.
Sell it a s an Xmm/Xscale miniature for use in TTG/ RPG etc. Job done. No hand winging ethical committee needed. It's up to the purchaser how it is to be used.
that is what I'm leaning towards. I know chapterhouse has crossed that line a couple of times, which is why they are in a big legal case right now, and why they always seem to be the example used in these debates.
If you strip the rarefied issue that is GW vs CHS out of this, does that make things any clearer?
I am currently using Hasslefree and statuesque miniatures (as some of my latest purchases) with a variety of differing rules ets, each by a different publisher/individual.
The minis themselves have no affiliation to any of these games. And I have purchased them so they can be used in multiple environments.
1. I have brought multiple rulesets and play with lots more.
2. I have brought figures from multiple sources to play these games.
3. Some of these games have a mini line, most do not.
Another example. I have a FOW rulebook and some of their figures. I also have other 15mm scale minis from other companies,
1. FOW represnts battles set in WW2.
2. Military representations, as far as I am aware can be freely made. A Wermacht infantryman is a Wermacht infantry man, dependant on historical equipment. A Hurricane Mk.IIb will be the same, whatever company makes it (bar a few artistic differences) etc.
Now I am supporting FOW by playing their rules. I am using other companies to provide miniatures (those who do not produce their own rules).
I would like to see what you would feel about these situations.
As I've said before, if models were made for another game system (the reptus minis) then I think it is ok. I draw the line when models are made for no reason other than to fit into a different company's game.
I'm sure there are plenty of other examples out there other than the 'not-kroxigors', but that is the example I used.
Cool lots of lizards. Some of those were made for their own game, I'm fine with that. Some of those were made as replacements, I'm not ok with that.
I don't know all of these examples, but thanks for pointing them out to me. I might actually get some of these for use in some other games I play.
None of those were made as replacements... they were made as lizardmen, which are just generic fantasy. Just as space marines are generic sci-fi (and were before GW pooped out the first giant shoulderpad). The sun doesn't rise and set for GW.
So you should really not be OK with more or less anything by GW, since someone else did it first. Giants, space marines, orcs, lizardmen. Afterall, GW was just making Ral Partha replacements.
General statement to everyone here: I made this thread not to argue GW vs everybody else, but so we could discuss what everyone thinks of 3rd party models. So if you have something to add, maybe your opionion on what should and shouldn't be allowed by third party companies, go ahead. If all you have is GW hate or just overall negative words, then please leave.
This is an issue that covers more than just GW. I know other games are growing in popularity (warmahordes, malifaux, . . . I'm sure ya'll can list more). As those other games get bigger, they will have to start dealing with their own 3rd party companies issues.
You claim this is not a GW only issue, when in fact it IS pretty much a GWonly issue. GW "loyalists" are the only people that have this big issue with third party models, nobody else gives a carp. The rest of the gaming world are happy to use third party models if they fit within their chosen game.
No figure manufacturer makes a line of figures that is considered "complete" by every single hobbyist buying a particular line. There isn't any gaming figure line that can't be "improved" by third party products.
Actually, it doesn't only involve GW - you can look at other companies and see how they can take a completely different approach to dealing with the 3rd party issues.
Micro Arts studio for instance started making buildings and tokens amongst other items for use with Infinity - yet rather than trying to shut this company down, then do the same thing themselves and pocket the proceeds, Corvus Belli has essentially licensed MAS to continue to make those items, even going as far as to have them advertised on their own website. Battlefront miniatures have done the same thing with Galeforce 9, and the 'Battlefield in a box range'. They realise that these other companies benefit their own in a form of symbiotic relationship - how many players have started Infinity because of a thought of a tabletop of MAS apartment buildings in a future city?
GW obviously spends a not inconsiderable sum on legal representation - a group that must constantly strive to legitimize their own existence by pulling crap like trying to shut down the numerous 'garage casters' who exist only (most of the time) because they love the wargaming hobby and want to do something for like-minded people. I doubt very much if there have been many instances of fat guys sat with their feet up on a solid-oak polished table, flicking through bundles of cash while smoking on a cuban cigar - I would say with near almost certainty that practically every company that has made 3rd party parts for GW games did so because they loved the idea of doing so, and genuinely wanted to improve their own experience and that of others. Yes even Chapterhouse, although I should imagine the fondness on their part will have somewhat staled by this point.
Anyway I digress, but how many of the GW design/sculpting guys (who are the heart and soul of the company) really agreed with shutting down the likes of Warsmith Miniatures, or off on a tangent the numerous fan websites that have been made about Warhammer (The Golden Throne, Turn signals on Land Raider, a slew of Blood Bowl sites)? I'd guess it lies somewhere between zero and none. The people who make the games, who love the hobby as a fan would and beyond just a way of making money and satisfying share holders, sit far apart from the kind of mentality that is bringing law-suits against garage-casters and other small companies. What's sad is that, like in cases like this, some fans aren't able to recognise that it is obviously a result of the actions of 'suits' (for want of a better term - or just call it 'them' ), and that by following GW's decision making blindly (white knighting, whatever you want to call it) without actually thinking through the reasons why, they are behaving in a way that is completely contrary to their own best interests. This hobby (wargaming) is about art, about expression, about two people creating a fantasy situation in which to have fun together (of the non blue-movie variety) - you can't place a copyright on that, and for something as generic as a giant, a lizard warrior or any other monster from historical legend, they deserve our ridicule, and constant belligerence, for trying.
