I'm sorry but when I see Dreamforce dreadknights, colonial historical miniatures, and tier things if the like I just can't stand playing against them. I feel they don't fit the 40k aesthetic and are a cheap way into cheating what the hobby is. People spend not only time building and painting their mans, but time earning the money to buy the actual product. Those third part miniatures is kind of insulting to the people who saved for the real thing. What do you guys think?
I think what you buy is up to you and you can do whatever you please, but you might have more fun if you stepped off that high horse and let other people have their fun too.
There's absolutely nothing wrong with using 3rd party materials. I love the variety it brings to the table.
In the end, it's your choice, but it's definitely not the one I would make.
It's silly to argue that someone else's miniatures somehow devalue yours on the tabletop.
Why is it insulting to use a different model or pay less money? What do you care how much someone spent on their army?
What an atrocious attitude to have.
As a 3rd party model user myself, I think they add a lot to the game. I could buy metal Mordians from GW, or spend the same amount and get better detailed, multi-part models that look better with all the weapon options I'd ever need.
Heck, I'd say Victoria Miniatures look superior to the GWIG line!
The FWIG line is another story, but still, the only reason I can understand why people would eschew third parties would be for models that don't have the right aesthetic. Once that's achieved (with miniatures like Victoria), I don't see any good reason whatsoever.
Accolade wrote:Heck, I'd say Victoria Miniatures look superior to the GWIG line!
The FWIG line is another story, but still, the only reason I can understand why people would eschew third parties would be for models that don't have the right aesthetic. Once that's achieved (with miniatures like Victoria), I don't see any good reason whatsoever.
There's no doubt that anything Vic has produced that has a similarity to an IG line is superior in nearly every way.
FW and Vic is much closer, agreed.
Verviedi wrote:1 Daly troll thread per day limit please.
I'd normally agree with you, but this one isn't quite as trolly as the previous one. There's troll elements, but its not quite living under a bridge territory yet. I'm sure the mods will let us know either way.
Dalymiddleboro wrote: Just doesn't do it for me. It's like proxying action figures in a game. I feel that if you should play something you should support the IP.
Paying for the rules and codices, plus whatever characters you want is plenty to support the IP.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Arschbombe wrote: Heck, I won't play against anyone until they show me their receipts. They have to have paid full retail at a GW or from the webstore.
Anything else just ruins the game. I don't want to see some mangled crap you got in a lot from ebay.
Yup, no discounts.
Oh, and you have to use GW glue and paints only. And their measuring tape.
I disagree entirely with the OP, I'd be over the moon to see more 3rd Party minis on the board. Anything different from the GW norm, anything unusual or creative, anything that changes things up, from FW units to repurposed Historicals, makes the game far more varied and enjoyable.
I was just about to start a Lost and the Damned army and I didn't want to spend $2 for each pair of legs on ebay I needed for the FW kits. With those Penal Legion legs I can make them look even better than just generic Cadian legs.
Accolade wrote: Yeah, I'm pretty positive that the diversity of armies made my players has created a lot of the draw of 40k.
And again, Victoria miniatures are, IMO, better-looking than the potato men of the Cadian 431st. Comparing them to action figures is a little silly.
Its a slippery slope argument. Sure, throwing down a batman figure and calling it a dreadknight is where I'd question my opponent. Taking a Gundam and painting/converting it with 40k bits and calling it a Riptide is cool. Scratch-building vehicles using only plasticard and greenstuff is awesome.
Accolade wrote: Yeah, I'm pretty positive that the diversity of armies made my players has created a lot of the draw of 40k.
And again, Victoria miniatures are, IMO, better-looking than the potato men of the Cadian 431st. Comparing them to action figures is a little silly.
Its a slippery slope argument. Sure, throwing down a batman figure and calling it a dreadknight is where I'd question my opponent. Taking a Gundam and painting/converting it with 40k bits and calling it a Riptide is cool. Scratch-building vehicles using only plasticard and greenstuff is awesome.
Rule of cool and all that.
Oh most certainly! It's all about the difference between proxying and count-as, and putting some effort into making sure your models fit with the overall aesthetic of the army/game. And you're right, it's definitely a continuum where things like scratch-building are by far the best.
No problem whatsoever third party conversions and models help you create unique force not to mention any savings a person might get from doing so. I think it adds to the game not takes away from it.
There are countless forge worlds in the Imperium and all warmachines have to look the same (GW look)? I don't think so.
There are countless imperial worlds with recruits for the Astra Militarum in the Imperium and none can have historical uniforms? I don't think so.
Play in a GW store if you want limited creativity and GW miniatures only.
We have a guy at our local shop who only uses GW models in his armies. I have had him tell me that he would not play against anyone who uses non-GW models in an army because it demeans the game.
Of course, this is also the same guy who will come in and slap down $500 every other week saying he doesnt like money as he buys the ultra power units to build his current army (which he never paints or puts any heart in) which he will soon get bored with and resell for a fraction of what he paid.
my impression of his attitude is elitist snob who buys wins. Note that I am not saying that is my view on the attitude of anyone here but rather this guy from the local shop.
I found that many other companies have cool looking models that will often grab the feel of what I am trying to show in a models or unit better than GW and I have no problem using it. Sometimes a different company will have cheaper models that fit close enough to what I want to show and are cheaper and I have no problem using them either.
I like to convert models just to look different and give them more character that more closely matches the feel of my army. Never for an advantage but always for appearances.
A cookie cutter army in terms of visuals and models I find boring (not that they cant be made to look good, just that I couldnt use it as I would feel a lack of character).
Besides, not everyone can afford all official GW models and I feel denying them the ability to play the game for that reason to be a bit much.
Of course, i'd want it to be clos enough and show effort rather than just slapping down red solo cups and pieces of paper whith what they are supposed to be ritten on them.
I would disagree with the blanket statement of the OP, though some of the specific examples cited are understandable. I use quite a number of 3rd-part bits in my conversions and if anything they enhance the feel and authenticity of my army, not detract from it. I chose those bits by-and-large because their better than those GW offers or to give my army an interesting character or variation. I also have some scratch-built elements which are some of my most treasured models. They were all custom built to fit the army and ethos... are they less appropriate on the table-top because I didn't hand GW the money for them, but paid a talented fellow-gamer?
No problem whatsoever, although I do appreciate some in-game suspension of disbelief (rule of cool, as I've seen others say). So Greek Hoplites as Necron Warriors, stuff like that, I wouldn't like.
But if it looks like what its meant to be, I'm all for it, and I appreciate craft and conversions, maybe even moreso than the "real deal". It takes more effort to convert a model than to glue together what GW put in a box....it doesn't take away from the hobby at all, but rather adds to it.
Hanskrampf wrote: There are countless forge worlds in the Imperium and all warmachines have to look the same (GW look)? I don't think so.
There are countless imperial worlds with recruits for the Astra Militarum in the Imperium and none can have historical uniforms? I don't think so.
Play in a GW store if you want limited creativity and GW miniatures only.