1.) So you think, if any gamer thinks that a non-GW miniature can be used for GW games, the owner of that company should be sued, and the company closed?
2.) So you think that Goodyear should be allowed to make tires for Goodyear cars, but immediately closed and sued, if they dare to make tires usable for other cars, even if that is absolutely legal since more than 100 years?
3.) Are you aware that Citadel Miniatures started making miniatures meant for the game D&D (a setting including lizardmen from the start BTW)? So if Chapterhouse is a parasite, then GW started as a parasite as well. Like Ford and General Motors would be parasites of Daimler.
4.) If things were so simple as you think they are, why is GW so struggling to even provide the necessary documents for filing a lawsuit against CHS? Do you also follow GW's claim, that noone except GW should be allowed to sculpt arrows and skulls and use the 28mm scale?
I don't actually see any problem with making a model which replaces, or substitutes for, the "official" model, so long as it does not break a copyright.
Obviously the official manufacturer would prefer you to buy their own models, and they can enforce this at their official events. They can't do anything against players at home and clubs, though.
The main point from the view of the game is that whatever models are used need to be compatible and recognisable.
Moronic Nonsense wrote: I like to support the company that I play the game of. So GW, makes a game I love playing, I buy their models in support of them.
And if that's you're preference, then good for you. But at the end of the day, GW is a business. You are under no obligation to 'support them' ... They offer a product, and you can choose to buy it if you like it. That's where the relationship ends. They certainly feel no obligation to support your gaming habit, beyond trying to entice you to buy your stuff.
GW can encourage gamers to be 'loyal' by releasing stuff that people want to buy. If another company releases something that people like better, then they will buy that instead. That's just business.
Ouze wrote: This thread is timely, because I wanted to respond to something HBMC said in the last CHS thread but it was offtopic.
H.B.M.C. wrote: I say just lock it. Every time CHS posts anything it's just a siren call to our resident White Knights to come a'charging.
Respectfully, I disagree. There is no reason to support a status quo where one manufacturer can't post new releases because people can't stop coming in and crapping in it; the answer is not shrugging and saying "ah well, guess they win again".
I'm not a huge fan of CHS simply because I'm not really into their sculpts generally (although I did get the Stormraven extension which is great) but the nonsense that happens in their threads every single damn time has got to stop.
I created this thread because I realized that I was one of those people getting that thread off topic. I am not trying to burn CHS down, but when I saw the 'lizard-ogres' I was just kinda shocked. I am fine with bits and upgrade sprues, but I'm stil unsure of how to proceed when it comes to selling a replacement model for another company's game.
I guess I just don't get where you are coming from on this. Obviously it is meant to be a Kroxigor replacement but do you really think that GW invented Ogre sized lizards? In my opinion GW has no more of a right to produce ogre sized lizards, high elves, or skeletons than anyone else.
Ouze wrote: This thread is timely, because I wanted to respond to something HBMC said in the last CHS thread but it was offtopic.
H.B.M.C. wrote: I say just lock it. Every time CHS posts anything it's just a siren call to our resident White Knights to come a'charging.
Respectfully, I disagree. There is no reason to support a status quo where one manufacturer can't post new releases because people can't stop coming in and crapping in it; the answer is not shrugging and saying "ah well, guess they win again".
I'm not a huge fan of CHS simply because I'm not really into their sculpts generally (although I did get the Stormraven extension which is great) but the nonsense that happens in their threads every single damn time has got to stop.
I created this thread because I realized that I was one of those people getting that thread off topic. I am not trying to burn CHS down, but when I saw the 'lizard-ogres' I was just kinda shocked. I am fine with bits and upgrade sprues, but I'm stil unsure of how to proceed when it comes to selling a replacement model for another company's game.
I guess I just don't get where you are coming from on this. Obviously it is meant to be a Kroxigor replacement but do you really think that GW invented Ogre sized lizards? In my opinion GW has no more of a right to produce ogre sized lizards, high elves, or skeletons than anyone else.
Ok, I think I've figured out a better way to explain my position. I look at the intent of the model. If somebody makes a cool looking giant lizard thing because it is a cool idea, great! but when I see somebody bringing up a new product, that is meant just as a replacement, I'm less inclined to accept it.
Ok, I think I've figured out a better way to explain my position. I look at the intent of the model. If somebody makes a cool looking giant lizard thing because it is a cool idea, great! but when I see somebody bringing up a new product, that is meant just as a replacement, I'm less inclined to accept it.
Intent doesn't matter. As long as copyright isn't violated, then intentionally creating a replacement is not a crime.
Further, I fail to see how intentionally making a replacement intended for another companies game is moral failing. As was mentioned earlier, GW did it with D&D, even though TSR had already licensed Ral Partha to make D&D minis.