I like anything different I think. Awesome conversions, awesome third party models, awesome themed armies, I'd love to see them across the table from me, no matter where the parts come from!
If it's just an action figure plonked down as a giant or a riptide or something, that's different. That seems very lazy. But if effort has clearly gone into it (even if the effort is in planning the theme and sourcing the parts) then go right ahead!
Also the 'they got it cheaper wah' argument is ridiculous. Half the time it probably doesn't even end up cheaper, and where do you draw the line? People who bought it from a discounter? Ebay? Birthday presents? If someone wants to save some money in an expensive hobby, who are you to stop them?
And one last thing... Those Victoria Miniatures are awesome! I know where I'm going if I ever do AM...
Dalymiddleboro wrote: I'm sorry but when I see Dreamforce dreadknights, colonial historical miniatures, and tier things if the like I just can't stand playing against them. I feel they don't fit the 40k aesthetic and are a cheap way into cheating what the hobby is.
I see you follow Kirby's viewpoint that "the hobby" isn't playing 40K, it's buying GW minis.
Dalymiddleboro wrote: People spend not only time building and painting their mans, but time earning the money to buy the actual product.
the people using third party minis paid actual money for the product they are using, and they probably spend time building and painting them, too. It's not like all the 3rd party minis are supplied fully painted and assembled. Unless some joker is using Heroclicks or something.
Dalymiddleboro wrote: Those third part miniatures is kind of insulting to the people who saved for the real thing. What do you guys think?
I think someone who feels insulted because other people are smarter about saving money is directing his anger at the wrong people. Maybe such a person should consider the fact that other models are so much cheaper than GW's to be indicitive of a problem on the part of GW, rather than some kind of failing on the part of the people looking to save money.
Dalymiddleboro wrote: I'm sorry but when I see Dreamforce dreadknights, colonial historical miniatures, and tier things if the like I just can't stand playing against them. I feel they don't fit the 40k aesthetic and are a cheap way into cheating what the hobby is. People spend not only time building and painting their mans, but time earning the money to buy the actual product. Those third part miniatures is kind of insulting to the people who saved for the real thing. What do you guys think?
Is this a clumsy attempt at a Tom Kirby astroturf campaign?
What a silly (to use as polite a word as I can come up with) stance... Arguing you don't like the aethetic of non-GW models is certainly a valid stance, but somehow claiming that it is "insulting" because it doesn't take as much time to earn money to pay for Geniune GW models? Yeah... No. Never mind that some of the 3rd party models are as, or more, expensive than the GW models.
And a "cheap way into cheating what the hobby is"? If the "hobby" in this case is, "Buying GW figures", then I suppose that might be true enough. If the hobby is a social act using plastic, metal, and resin figures to facilitate the imagainative process? Yeah... No.
I pretty much only play league and tournament games so I don't see any 3rd party stuff except bits. We all follow the 80% rule. I play pickup games at my local GW due to tables and terrain being far better than the FLGS so we have to use all GW models there too.
I think that 3rd party should be allowed in conversion parts or the odd model which is scratch built, but whole units or armies even is pushing it and it denies you playing in gw.
e.earnshaw wrote: I think that 3rd party should be allowed in conversion parts or the odd model which is scratch built, but whole units or armies even is pushing it and it denies you playing in gw.
Luckily, I don't play in a GW
Seriously though, can anyone say the Victoria guardsmen lines are inferior to the GW Cadian sets? I'm genuinely curious if this is just my opinion or pretty generally accepted:
I disagree that it is insulting or disrespectful, but in a way I can see the point.
I care mostly about effort, and I can see a point that many of these cases come about because of a lack of effort. I don't mean like, "I bought the Dreamforge Knight because I can't afford the real one" stuff...more like "this toy I already had lying around glued to a base is my $400 super heavy" type stuff.
We had a player that was often talking of latest army projects and drums up hype to play them, then shows up with a lot of action figures and repurposed other models. No one minds particularly, of course, but it does deflate the excitement somewhat -- the player in question will talk about his various armies and sort of interchange the rules and models, saying things like "oh yeah I have like 7,000 points of Guard" when really he just has a lot of random stuff that could stand in for them to an extent. Again, no one has a problem with this, but it tends to hit people out of left field a lot. It'd be different if he said it differently in the lead up, you know?
I mean, imagine if you had some guy talk for months about his Warhound, and then when the big Apoc game comes, it is killed by the opposing team's Optimus Prime ("Imperial Knight") or Alien vs. Predator toy ("Haruspex") glued to an AOL CD, it does somewhat take away. It's not so much the proxying, it's more when guys who are all "And I'll bring my Warhound!" show up with a Star Wars toy without batting an eye. It's especially harsh on guys who went out and bought something big to counter it (which has happened three straight times in my club, unfortunately).
I don't think it is bad, but this kind of proxying kind of jerks around one's expectations to a degree. I find super heavies/very expensive large single pieces are the worst offenders of this, as they often have sizes similar to much cheaper toys. Not everything has as much aesthetic synergy as the Gundam and Riptide designs.
Third party models that are supposed to represent things in the 40k fiction are fairly different, though. Someone wanting their army to look cool makes anything they do come off in that context; someone who wants a powerful or new army fast and without much work or quality also has everything they do put in that context.
So while I don't agree with the OP, I can understand the sentiment to some degree. There are guys who are in this just for the ability to say "I have [average points level of a game x 10] points of [random niche army that is really hard to collect / paint / find]" and it's surprising how much effort they put into NOT playing the stuff, or not even trying to make it look like what it represents in the game.
e.earnshaw wrote: I think that 3rd party should be allowed in conversion parts or the odd model which is scratch built, but whole units or armies even is pushing it and it denies you playing in gw.
I remember going to the grand opening in fairfax va. They pulled my models because I had used non-gw paints on them. As a youth, I was highly hurt. Likely the start of when I started to dislike them as a company.
Could I disagree with the OP anymore than I do? Hmm... nope. I love to see imaginations run wild. Some of the 3rd party bits are really good and add a lot of personality and detail to an army.
And yes, Victoria has amazing minis.
e.earnshaw wrote: I think that 3rd party should be allowed in conversion parts or the odd model which is scratch built, but whole units or armies even is pushing it and it denies you playing in gw.
And.....?
I'm not even sure I'd present that as a negative.
I'll declare a conflict of interests because many of my models are either third party alternates, use third party parts or are kit bashes, but I only ever use the "official" GW model if I like it and it represents what I feel is the best representation of that unit I can find.
Even if you're purely a gamer, and hate painting and modelling, why would you invest time and money (many kits will represent a few hours just to get to assembled grey plastic, even if taken no further) in ugly models when there are better options available? It isn't even always a question of price, I've happily spent more than the GW cost for the equivalent models to get a sculpt I prefer.
If it represents what it is supposed to well enough that it isn't confusing, then, as an opponent there really isn't a legitimate objection you can raise AFAICS.
Dalymiddleboro wrote: I'm sorry but when I see Dreamforce dreadknights, colonial historical miniatures, and tier things if the like I just can't stand playing against them. I feel they don't fit the 40k aesthetic and are a cheap way into cheating what the hobby is. People spend not only time building and painting their mans, but time earning the money to buy the actual product. Those third part miniatures is kind of insulting to the people who saved for the real thing. What do you guys think?
e.earnshaw wrote: I think that 3rd party should be allowed in conversion parts or the odd model which is scratch built, but whole units or armies even is pushing it and it denies you playing in gw.
I remember going to the grand opening in fairfax va. They pulled my models because I had used non-gw paints on them. As a youth, I was highly hurt. Likely the start of when I started to dislike them as a company.
Wait- they pulled your army because it used different PAINTS!? How the heck do they even figure that out, and why the do they care?!
I have deleted a lot of spammy rude posts where people chime in just to call OP a troll. Please don't do this. If you don't want to constructively and politely respond, just go about your business. Thanks.
I remember going to the grand opening in fairfax va. They pulled my models because I had used non-gw paints on them.
How could they tell? I mean, okay there was that period of a year or so when GW didn't have the color pink in their paint line (despite Slaanesh armies existing) and it took them 20 years to get more than 3 shades of "purple" (for the longest time it was one purple, one violet, and one realy dark blue that they decided to call purple because they think we're all colorblind or something) so if your models sported colors outside of the established range of paints available I could see a redshirt getting suspicious... But if you didn't use those colors, how would a GW drone know they weren't GW paints?
As long as its clear what the models are(or are standing in for) I couldn't care less if they are 3rd party models. Some of the 3rd party kits do look amazing, as long as it doesn't make anything more confusing, i.e. well the guys with sticks have lasguns, the guys with rocks have plasma guns, the guy with the big rock is a las cannon heavy weapons team(though if done right and suitably awesome I would still be fine with this).
e.earnshaw wrote: I think that 3rd party should be allowed in conversion parts or the odd model which is scratch built, but whole units or armies even is pushing it and it denies you playing in gw.
I remember going to the grand opening in fairfax va. They pulled my models because I had used non-gw paints on them. As a youth, I was highly hurt. Likely the start of when I started to dislike them as a company.
Wait- they pulled your army because it used different PAINTS!? How the heck do they even figure that out, and why the do they care?!
I wondered that too, until I remembered that I painted my first minis with testers enamels. You could tell.
e.earnshaw wrote: I think that 3rd party should be allowed in conversion parts or the odd model which is scratch built, but whole units or armies even is pushing it and it denies you playing in gw.
I remember going to the grand opening in fairfax va. They pulled my models because I had used non-gw paints on them. As a youth, I was highly hurt. Likely the start of when I started to dislike them as a company.
Wait- they pulled your army because it used different PAINTS!? How the heck do they even figure that out, and why the do they care?!
I had used oil based. My painting skills then were most definately not what they are now so werent as good as many others there. This was before the youngbloods section or anything like that. As a youth, i knew nothing about any requirements. i was just a bright eyed young fan excited to go to a big event. Like i said Likely the start of why I dislike the company. I like many of their games and cherish the memories of playing them with friends but the company itself is a different story.
Dalymiddleboro wrote: I'm sorry but when I see Dreamforce dreadknights, colonial historical miniatures, and tier things if the like I just can't stand playing against them. I feel they don't fit the 40k aesthetic and are a cheap way into cheating what the hobby is. People spend not only time building and painting their mans, but time earning the money to buy the actual product. Those third part miniatures is kind of insulting to the people who saved for the real thing. What do you guys think?
You're off base in a number of ways here, so I'll list them out:
1. Characterizing conversions as "a cheap way into cheating what the hobby is" shows that you either haven't been playing GW games very long, or just aren't aware... but converting models, and even making models completely from scratch, has always been part of the culture of GW games, and was strongly encouraged for a long time. Using complete third party models is a bit of a different animal, which I personally enjoy, but you're even lumping in conversions here, which are undoubtedly part of the culture of GW games.
2. Regarding "cheap", I personally have spent much more on making awesome conversions / counts-as models, than I would have buying the GW equivalent. As shown by the success of Forgeworld, people are willing to pay significantly more than GW prices for awesome models.
So, probably starting out with a less inflammatory premise/tone would net you better results here. If you don't like conversions, that's fine, but they are a very real part of "the hobby" of playing GW games, and often make things more expensive than the base model.
I'll give you a good example: I commissioned a sculptor to make weapon arms for the chaos dwarf weapon options that FW does not offer. This was a huge expense, and when I finish the project should look really awesome, perfectly in keeping with the GW aesthetic, but very much a "third party conversion". So, you need to be more specific about what you're talking about here, and not lump all third party model conversions as "cheap" and "cheating" those who saved for the real thing. When all is said and done, I'll have spent signifcantly more on my converted chaos dwarfs than someone who just stuck with the stock/standard GW arms and weaponry for them! And I think (hope!) they will look amazing
Most (all?) of my favorite armies done by others have been heavily converted too, whether from third party models/bits or from scratch.
So, you're cool with the potato face guardsman but the Victoria miniatures guardsman offend you? Why? Would they still offend you if they had a GW sticker on them?
As for conversions... I don't get it. Really, I don't get how all conversions could get on someone's nerves. I can kind of understand bad conversions but good ones? They rock.Hell, I have a few conversions in my 98% GW Marine army and they're most just repositioning the bolter arms. Would that offend you?
Personally, I don't give two gaks about what the other person have. Unless it's MLP:FIM miniatures. Then I'll be laughing my ass off.
Completely depends on the models and the players motives, if they are alternative models with a view to still fitting the 40k style, as companies like Victoria Miniatures are then awesome.
If it is someone week after week just wanting to use whatever models they have laying about without ever embracing the world by creating a cool army from miniauters sold by any company that fit the 40k style then i would lose interest playing them on a regular basis if im being honest.
I can kind of sympathize with the OP on this one. The GW miniature ranges do have certain aesthetics to them and if this is what attracts you to GW gaming then of course you are going to be disappointed to see something else on 'the other side of the table' TM.
That said, there are a lot of 3rd party pieces that can be made to fit the GW model aesthetics. Furthermore, if you look at the background art the miniature ranges are actually just a very narrow slice of the 40k aesthetics.
What frustrates me (only slightly) is when people chose third party alternatives for deliberate ambiguity. Like when you hear 'oh yeah, I picked up these guns cos they could make some really good plasma guns, meltas or flamers' - make your mind up! But this frustration isn't only a (edit: non-)GW problem; most of us are guilty of sometimes counting a weapon as one thing or another (like that chaos champion with a groovy sword arm mutation; is it a power sword or not? Varies by game).
As to being cheap; when I started the hobby using conversions and paint jobs were expected; some elite choices didn't have their own model ranges so at the very least you had to paint up regular models differently so your opponent could tell which marine was a tactical and which was a veteran (e.g. by helmet colour or freehand markings). I still retain this philosophy that basic models can be turned into elite ones with simple conversion and/or paint work.