I still support your right to buy what you want for your own reasons, and I think folks here understand what they are. They (and I) just don't agree with you.
Moronic Nonsense wrote: As I stated in the begining, In the case of unreleased models or a game that has no models, I am completely ok with getting the models from anywhere. As there are no originals to copy.
The problem I have is that it doesn't feel to me that you have thought this out well enough. Most (though not all) GW models are just generic takes on normal fantast tropes. In this light your argument about unreleased models doesn't make much sense. Exactly which models can a company do without crossing your line? A large lizard with a weapon is about as generic as it gets.
timd wrote: GW "loyalists" are the only people that have this big issue with third party models, nobody else gives a carp. The rest of the gaming world are happy to use third party models if they fit within their chosen game.
Hahahah, hah, haha, no.
Try to use GW models in a Warmahordes game in your non-regular store. They're just as looney about it.
Moronic Nonsense wrote: As I stated in the begining, In the case of unreleased models or a game that has no models, I am completely ok with getting the models from anywhere. As there are no originals to copy.
The problem I have is that it doesn't feel to me that you have thought this out well enough. Most (though not all) GW models are just generic takes on normal fantast tropes. In this light your argument about unreleased models doesn't make much sense. Exactly which models can a company do without crossing your line? A large lizard with a weapon is about as generic as it gets.
But slightly less generic than a small lizard with a spear
Ok, I think I've figured out a better way to explain my position. I look at the intent of the model. If somebody makes a cool looking giant lizard thing because it is a cool idea, great! but when I see somebody bringing up a new product, that is meant just as a replacement, I'm less inclined to accept it.
I can accept that. I tend to disagree but I think that is a much better position for you to take.
timd wrote: GW "loyalists" are the only people that have this big issue with third party models, nobody else gives a carp. The rest of the gaming world are happy to use third party models if they fit within their chosen game.
Hahahah, hah, haha, no.
Try to use GW models in a Warmahordes game in your non-regular store. They're just as looney about it.
Are you talking about a tournament? If its a tournament sponsored by Privateer Press, then I don't see a problem with the Press Ganger enforcing the PP only rule. But that is not what we are talking about here. We are talking about general use of third party minis. There has been no discussion of using third party minis in sanctioned tounament play in this thread.
So then who specifically is loony about it? The store owner? Unlikely... Another player in a pickup game? If he's that anal you are probably better of not playing with him. Random secret agent Privateer Press enforcers? I've never seen the kind of anti-third party invective seen on Dakka from anyone but GW gamers. Its simply not an issue in the rest of the miniatures gaming community.
Actually, using Hormegants for Shredders might be a nice way to run the otherwise awkwardly expensive 78 Shredder list using one of the Thagrosh models + 3 shredders from his warbeast points and then 75 shredders to fill a 150 point game... It would be a funny game however
timd wrote: GW "loyalists" are the only people that have this big issue with third party models, nobody else gives a carp. The rest of the gaming world are happy to use third party models if they fit within their chosen game.
Hahahah, hah, haha, no.
Try to use GW models in a Warmahordes game in your non-regular store. They're just as looney about it.
Are you talking about a tournament? If its a tournament sponsored by Privateer Press, then I don't see a problem with the Press Ganger enforcing the PP only rule. But that is not what we are talking about here. We are talking about general use of third party minis. There has been no discussion of using third party minis in sanctioned tounament play in this thread.
So then who specifically is loony about it? The store owner? Unlikely... Another player in a pickup game? If he's that anal you are probably better of not playing with him. Random secret agent Privateer Press enforcers? I've never seen the kind of anti-third party invective seen on Dakka from anyone but GW gamers. Its simply not an issue in the rest of the miniatures gaming community.
Sure. It's "not an issue" because there is no substantial third party market for other games. WH/40k players aren't crazed loons, they just happen to be playing the games that third party manufacturers are producing product for.
No one is making a successful business producing not-war jacks because there's no interest. Tournament play is enormously important to WM/H and most players adhere to PPs conversion rules in store play. PP has also only just started producing the multi part kits that make bits manufacture feasible.
Claiming that only GW games players are the ones commenting on this is pretty disingenuous. It's only a significant issue in GW games.
Pacific wrote: Battlefront miniatures have done the same thing with Galeforce 9, and the 'Battlefield in a box range'.
Those are actually the same company...sort of like the difference between GW and Forge World...but the general sentiment is good.
The majority of companies are ran by fans of miniatures and gaming and they tend to shop from all sorts of companies for their own purposes. Quite often you will see one or more companies come together on a project or three - even while they are otherwise competing with each other directly in other areas.
Primarily one company doesn't though - they used to...for nearly half their history they worked with a whole variety of companies who made rules or miniatures or both. A change happened though, and now they don't.
Actually, it will be interesting to see if any of the new 28mm Dystopian Wars miniatures find their way onto the tables of Warmachine players - they are the first major miniature line (with a couple of less well known exceptions) that really have models which might be considered a comparable aesthetic.