I am perfectly fine with third party substitutes and scratchbuilt models. *** BUT *** they must have weapons that are clearly identifiable and look like the intended weapons.
I won't accept a table full of Flames of War miniatures substituted for Imperial Guard, I won't play with someone who uses M16s and calls them lasrifles, or who calls a H&K a laspistol.
Nor will I accept a Sherman as a LRMBT or a M39 as a Chimera. I would jokingly tell them that sure they can use it, but they need to play it as a 38,000 year old antique with S1, AV1. But if someone makes an LRMBT out of plasticard, and it has a roughly identical base size to a real one, I will happily accept that, no problem.
I guess, part of it is also effort. If someone builds custom Tau from scratch and it obviously took them two hundred hours to make ten models, of course I'm going to let them use them, even if they look funky or weird. But, if they want to use some robotech units, forget it.
Also, I have no problem with third party models that are recasts. Not that I can tell, usually, but where or how they got it isn't really my business.
I won't accept a table full of Flames of War miniatures substituted for Imperial Guard
That would probably be hard given that most of the infantry would barely come up the knee on a Cadian guardsmen, and event the largest tank would struggle to match most Bike models for size
What frustrates me (only slightly) is when people chose third party alternatives for deliberate ambiguity. Like when you hear 'oh yeah, I picked up these guns cos they could make some really good plasma guns, meltas or flamers' - make your mind up! But this frustration isn't only a GW problem; most of us are guilty of sometimes counting a weapon as one thing or another (like that chaos champion with a groovy sword arm mutation; is it a power sword or not? Varies by game).
If someone used a generic weapon in most of their specials/heavy slots, and I had to guess at what was what or they just decided before each game "That's a plasma and that's a multimelta", no, I'd actually politely decline the game and explain why.
I won't accept a table full of Flames of War miniatures substituted for Imperial Guard
That would probably be hard given that most of the infantry would barely come up the knee on a Cadian guardsmen, and event the largest tank would struggle to match most Bike models for size
Well GW itself said that people that sold their stuff cheaper were stealing from them. So those that buy cheaper models made or not made by GW are buying stolen goods.
Extreme examples such as that could gain you a lot of flames. I know when I did, I got about 12 pages of them. you should be fine though. lol
i honestly wouldnt mind models using m16s as las rifles under a few conditions... 1. that the size be "correct". 2. that it be consistant. I dont want the m16 on THIS guy to be a las gun while the m16 on THAT guy to be a melta gun. Pretty much the same for the tanks. So long as the size is right, the weapons placed close enough and they be consistant. Many just LIKE the retro feel of older real world tanks.
Often times, it is just for cool value. I own 3 valkrie/vendettas but I wanted to be able to field vendettas that looked different than valkries so i converted up a ork dakka jet with the 3 twin linked guns being 3 twin linked las cannons. I've gotten a lot of compliments on it and aside from a few "blasphemies!" (said in jest), no one has ever complained. (before you ask, where do the passengers ride?, I put handles on the tops of the wings for them to hold onto if they are brave enough to ride. For some reason, my troops prefer to remain landbound)
Dalymiddleboro wrote: I'm sorry but when I see Dreamforce dreadknights, colonial historical miniatures, and tier things if the like I just can't stand playing against them. I feel they don't fit the 40k aesthetic and are a cheap way into cheating what the hobby is. People spend not only time building and painting their mans, but time earning the money to buy the actual product. Those third part miniatures is kind of insulting to the people who saved for the real thing. What do you guys think?
I'm not a fan of massive 3rd party proxy usage. I'd rather play "official" models built under the same aesthetic and intended for the same game than debatable "counts as" stand ins. I tend towards rule of cool like most people, though, and things like 3rd party bits don't phase me.
I also understand people getting annoyed at cheap proxy armies. I appreciate the money saving aspect as I had base-only proxy armies for a month so I could learn my codex and only buy units I knew I'd use. I asked my friends beforehand and they were fine with it. Now that I know what to buy I'm buying GW to be fair to my friends who also ponied up to have the "correct" models. It'd feel unfair if my opponent didn't do the same (obvious exception for try-before-you-buy).
There's also the "support the IP" argument.
Not sure where the "if you don't like 3rd party proxies you're an elitist donkey-cave" mindset came from. I'm entitled to my preferences whether you like them or not.
Dalymiddleboro wrote: Just doesn't do it for me. It's like proxying action figures in a game. I feel that if you should play something you should support the IP.
But only when the game has an IP, right? Because that's not how it worked for years with historical gaming.
Personally I don't care. Some third party stuff looks far better than anything GW does, some of it looks like a different aesthetic but if you're doing an entire army with that aesthetic then it's fine, mixing and matching though is kinda odd.
If you want to put in the time and energy to get third-party stuff in the volume you need for Warhammer and work out consistent armament equivalencies such that your opponent can tell what's what without having to ask constantly you've put at least three times as much effort into the game as someone who buys some Space Marines, spray-paints them a solid colour, and dumps them on the battlefield. Using GW's models doesn't imply you're inherently more invested in the hobby aspect.
Effort and/or enthusiasm is all I require for the social contract to be fulfied by my standards. I enjoy a great looking army as much as I enjoy someone telling me all the cool things about their army.
I think this is very much dependent on the army itself. I have played against Tau armies which use gundam toys and godzilla toys to represent riptides... not my favorite.
I have also played against people who use some fantastic 3rd party stuff, like scibor for example. Some 3rd party companies create amazing figures which look fantastic.
The bottom line for me comes to where we're playing and what we're doing. If I am chumming around with my pals in the basement, then go ahead and use a proxy model for your flyrant or whatever, but if I go to an event, I expect a certain level of commitment, whether that mean paint, or conversions, or even 3rd party models.
Neither of these examples bother me as much as the people who come to event with unassembled models, or things which look like they were painted this morning, or not at all.
I recently played in a large GT in my area, and played against an opponent who had several tanks which were literally plopped together... not glued, not even really assembled... and definitely not on flying stands.
I'm a solid cat so I didn't raise a stink or anything, but it really does take something away from the game.
Also, as an aside, remember that the Ork army was founded on conversions. I mean the only vehicles they had for a long time were looted wagons and various trukks... which were usually Rhino or Leman Russ conversions. I have a friend who has a heavily converted Ork army, with many 3rd party sources used in his conversions, but he created a great look for his force, and receives many complements when he brings them to events. He even took a $2 kids helicopter toy bought at a yard sale and heavily converted it into a looted wagon helicopter (something really missing in the Ork line). Orks are a huge source of some of the best non-GW conversions and models. IMHO
Gangrel767 wrote: I have played against Tau armies which use gundam toys and godzilla toys to represent riptides... not my favorite.
At least Godzilla is a Monstrous Creature
Cards on the table time - The guy is a friend of mine that I have met through traveling in my area going to tournaments. He really is one of the best guys to have a game with, and really not a WAAC player as it might seem in my statement above. And honestly his whole army is very gundam themed, not only the non-GW models but the paint schemes and such on the GW models as well.
...BUT I do remember my first game against him and I said to myself "I can't believe I'm fighting ef-ing godzilla"
Median Trace wrote: Effort and/or enthusiasm is all I require for the social contract to be fulfied by my standards. I enjoy a great looking army as much as I enjoy someone telling me all the cool things about their army.
I don't even mind if the army doesn't look great; as long as there is enthusiasm. The worst thing that can happen is when you get a game with one of those guys who just seem to hate everything about the hobby and the game; it just leaves you wondering why they even take part!
I love third party minis, use loads of them for my IG. I've used a few other ones for my Fallen Angels, and added wings to the helmet to give them a nice pre-Heresy knight look. They add loads of flavour.
As long as the weapons are WYSIWYG, I'm fine with it.
Also, you can't make Rough Riders without 3rd party minis, more or less.
I remember a time when GW encouraged conversions and creativity. Behold! The most offensive conversion ever! (to the OP, unless the OP is just sad when people don't give GW monies.)
It is! Plastic spoons also feature prominently. The 1st edition 40k Compendium has the article showing you how to make one of your own and rules for using it! I miss the old days.
MWHistorian wrote: I remember a time when GW encouraged conversions and creativity. Behold! The most offensive conversion ever! (to the OP, unless the OP is just sad when people don't give GW monies.)
WD used to have step by step instructions for stuff like that. Good ole days indeed!
He kinda has a point. though slightly. nothing is more immersion breaking then playing a game and suddenly noticing you are in the world of WW2 with Sherman fighting my rhinos.
But he is wrong in that what that is is proxies not 3rd party models and conversions.
And a great deal of 3rd party conversions and models look and match GW aesthetics considering a lot is based off of GW work. As well a lot of them are for things that GW does care about or are not making in the first place.
Though i do agree on Dream forge. the regular troopers dont look right in 40k
Gangrel767 wrote: I have played against Tau armies which use gundam toys and godzilla toys to represent riptides... not my favorite.
At least Godzilla is a Monstrous Creature
Cards on the table time - The guy is a friend of mine that I have met through traveling in my area going to tournaments. He really is one of the best guys to have a game with, and really not a WAAC player as it might seem in my statement above. And honestly his whole army is very gundam themed, not only the non-GW models but the paint schemes and such on the GW models as well.
...BUT I do remember my first game against him and I said to myself "I can't believe I'm fighting ef-ing godzilla"
Would you have felt better if he was playing Tyranids?
It is! Plastic spoons also feature prominently. The 1st edition 40k Compendium has the article showing you how to make one of your own and rules for using it! I miss the old days.
Love it.
I can't really miss it, seeing as I started in '10, but it'd be nice if they did things like that again.
MWHistorian wrote: I remember a time when GW encouraged conversions and creativity. Behold! The most offensive conversion ever! (to the OP, unless the OP is just sad when people don't give GW monies.)
God, how did we go from that to Wood Elves being specifically required to use Citadel-brand Forests for their magic?
It is! Plastic spoons also feature prominently. The 1st edition 40k Compendium has the article showing you how to make one of your own and rules for using it! I miss the old days.
That article does pretty much have a disclaimer that some people might find the idea of making models from junk offensive though. Right? They wanted to do an article on one of their other scratch builds, but they were too worried about it because so many of their scratch builds were rip offs of other popular sci fi brands.
I really like the paint job on that junk build though; the impression of texture on the panels, the free hand that creates the impression of panels, the painted grills, etc. My only complaint is the scale seems off compared to the marines surrounding it. I'd love it if everyone tried to get involved with the hobby to this level!
I myself had a go at scratch building an upscaled mk1 chaos rhino and a cultist vindicator using the gobsmasha hull template. I hope this doesn't offend DMB (or other posters) too much.
MWHistorian wrote: I remember a time when GW encouraged conversions and creativity. Behold! The most offensive conversion ever! (to the OP, unless the OP is just sad when people don't give GW monies.)
Damn GW! Encouraging gamers to buy deodorant! The fiends!
Desubot wrote: He kinda has a point. though slightly. nothing is more immersion breaking then playing a game and suddenly noticing you are in the world of WW2 with Sherman fighting my rhinos.
But he is wrong in that what that is is proxies not 3rd party models and conversions.
And a great deal of 3rd party conversions and models look and match GW aesthetics considering a lot is based off of GW work. As well a lot of them are for things that GW does care about or are not making in the first place.
Though i do agree on Dream forge. the regular troopers dont look right in 40k
What does look right though?
In terms of guard its pretty fluffy for there to be so many planets that all have unique customs, weapons, uniforms and vehicles yet people still find some things that dont look like guard?
If someone used American indians with guns as an army would you say it doesnt fit the theme? Because its a regiment in one of the Guard Codex I have. That same codex has a German WW2 tank with some minor conversions featured in the hobby section.
I think the problem here is that you simply dont like the look of some models. Those dream forge troopers look 40k to me, as does an american soldier, as does sherman. Not liking them is one thing, but there is no theme in the Guard for example.
Its the Guard, they use cave men to fight their wars even. They actually take the time to gather up cave men, feed and prepare them and take them to battle zones armed with nothing but clubs etc, and a sherman breaks the theme?
MWHistorian wrote: I remember a time when GW encouraged conversions and creativity. Behold! The most offensive conversion ever! (to the OP, unless the OP is just sad when people don't give GW monies.)
Damn GW! Encouraging gamers to buy deodorant! The fiends!
Buy it, but not USE it. Deodorant is for modeling, darn it!
I think the problem here is that you simply dont like the look of some models. Those dream forge troopers look 40k to me, as does an american soldier, as does sherman. Not liking them is one thing, but there is no theme in the Guard for example.
Its the Guard, they use cave men to fight their wars even. They actually take the time to gather up cave men, feed and prepare them and take them to battle zones armed with nothing but clubs etc, and a sherman breaks the theme?
Keep thinking because you are wrong about why i dislike em.
I dislike dream forge troopers as looks nothing like anything established in fluff. and saying fluff wise that there are many variaty is a cop out to let people use what they want.
And dont get me wrong. I have zero issues actually playing with them. and bonus points if they are painted well.
A sherman is a sherman and it looks like a sherman which we know is a sherman and it being in the year 40k certainly breaks immersion.
I think the problem here is that you simply dont like the look of some models. Those dream forge troopers look 40k to me, as does an american soldier, as does sherman. Not liking them is one thing, but there is no theme in the Guard for example.
Its the Guard, they use cave men to fight their wars even. They actually take the time to gather up cave men, feed and prepare them and take them to battle zones armed with nothing but clubs etc, and a sherman breaks the theme?
Keep thinking because you are wrong about why i dislike em.
I dislike dream forge troopers as looks nothing like anything established in fluff. and saying fluff wise that there are many variaty is a cop out to let people use what they want.
And dont get me wrong. I have zero issues actually playing with them. and bonus points if they are painted well.
A sherman is a sherman and it looks like a sherman which we know is a sherman and it being in the year 40k certainly breaks immersion.
Its not a cop out... its in all the codices... its what made the guard the guard and always has.