I think with some of the issues with GW miniatures, and specifically the ones which are most proxied/counts-as, is their more generic nature. 'human with laser gun' or 'evil walking skeleton' is as basic as you can get with the sci-fi/fantasy field. When you bring in the fact that some of those GW miniatures are much more expensive, and pretty old sculpts (thinking of the Cadians for instance) it's no surprise that customers are looking elsewhere, and there are a long line of Guarsmen 'counts as' options you can go for.
Although of course I agree the popularity of 40k (and Space Marines in particular) makes them a natural choice for anyone making 3rd party parts - especially again when some of the official miniatures fail to cut the mustard (Storm Raven) or else aren't even released for some time, and there is a demand for the miniature (some of the Nid and SW range previously)
Kanluwen wrote: [
Flames of War has a "Only Battlefront models" rule for their official events as well from my understanding.
They tried this both here and in NZ first. The player base laughed at them.
How exactly are they going to tell that you aren't using "their"models?
Given the large number of guys doing WW2 15mm in metal and resin models out there? Not to mention the relatively recent plastic 15mm stuff.
You can't.
Lets keep in mind that before GW became the great and powerful company that is is today, it started out as a 3rd party model company that specialized in creating miniatures that you can use in other companies game systems.
d-usa wrote: Lets keep in mind that before GW became the great and powerful company that is is today, it started out as a 3rd party model company that specialized in creating miniatures that you can use in other companies game systems.
Difference being GW/Citadel licensed the rights for that....
d-usa wrote: Lets keep in mind that before GW became the great and powerful company that is is today, it started out as a 3rd party model company that specialized in creating miniatures that you can use in other companies game systems.
Difference being GW/Citadel licensed the rights for that....
Not always. Lots of Citadels earliest models were clearly intended for the D&D crowd and as I pointed out earlier, it was Ral Partha who had the license to create official models.
Didn't stop GW, or Grenadier, or Metal Magic or ....
..and it shouldn't. Because as long as you don't trample on copyright or trademark there is nothing wrong with making minis for someone else's game.
timd wrote: GW "loyalists" are the only people that have this big issue with third party models, nobody else gives a carp. The rest of the gaming world are happy to use third party models if they fit within their chosen game.
Hahahah, hah, haha, no.
Try to use GW models in a Warmahordes game in your non-regular store. They're just as looney about it.
Are you talking about a tournament? If its a tournament sponsored by Privateer Press, then I don't see a problem with the Press Ganger enforcing the PP only rule. But that is not what we are talking about here. We are talking about general use of third party minis. There has been no discussion of using third party minis in sanctioned tounament play in this thread.
So then who specifically is loony about it? The store owner? Unlikely... Another player in a pickup game? If he's that anal you are probably better of not playing with him. Random secret agent Privateer Press enforcers? I've never seen the kind of anti-third party invective seen on Dakka from anyone but GW gamers. Its simply not an issue in the rest of the miniatures gaming community.
Where did I mention tournaments? It looks like nowhere. So clearly I didn't mean tournaments.
Moronic Nonsense wrote: Ok, I think I've figured out a better way to explain my position. I look at the intent of the model. If somebody makes a cool looking giant lizard thing because it is a cool idea, great! but when I see somebody bringing up a new product, that is meant just as a replacement, I'm less inclined to accept it.
Do you own a blu-ray player? Is it a Sony? If it's not, it's a player produced by another company that hopes you will buy it instead of a Sony player.
Is that also an unacceptable practice?
Not having a go here, genuinely curious as to whether or not this is a hard line for you, or if it purely applies to miniatures.
GW have an absolute right to ban other full models from their shops.
I have an absolute right to buy something else and use it at home or at my club.
It is for GW to make 'the best model soldiers in the world' and other companies to keep them to that. If they produce stinkers like the recent 'melee obliterators' or the 'spikey pig' and these models are not well received, then that's their problem. Other companies can produce 'spikey pigs' or 'scifi megaknights with melee weapons' and if I prefer their efforts to GW's, then I'll buy from them.
To be fair though: "stinkers", like most things taste related, is a bit subjective.
Look at the Infinity News & Rumours thread right now. There are individuals who do not like Corvus Belli's "Ajax the Great" miniature which is coming out this month.
To be fair though: "stinkers", like most things taste related, is a bit subjective.
Look at the Infinity News & Rumours thread right now. There are individuals who do not like Corvus Belli's "Ajax the Great" miniature which is coming out this month.
Yes but there is a difference there between saying something is a crappy sculpt, or just looks poor, and it not being to your particular taste. Absolutely no-one has said that Ajax is a crappy sculpt - some have said 'it's not my thing', or 'i wish it had a different aesthetic' (I said I wished it had a beard for instance ) but that's different.