What about them looks nothing like in the fluff? They are humans with guns. Thats a guardsmen. In fact they dont even need to ave a gun... or be human. That is the fluff. Not some cop out.
I just get annoyed when people say that a human with a gun, or a human tank breaks immersion or ruins the fluff, when its perfectly fluffy.
GW once had a huge Tallinn armored display that used historic bits and GW bits all over the place once. Looked awesome.
On the flip side, a KV-2 with some 40k bits (cannon barrel, gubbins, some aquilas) can easily make a convincing 40k model, seeing as the Ragnarok is pretty much a modified KV-2.
Giant box turret looks cool as hell, whether its reality or sci-fi.
Its not a cop out... its in all the codices... its what made the guard the guard and always has.
What about them looks nothing like in the fluff? They are humans with guns. Thats a guardsmen. In fact they dont even need to ave a gun... or be human. That is the fluff. Not some cop out.
Its the generic sci fi armor. They are humes with guns and armor that looks right out of halo or infinity. There are aesthetic choices even in fluff and the 40k universe is dominated by gothic styles.
As to blacksails. a good conversion is another thing entirely. if you can convincingly convert something to look like it actually is part of 40k then theirs no issue. im talking about the guy that buys cheap (well relatively ) alternative models with no thought in even converting em to use them for gaming.
I've just seen this topic, and I think Charles Babbage said it best:
I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question.
Closest I can come is that there's just been a sip or two too much kool-aid drunk.
I'm still quite fond of 40Kand WFB fluff. One of the few aspects of GW I do still like; but not all of it, and some if what I do like diverges quite a bit from the narrow, rules-overshadowed stuff laid out in codexes. (Dan Abnett's inquisitor novels and Graham MacNeill's mechanicus novels have little of what you'd see in-game, beyond the occasional titan, leman russ, or cadian. In fact cadian kasrkin originated in Dan Abnett's Malleus, IIRC) And I'll be kerjiggered if I'm forced to spend goofy amounts of funds on GW's not-often-that-great models to use with their atrocious rules, just to dip into their vaunted IP.
That's the awful situation that too many 40K fans get themselves conditioned or indoctrinated into, IMO. That fluff and rules and models are utterly inseperable. One of the two most depressing statements I've heard from more than one GW fanboy is "I keep buying and playing 40K because I like the fluff". (Along with "I have to keep spending because I've spent too much already") You don't have to; and believe me it's very freeing when you realise that.
I have or know all the 40K fluff I need, and that's all I need from GW. I can find better, compatible rules and minis elsewhere. If that 'damages their IP', well, they'll be kerjiggered...
Its not a cop out... its in all the codices... its what made the guard the guard and always has.
What about them looks nothing like in the fluff? They are humans with guns. Thats a guardsmen. In fact they dont even need to ave a gun... or be human. That is the fluff. Not some cop out.
Its the generic sci fi armor. They are humes with guns and armor that looks right out of halo or infinity. There are aesthetic choices even in fluff and the 40k universe is dominated by gothic styles.
As to blacksails. a good conversion is another thing entirely. if you can convincingly convert something to look like it actually is part of 40k then theirs no issue. im talking about the guy that buys cheap (well relatively ) alternative models with no thought in even converting em to use them for gaming.
You realise this post effectively outlines your arguments as "everything is ok as long as I say it is" right? You're saying that because someone's vision of their army differs from what you think it should, but fits your ideas, then it's ok, but if it doesn't look how you think it should, then you have a problem?
40K is engineered deliberately to leave big enough gaps to accommodate pretty much anything. Hell, even the OP constantly posts about his Space Kossacks, not really anything particularly gothic or grim dark about red faced men in furry hats.
Sure, I wouldn't really appreciate someone buying a load of 1/35 tanks and sticking them down on the table and calling them Leman Russes, but my perception from the OP it isn't as much about those sorts of people as the sorts who spend immense time, effort and expense tracking down parts and kits in order to realise their vision of an army, rather than thoughtlessly buy models off the shelf, because the OP has some sort of very specific, homogenised, sanitised visions of what he wants his40K to be and can't handle others who may have different ideas.
gak models will always look like gak, GW or not, great models will always look awesome, GW or not.
Its not a cop out... its in all the codices... its what made the guard the guard and always has.
What about them looks nothing like in the fluff? They are humans with guns. Thats a guardsmen. In fact they dont even need to ave a gun... or be human. That is the fluff. Not some cop out.
Its the generic sci fi armor. They are humes with guns and armor that looks right out of halo or infinity. There are aesthetic choices even in fluff and the 40k universe is dominated by gothic styles.
As to blacksails. a good conversion is another thing entirely. if you can convincingly convert something to look like it actually is part of 40k then theirs no issue. im talking about the guy that buys cheap (well relatively ) alternative models with no thought in even converting em to use them for gaming.
You realise this post effectively outlines your arguments as "everything is ok as long as I say it is" right? You're saying that because someone's vision of their army differs from what you think it should, but fits your ideas, then it's ok, but if it doesn't look how you think it should, then you have a problem?
40K is engineered deliberately to leave big enough gaps to accommodate pretty much anything. Hell, even the OP constantly posts about his Space Kossacks, not really anything particularly gothic or grim dark about red faced men in furry hats.
Sure, I wouldn't really appreciate someone buying a load of 1/35 tanks and sticking them down on the table and calling them Leman Russes, but my perception from the OP it isn't as much about those sorts of people as the sorts who spend immense time, effort and expense tracking down parts and kits in order to realise their vision of an army, rather than thoughtlessly buy models off the shelf, because the OP has some sort of very specific, homogenised, sanitised visions of what he wants his40K to be and can't handle others who may have different ideas.
gak models will always look like gak, GW or not, great models will always look awesome, GW or not.
Well Yeah im saying i partially agree with OP (oh god why) that IMO certain 3rd party models and proxy armies completely break immersion for me. and i certainly dont have to except that your custom fluff of female space marines of the 13th secret legion. i can appreciate the time and effort that went into making and painting them but i cant help but roll my eyes at all the "reasons" it should exist.
Its also the reason i dislike dream forge troopers. they look way sci fi tastic with no real connection to the 40k fluff besides guy with guns. Sure you could come up with a million reasons as to why they are the only ones decked out in halo armor but it doesn't mean i have to accept it.
There's definitely points on a graph here - I mean Hello Kitty Marines are not to be considered from the same viewpoint as a custom guard regiment featuring parts from half a dozen third parties in order to get the look just right!
Not to disparage anyone's Hello Kitty Marines, but even those who are fans would have to admit they make suspension of disbelief tough!
That's probably my line in the sand, I'm not a humourless person, I don't take 40K seriously in any way, but I do find something mildly offensive about "comedy" army concepts. They're like slogan T Shirts, they may be amusing on first look, but when they've been through the laundry three of four times and everyone you know has seen it, they start to lose their appeal.
Its not a cop out... its in all the codices... its what made the guard the guard and always has.
What about them looks nothing like in the fluff? They are humans with guns. Thats a guardsmen. In fact they dont even need to ave a gun... or be human. That is the fluff. Not some cop out.
Its the generic sci fi armor. They are humes with guns and armor that looks right out of halo or infinity. There are aesthetic choices even in fluff and the 40k universe is dominated by gothic styles.
As to blacksails. a good conversion is another thing entirely. if you can convincingly convert something to look like it actually is part of 40k then theirs no issue. im talking about the guy that buys cheap (well relatively ) alternative models with no thought in even converting em to use them for gaming.
You realise this post effectively outlines your arguments as "everything is ok as long as I say it is" right? You're saying that because someone's vision of their army differs from what you think it should, but fits your ideas, then it's ok, but if it doesn't look how you think it should, then you have a problem?
40K is engineered deliberately to leave big enough gaps to accommodate pretty much anything. Hell, even the OP constantly posts about his Space Kossacks, not really anything particularly gothic or grim dark about red faced men in furry hats.
Sure, I wouldn't really appreciate someone buying a load of 1/35 tanks and sticking them down on the table and calling them Leman Russes, but my perception from the OP it isn't as much about those sorts of people as the sorts who spend immense time, effort and expense tracking down parts and kits in order to realise their vision of an army, rather than thoughtlessly buy models off the shelf, because the OP has some sort of very specific, homogenised, sanitised visions of what he wants his40K to be and can't handle others who may have different ideas.
gak models will always look like gak, GW or not, great models will always look awesome, GW or not.
I knew you followed my posts! Cheers mate!
What does red faced mean?
Also Cossacks are Eastern European... Everything is grimdark about Eastern Europe!
Azreal13 wrote: There's definitely points on a graph here - I mean Hello Kitty Marines are not to be considered from the same viewpoint as a custom guard regiment featuring parts from half a dozen third parties in order to get the look just right!
Not to disparage anyone's Hello Kitty Marines, but even those who are fans would have to admit they make suspension of disbelief tough!
That's probably my line in the sand, I'm not a humourless person, I don't take 40K seriously in any way, but I do find something mildly offensive about "comedy" army concepts. They're like slogan T Shirts, they may be amusing on first look, but when they've been through the laundry three of four times and everyone you know has seen it, they start to lose their appeal.
Indeed. i may defend the point but im no where near serious about 40k enough to give an actuall damn about it ( aka i wont play you because of X)
Also For all that is delicious please do not take my defending a DMB thread as me white knighting GW.
I like my alternative models and bits as much as the next guy. massive for Victoria Mad robo and anvil and all the others that pop up here.
Well, since the original question is disrespectful, allow me to be brutally honest...
I look at 100% GW, in-print, unconverted armies the same way I look at a bare plastic gunline.
The entire point of the game IMO is to inject your own personality and imagination into the army you build.
If you only feel comfortable playing an out of box cookie cutter army you most likely have a deficit in skill, creativity, or personality.
Jimsolo wrote: Of course they don't detract from the hobby. That's a nonsensical argument, made not out of any true conviction, but a desire to start a fight.
I like the way you call him a troll in all but name.
This is a squad of my guardsmen. If I want to make my mixed male/female regiment I have no choice but to seek 3rd party models for my female guardsmen. The guns aren't perfect, and if I had better modelling skill, I'd probably replace them with lasguns. But if these are 'too immersion breaking' then I don't know what to say. (I'd have used the Victoria miniatures had they existed when I bought these, and I'll still probably get them at some point.)
Yeah, I only have my cell phone camera, which isn't great, and I don't have a great setup for taking pictures either. This one was just quickly slapped together to give an idea of what they look like.
Azreal13 wrote: So you're rejecting a model's eligibility as counts-as on the basis of the calibre of it's barrels?
You sure you're not just arguing that alt models are fine unless you think they aren't....?
No Im saying a Land raider doesnt look like a WW1 Tank
nor does a sherman look like a russ
Im also not saying i would never play with some one that uses these models
what i AM saying is that it does break immersion from the 40k universe as i can imperially say that what i am looking at is a sherman.
you aut to stop assuming what im thinking.
I think... you are saying you can see why someone doesnt like it because some models dont fit your idea of 40k fitting. Like a sherman. Or the dreamforge soldiers.
Its not that you dont like, but that you dont see them as very 40k looking...
To me it seemed like you just didnt like some models.
What im saying and litterally what i am saying is that.
I feel that some proxied/converted/countsas/3rdparty armies in my honest opinion look so out of place that it breaks my immersion when im playing my game as per the original topic
Yeah, a bunch of green army men wouldn't be something that I'd appreciate seeing on the table too often. Although using them to see if the real model is worth buying would get a pass for a bit.
Well like i said its about the immersion. i guess its hard for everyone to understand but
When i take the time to play/make a list and everything. even in pick up games i try to picture it as a real battle. like a game of DOW.
Suddenly i find my imperial fists fighting Starwars imperial storm troopers and now its more like playing some kinda supersmash game.
I can still appreciate the conversion and everything and heck i think a army like that would be cool
And i enjoy both DOW and SS, but it doesn't feel like DOW at some point ya know? and as per the OT i do feel it takes away from the game. (in specific cases. like fighting a bunch of xeno morphs. instead of nids)
Makumba wrote: Well GW itself said that people that sold their stuff cheaper were stealing from them. So those that buy cheaper models made or not made by GW are buying stolen goods.
Luckily GW don't get to define the concept of theft. If what you are saying is true then GW probably shouldn't be selling there models to people who sell them on.
Dalymiddleboro wrote: I'm sorry but when I see Dreamforce dreadknights, colonial historical miniatures, and tier things if the like I just can't stand playing against them. I feel they don't fit the 40k aesthetic and are a cheap way into cheating what the hobby is. People spend not only time building and painting their mans, but time earning the money to buy the actual product. Those third part miniatures is kind of insulting to the people who saved for the real thing. What do you guys think?
I think that's quite silly.
To me at least the only thing that matters is if everything is the right size, it's easy to tell what the miniatures are/what they represent, and whether or not they look good.
If someone chooses to not buy Games Workshop miniatures, or to use a certain brand of third-party miniatures, or to hand-sculpt their miniatures, or whatever, that's all cool. It's about the effort they put in making their army, not the amount of money they forked over to get their plastic or what brand they used. And really, a good amount of that third party stuff costs as much or more than GW.
As for the "aesthetic" thing, Warhammer has a pretty wide range of aesthetics. And what if someone made something exclusively out of GW bits that didn't match your perception of the "warhammer aesthetic"? Would you refuse to play against them then?
You have every right to begrudge stuff and refuse to play against whoever you want, but I don't think it's a proper attitude for a real hobbyist. GW is hardly all-encompassing in the hobby after all, and nobody wants to play against a spoilsport.
I think you're doing a good job of stirring the pot.
I own a DreamForge Games Leviathan Crusader, and have played it as a Titan. It is a fantastic model, and it looks great. It matches well with the Grey Knights aesthetic. It is dramatically larger and better than any GW Dreadknight, and suggesting otherwise is the height of ignorance.