On the other hand the Mutilators have had a fair bit of flak for being.. well, just not very good. Of course art is subjective to an extent, but that still doesn't stop the vast majority of people agreeing that a Rodin is technically more impressive, or better 'art' generally, than something made by Damien Hurst. I'm not comparing the CB sculpts to some kind of classic masterpiece, but just to illustrate a point.. don't force me to post pics to prove it mate
Someone mentioned the GW minotaurs a while back in the thread. Most agree that they are not as good as some produced by another manufacturer (Avatars of War in this case) - with something as archetypal as a minotaur, players should be free to sub in that AoW mini into a game (outside of a GW store - that goes without saying) and feel absolutely no prejudice whatsoever for doing so. In fact, contrary to that I think it's something that should be encouraged just to get a bit more variety into peoples forces and so they can widen their horizons a bit - something which I think is generally healthy for whichever hobby/pastime you are talking about, although I realise that's just my own opinion on the matter.
I don't use GW paints, should I not be able to field my models? (well, I have a couple, but the vast majority of my paint collection is from another company).
I still have to buy GW's rulebooks, because that *is* the game.
timd wrote: GW "loyalists" are the only people that have this big issue with third party models, nobody else gives a carp. The rest of the gaming world are happy to use third party models if they fit within their chosen game.
Hahahah, hah, haha, no.
Try to use GW models in a Warmahordes game in your non-regular store. They're just as looney about it.
Are you talking about a tournament? If its a tournament sponsored by Privateer Press, then I don't see a problem with the Press Ganger enforcing the PP only rule. But that is not what we are talking about here. We are talking about general use of third party minis. There has been no discussion of using third party minis in sanctioned tounament play in this thread.
So then who specifically is loony about it? The store owner? Unlikely... Another player in a pickup game? If he's that anal you are probably better of not playing with him. Random secret agent Privateer Press enforcers? I've never seen the kind of anti-third party invective seen on Dakka from anyone but GW gamers. Its simply not an issue in the rest of the miniatures gaming community.
Where did I mention tournaments? It looks like nowhere. So clearly I didn't mean tournaments.
So answer the question then: Who specifically is loony about it?
Sure. It's "not an issue" because there is no substantial third party market for other games. WH/40k players aren't crazed loons, they just happen to be playing the games that third party manufacturers are producing product for.
No one is making a successful business producing not-war jacks because there's no interest. Tournament play is enormously important to WM/H and most players adhere to PPs conversion rules in store play. PP has also only just started producing the multi part kits that make bits manufacture feasible.
Claiming that only GW games players are the ones commenting on this is pretty disingenuous. It's only a significant issue in GW games.
(this is in the context of sci-fi/fantasy TTGs)
Disingenuous? No, its simple fact. Its only an issue with a certain kind of GW fan. These fans are ONLY ones who complain about third party products. Have never seen fans of ANY other game complain about third party products and you know what, there are third party products out there for any kind of TT wargame you can name.
The issue is no more significant now than it has been throughout the history of TT wargaming. The bigger manufacturers make a line of miniatures and the smaller manufacturers fill in the gaps that the big guys don't cover. It has always been this way. There may be more money at stake now because TT wargaming has grown tremendously since the 1980s, but the issue is exactly the same - a non-issue.
I specified ALL tabletop miniatures gaming, not just sci-fi and fantasy. Looking at the broader picture gives a lot more perspective on the issue. People have been using third party products all through the history of TT wargaming because one minis manufacturer could never cover the complete range of miniatures that people want. When people can't find the mini they want they start looking for other sources.
When I started doing WWII in 1/72 scale in the early '80s, there were basically three manufacturers: AMT/ESCI/ERTL which made many types of infantry in 1/72, Airfix which made a few vehiles and infantry in 1/76 scale and Fujimi which made a few vehicles in 1/72. If you wanted say a German 50mm anti-tank gun or any other obscure vehicle or gun, you needed to start looking at the few small guys making metal kits of the obscurer stuff, yes, from the third party manufacturers. This same kind of thing applied to any historical time period: one company could not make everything so the smaller guys were needed to fill in the gaps. Sci-fi and fantasy games are no different.
The same thing was true when 40K first started up (played my first game of 40K in February of 1988); if you wanted a large vehicle (bigger than a land speeder or a dreadnought), you had to make it yourself or have someone make it for you because GW did not sell anything bigger than a land speeder or a dreadnought. There were cool pics of a Rhino and a Land Raider in Rogue Trader but you could not initially buy one from GW, so if you wanted one you had to go to a third party, either yourself or someone who could build one for you.
The third party "issue" is not an issue and has never even been an issue. There have always been third party manufacturers and there will always be third party manufacturers.
I actually think this thread is predicated on a flawed concept ie. that a line needs to be drawn at all in regards to third party miniatures. If we reject that premise and ask “Why does a line need to be drawn in the first place?” then what are we left with?
H.B.M.C. wrote: I actually think this thread is predicated on a flawed concept ie. that a line needs to be drawn at all in regards to third party miniatures. If we reject that premise and ask “Why does a line need to be drawn in the first place?” then what are we left with?
Excellent job of skipping the intermediate issues and getting right to the crux of the issue.
I agree. I don't think that this is an area where a "moral" line should be drawn. As long as laws aren't being broken then no line needs to to be drawn.
H.B.M.C. wrote: I actually think this thread is predicated on a flawed concept ie. that a line needs to be drawn at all in regards to third party miniatures. If we reject that premise and ask “Why does a line need to be drawn in the first place?” then what are we left with?
Excellent job of skipping the intermediate issues and getting right to the crux of the issue.
I agree. I don't think that this is an area where a "moral" line should be drawn. As long as laws aren't being broken then no line needs to to be drawn.
Evidently, however the OP disagrees.
Lol, I thought that most of us were arguing that already
H.B.M.C. wrote: I actually think this thread is predicated on a flawed concept ie. that a line needs to be drawn at all in regards to third party miniatures. If we reject that premise and ask “Why does a line need to be drawn in the first place?” then what are we left with?
Excellent job of skipping the intermediate issues and getting right to the crux of the issue.
I agree. I don't think that this is an area where a "moral" line should be drawn. As long as laws aren't being broken then no line needs to to be drawn.
Evidently, however the OP disagrees.
Well, when GW ran very good events, there was a line for those who wished to participate, the same way there is a line now for PP. When there was a line, there was a much smaller market for 3rd party parts as people were de-incentivized to use non-GW parts. This was the reality of people who gamed 10 years ago and attended the frequent and local GW supported RTTs and well-run GTs.
Since GW stopped official event support and the organized play went 'indy' that is when the 3rd market for GW models really exploded. 10 Years ago, I had to convert simply to keep my models legal. I had a valid reason to sculpt 20 pirate hats opposed to buying some 3rd party heads. Now with an open indy circuit, I don't have to worry about having models which I can't use at events like before.
But there are lines, some that people are rabid to cross, like illegal recasts and lines people choose not to cross like the PP requirement for official models for organized play. If your goal is to participate in official PP events, you have a reason to not replace models with stand-ins. if anything, PP has really kept the 3rd party market at bay by learning from GW's mistakes by having visible event support, not making 'rules' without models, writing rules with limited models so there are not a lot of options which require models or conversions. PP has basically made an environment that starves the need or want for third party models.
I think that this is an issue for gaming systems with corporate sponsored organized play. GW left that arena long ago and doesn't look like it is going back towards to being the central source in tourneys anytime soon.
Someone brought up the new 28mm Dystopian Wars models as stand ins for Warmachine... They don't fit in at all with the aesthetic of the game.. I haven't seen prices, but I'd be curious to see/bet they would be similar.
Though some of the human based models, might be interesting in a Cygnar army.
Moronic Nonsense wrote:I undestand your postion on gw orcs, and I would be happy to play with you, even if you use the mantic orcs. but here we fall into one of my exception case. mantic made these orcs for their own game, not to replace gw models. It is up to the customer on how they are used.
If it is up to the customer how they are used, why is it no longer up to the customer if the manufacturer happens to not have a rules set? Why does it then become wrong? If they put out rules, it's up to the customer, but if they just make miniatures, then suddenly it's wrong?
Later you mentioned intent, as if the intent of someone who makes something has anything at all to do with the intent of the people who buy and use it. And what if they're fooling you with their intent? What if a company makes a set of rules just as a clever scheme to fool you into thinking their miniatures are intended for those rules when their true target audience is the player base of another game by another company? How can you ever know?
H.B.M.C. wrote:I actually think this thread is predicated on a flawed concept ie. that a line needs to be drawn at all in regards to third party miniatures. If we reject that premise and ask “Why does a line need to be drawn in the first place?” then what are we left with?
nkelsch wrote: Well, when GW ran very good events, there was a line for those who wished to participate...
Yeah but those are tournament rules. As I said before, no one is disputing those and everyone understands their purpose. The OP is asking about drawing a moral line against 3rd party makers, and at what point that line should be drawn.
I reject that entire premise, as I don’t think a line needs to be drawn in the first place. It has nothing to do with tournament structure rules, which every tournament has, and everyone follows.
And this isn’t about recasts either, so don’t cast that light on what the OP is trying to say.
H.B.M.C. wrote: Yeah but those are tournament rules. As I said before, no one is disputing those and everyone understands their purpose. The OP is asking about drawing a moral line against 3rd party makers, and at what point that line should be drawn.
I think for some the line is a little blurred, though. There's been a perception that dates back to GW actually running events that even if you weren't playing in tournaments your army had to be 'tournament legal' to be valid. This is one of the things that put people off Forgeworld, or optional rules published in White Dwarf... Many tournaments (and most GW-run ones) didn't them, and so they were not 'proper' for use, even if the player had no intention of ever entering a tournament. The same would apply to using third party miniatures.
This wasn't a universal attitude, certainly... but it was quite common, and I wonder how many gamers have come out of it with a vague idea that using non-GW minis is wrong without ever actually stopping to consider just why that should be the case.
timd wrote: GW "loyalists" are the only people that have this big issue with third party models, nobody else gives a carp. The rest of the gaming world are happy to use third party models if they fit within their chosen game.
Hahahah, hah, haha, no.
Try to use GW models in a Warmahordes game in your non-regular store. They're just as looney about it.
Are you talking about a tournament? If its a tournament sponsored by Privateer Press, then I don't see a problem with the Press Ganger enforcing the PP only rule. But that is not what we are talking about here. We are talking about general use of third party minis. There has been no discussion of using third party minis in sanctioned tounament play in this thread.
So then who specifically is loony about it? The store owner? Unlikely... Another player in a pickup game? If he's that anal you are probably better of not playing with him. Random secret agent Privateer Press enforcers? I've never seen the kind of anti-third party invective seen on Dakka from anyone but GW gamers. Its simply not an issue in the rest of the miniatures gaming community.
Where did I mention tournaments? It looks like nowhere. So clearly I didn't mean tournaments.
So answer the question then: Who specifically is loony about it?
Sure. It's "not an issue" because there is no substantial third party market for other games. WH/40k players aren't crazed loons, they just happen to be playing the games that third party manufacturers are producing product for.
No one is making a successful business producing not-war jacks because there's no interest. Tournament play is enormously important to WM/H and most players adhere to PPs conversion rules in store play. PP has also only just started producing the multi part kits that make bits manufacture feasible.
Claiming that only GW games players are the ones commenting on this is pretty disingenuous. It's only a significant issue in GW games.
(this is in the context of sci-fi/fantasy TTGs)
timd wrote: Disingenuous? No, its simple fact. Its only an issue with a certain kind of GW fan. These fans are ONLY ones who complain about third party products. Have never seen fans of ANY other game complain about third party products and you know what, there are third party products out there for any kind of TT wargame you can name.
There are no facts here. Where are the not-warjacks, the not-stormblades? Where are the not-Leviticus Crews for Malifaux? There are models that exist that could be used in the place of all of these models, but that's not what this thread is about.
It's about models and parts that are created with the primary purpose of replacing a GW model or part. This is a phenomena that only exists in meaningful quantities when it comes to GW games. Claiming otherwise is certainly being disingenuous, especially for someone that's been engaged in this hobby for as long as you claim to have been.
Singling out "a certain kind of GW fan" is a long winded way of reverting to the increasingly dull fanboy or white knight labels that make these discussions so pointless.
To address the broader point of the thread, no, I don't think there is a line.
I only care if a model looks good or not and if I have a use for it or not. I think that we, as customers are becoming more discerning when it comes to third party companies and flocking less and less to low quality work simply because it's "not GW" and instead going elsewhere or forcing those companies to improve their product. It's a very exciting time to be be a miniature gamer/collector and I think we're all very lucky to see this explosion in breadth, quality, and relative affordability of new product.
RiTides wrote: OP: I'm sorry, I'm too distracted by your username to comment correctly
Well then don't comment. I've already explained in here why my name is what it is, deal with it.
I am happy to see this debate roll out. I've seen a lot of slightly different views on where to place that line as well as some who want no line at all, and I respect all your opinions. I will admit, I favor GW stuff very heavily. (I would play other games, but no one near plays anything else). But after this conversation, some of you might be convincing me to slack off a little on my view of 3rd party companies. Those of you who took a very hostile stance, or posted rude sarcastic comments, you weren't helpful at all. Insulting somebody in a debate is a definitive way to make sure that won't listen or take into consideration anything you say. but anyways, Thank you all for your time. I'll keep on reading this thread here to see how the conversation goes.
I don't mind counts as models, especially if they're awesome. Ditto scratch builds. Do they represent the model they're standing in for well? Does their weapons load out at least vaguely resemble the same? If so, carry on by all means.
Pacific wrote: Battlefront miniatures have done the same thing with Galeforce 9, and the 'Battlefield in a box range'.
Those are actually the same company...sort of like the difference between GW and Forge World...but the general sentiment is good.
They were separate companies when GF9 started doing the 'Battlefield in a box' range though, only being bought over by Battlefront later and being further integrated, but the symbiotic relationship was already there.
RiTides wrote: OP: I'm sorry, I'm too distracted by your username to comment correctly
Well then don't comment. I've already explained in here why my name is what it is, deal with it.
I am happy to see this debate roll out. I've seen a lot of slightly different views on where to place that line as well as some who want no line at all, and I respect all your opinions. I will admit, I favor GW stuff very heavily. (I would play other games, but no one near plays anything else). But after this conversation, some of you might be convincing me to slack off a little on my view of 3rd party companies. Those of you who took a very hostile stance, or posted rude sarcastic comments, you weren't helpful at all. Insulting somebody in a debate is a definitive way to make sure that won't listen or take into consideration anything you say. but anyways, Thank you all for your time. I'll keep on reading this thread here to see how the conversation goes.
Actually I think that the view is this by most people:
In tournaments, you follow that company's rules. If they say only their models, then ONLY their models.
Outside of tournaments, who gives a feth?
On the issue of where the line could/should be drawn: 3rd party model makers are okay, unless they're taking the sprues and recasting it (some people are okay with this, which is why I said most people)
This is not an attack on you OP, but you seem to be the ONLY one that has an issue with 3rd party models being used. It's fine that you play mostly GW games, but to say that a company can't make a model that they think will sell is just ludicrous :-/ As it has been pointed out, the almighty giant of the HHHobby, GW, started out as a 3rd party model maker when they were created.
I guess I'm having a hard time understanding your views, and yes I realize part of your issue is with the intent of the model being made, but you don't know the intent of CHS, you can only infer.
I am happy to see this debate roll out. I've seen a lot of slightly different views on where to place that line as well as some who want no line at all, and I respect all your opinions. I will admit, I favor GW stuff very heavily. (I would play other games, but no one near plays anything else). But after this conversation, some of you might be convincing me to slack off a little on my view of 3rd party companies. Those of you who took a very hostile stance, or posted rude sarcastic comments, you weren't helpful at all. Insulting somebody in a debate is a definitive way to make sure that won't listen or take into consideration anything you say. but anyways, Thank you all for your time. I'll keep on reading this thread here to see how the conversation goes.
That's actually a really mature position to take - most people, when confronted with argument, entrench themselves in their position. The fact that you're opening up to the idea is pretty impressive.
I think it's admirable that you support the company that produces your hobby - I do, too. I support the companies I wish to succeed, as well. The whole, "put your money where your mouth is".
One thing to think about is that a lot of your favorite sculptors at GW have left GW and sculpt independently, or for other companies. Sometimes those sculptors produce models that you wouldn't have though about ever purchasing before Look at the Perry brothers - amazing sculptors, in and out of GW, and I have no problem with people using Perry historicals in Warhammer - they match stylistically with many Perry GW sculpts anyway!
That brings me to another point... look at this from another angle. I've never had any real desire to own a Chaos/Marauder army... yet Tre Manor, one of my favorite sculptors on the planet, did his Red Box Games Helsvakt kickstarter, and I invested heavily in it. Now I'm basically getting a Chaos/Marauder army. I never in a million years would have bought the models from GW, but because Tre's sculpts are SOO good, I bought them. Now I'll have a Chaos/Marauder army to use in WHFB or Kings of War. Similarly, that's how that CHS Lizard Ogre is - someone could see that and decide, wow, I want those models, and now I want to field an army of models that look like that. They'd never have bought the GW lizardmen, as they are a different style and they didn't appeal to them... but the CHS lizard ogre does. Or maybe another range of miniatures. And as long as you can tell what they are, what's the harm in gaming with him?
I love my GW Praetorians. I love my kilted not-Praetorians from Victoria Lamb. Hopefully they will soon be joined by some Spartan Britannians. When I play Dystopian Legions my mates will let me use my GW and Vic Lamb stuff as Britannians but I wouldn't expect to use my non-GW stuff in my local GW store. Their store...their rules...their product.
Moronic Nonsense wrote: that is what I'm leaning towards. I know chapterhouse has crossed that line a couple of times, which is why they are in a big legal case right now, and why they always seem to be the example used in these debates.
It always irritates me when people assume that just because someone has filed a lawsuit, the defendant must have done something wrong. I collect data about this all of the time and it is frightening.
Just to be clear, being sued does not mean you did something wrong, and suing someone does not mean you are right. A lawsuit is an accusation only, and the prima facie standard is very, very low. It basically translates to "at first blush."
Like, if I find a small bit of dirt on my couch, I can accuse my dog of breaking the rules and getting on the couch. 'At first blush', this is a reasonable accusation. The dog walks in dirt outside and has a habit of going in and out of the house. The couch has dirt on it, therefore it is plausible that the dirt got on the couch because the dog jumped on it.
This prevents me from making a crazy accusation, like accusing you of stealing my bike when I have never owned a bike in my life, or accusing you of stealing my thoughts with your invisible hypno-disk. However, the standard is that in the absence of any other evidence to the contrary, the case could stand on its own. That is not very difficult to meet, even if you are completely in the wrong.
Maybe I really had dirt on my butt and it was my fault all along. Maybe my dog was inside all day and I did not know that. Maybe I knew it was really me who got the dirt on the couch, but I'd prefer my wife to think it was the dog, and the dog can't really defend itself, so....
Nuwisha wrote: Weeble, prima facie doesn't keep you from making stupid allegations, it just stops it from wasting time in court
Yup, you are correct sir. It does indeed prevent stupid accusations from being entertained by the Court, which effectively bars one from bringing such accusations because they 'fail at the threshold'. So one can technically make whatever accusations one wants, but without a colorable case they don't get in the door. On a practical level, it prevents a stupid case from going anywhere and in theory has the effect of curtailing frivolous litigation.
When you play D&D, do you use only wizards of the coast miniatures, or mix them with those of other companies? Do you undersatand how you are using a third party miniature, whenever you are using a non Wizards of Coast miniature to play D&D?
Third party miniatures will not hurt the business of big companies like GW, they have enough money to developed better products if faced with real competition.
My stand: If GW is not selling what I want I will buy elsewhere or make it and mold copies of my "original works" for my own use. I am not going to sit around and have someone ask me to wait for a demand they created.
The loyalty to a brand can be heartwarming to the investors.
Copying media like codexes or rulebooks are a big no-no.
Molding a copy of the miniatures are bad as well.
Anything after that is fair game.
They ARE obligated to challenge copyright infringement since their biggest nightmare is their "brand" of anything being determined as "lost trademark status" (look up Saran Wrap) so they do get SOME sympathy from me.