I have converted several vehicles, some very heavy conversions, such as my Hellhounds, Hydra, closed-top Basilisk, etc. Also, heavy conversion Defilers. All of those conversions required a lot more time and effort compared to a stock GW kit. Saying that they somehow devalue a game, when the original 40k vehicles were all pure scratchbuilds, is completely ludicrous.
As for earning the money, take a good look at my signature. I can literally field 100s of models, dozens of vehicles. My Guard, Inquisition, Eldar and Fantasy armies are basically all metal infantry. I choose to convert and buy 3rd party, because I want my army to look a certain way.
Swastakowey wrote: What about them looks nothing like in the fluff? They are humans with guns. Thats a guardsmen. In fact they dont even need to ave a gun... or be human. That is the fluff. Not some cop out.
Its the generic sci fi armor. They are humes with guns and armor that looks right out of halo or infinity. There are aesthetic choices even in fluff and the 40k universe is dominated by gothic styles.
Do you have the early Imperial Guard Codices? If so, there is a multi-page spread of various Imperial Guard regiments wearing a wide variety of equipment for a wide variety of technology levels. The Imperial Guard is canonically very diverse, and this is supported by decades of Fluff. DreamForge infantry could definitely stand in as Guardsmen from a very high-tech world.
JohnHwangDD wrote: . DreamForge infantry could definitely stand in as Guardsmen from a very high-tech world.
If it was just a matter of the armour, sure. But they're all out of scale for 40K as well.
I mean, GW aren't particularly consistent with scale to begin with, but the Dreamforge guys, as nice as they are, just push the bounds a little too far for my taste.
JohnHwangDD wrote: . DreamForge infantry could definitely stand in as Guardsmen from a very high-tech world.
If it was just a matter of the armour, sure. But they're all out of scale for 40K as well.
I mean, GW aren't particularly consistent with scale to begin with, but the Dreamforge guys, as nice as they are, just push the bounds a little too far for my taste.
OK, posit a low gravity high tech Imperial world, resulting in extra-tall humans / ab-humans.
There are some pretty good Warmachine minis that work well as death cult assassins, better than the GW ones in my opinion.
Compare the Daughters of the flame side by side with the Death Cult assassins:
Spoiler:
Spoiler:
The one official Death Cultist doesn't even have the two swords that they are all supposed to have, and the poses are identical, even if there are superficial differences between the clothing of the two. The Daughters have four unique poses, and don't look like S&M fetishists, while still keeping close enough to the 40k aesthetic that they don't look out of place.
Boggy Man wrote: Well, since the original question is disrespectful, allow me to be brutally honest...
I look at 100% GW, in-print, unconverted armies the same way I look at a bare plastic gunline.
The entire point of the game IMO is to inject your own personality and imagination into the army you build.
If you only feel comfortable playing an out of box cookie cutter army you most likely have a deficit in skill, creativity, or personality.
As someone who has an army of both Kriegsmen and Scions who are 100% GW, Find a better way to express this last sentiment. Something along the lines of "I disagree" would be good, motyak
So many "Unseen" Mechs from Battletech (RDF side) are coming back unto the table top for Robotech Tactics...getting to a point now of re-interest in Battletech. Someone seriously thinking on making a run on Ebay for the Unseen (not me)
Dalymiddleboro wrote: but time earning the money to buy the actual product. Those third part miniatures is kind of insulting to the people who saved for the real thing.
Yea I am disgusted to my core to know think that poor people try to play this game. Third party miniatures is for nothing but dirty communists. We must keep the plebeians out of the game and keep it only for the pure hardworking rich. I mean, even though people could be born with a lot of money and not have needed to save...
Oh woops wait this is a troll, I'll see miself out.
I would have to wonder if the OP feels trod upon if he encounters someone who can field an entire 2K points army of GW figures after working for, like, three hours.
OK, seriously folks, time to stop and have a good, hard look at yourselves.
Contentious topics only turn into troll-fests if people let them go that way. Spend more time (politely!) discussing the topic and less time examining the motivations of those starting them, and we wouldn't have to waste so much time deleting nonsense.
Zande4 wrote: @insaniak The OP is a troll though, this thread had no other purpose.
The OP's reasons (whatever they may be) for starting a thread have no bearing on whether or not people responding to that thread should follow the rules of the site.
If we feel that a thread is genuinely unlikely to generate reasonable discussion, we'll lock it. This one wasn't locked because it's an interesting topic of discussion... provided people stick to the actual discussion.
Over 50% of the threads he make get locked.
No they don't.
And it wouldn't matter if they did. Fewer of them would get locked if they weren't filled with people complaining about who they were staretd by instead of sticking to the topic.
I'm actually planning an IG army using austro hungarian ww1 models. They will cost more than the IG would... but it fits my theme of the world I invented for my IG to live on.
I'd use third-party models more myself, but I have a hell of a time remembering (sometimes even figuring out) what's gonna count as each different weapon when I start looking at miniatures online. Swords and axes and maces and shields are easy enough, but then you get into different types of special and heavy weapons from other sci-fi stuff that seem to have little visual analogue to 40k weapons.
And then I start to feel like using non-40k models to play 40k with just doesn't feel authentic to the setting. It'd be like playing a Star Wars game with miniatures of Redshirts or SG teams or infantry armed with powerguns. It feels weird to say, "Okay, and this squad fires their boltguns, flamer, and meltagun..." when those models clearly are not armed with those weapons. It's the same feeling I get when I try to use my not-Celestine model. I always call her Celestine, because it's the Celestine model (slightly modified), using the Celestine rules, and it feels weird to not call her that just because the bits of fanfiction I wrote involve a character who was specifically built-up to be a replacement for Celestine.
Edit: But that's just me. I don't pretend that other people feel the same way I do, and if anyone else enjoys using third-party models, that's fine. I wouldn't refuse a game on those grounds. Naturally I'd expect that things should look like what they represent in the rules, but that's just common sense. (I mean things like power armored infantry clearly wearing some form of heavy plate armor, APCs looking like they can carry infantry inside them, etc.)
I love third party models since in my opinion GWS aesthetics have been on the decline. I think it's really hard to say with a straight face that Vic's minis aren't better on every level than are stock Cadians.
So far as the other stuff, I am strict rule of cool. If you want to use those Robowhatever toys (I forget the real name) as Orky Buggies or what have you, and you made the effort to actually convert and paint them, that's terrific!
The only place I would draw the line is when the model being used is not a appropriate proxy, such as the Dreamforge Leviathan as a Warhound. I love the Leviathan and think it's a great model and would play it as a substitute for a Knight, or using homegrown rules with VDR or whatever, but it's just not the right size and dimensions to proxy as a Warhound - stuff like that. I don't want to see unarmored-human-scale minis as Terminators, that kind of thing.
Rule of cool, whatever looks awesome and is approximately the right size, I am down with.
Pouncey wrote: I'd use third-party models more myself, but I have a hell of a time remembering (sometimes even figuring out) what's gonna count as each different weapon when I start looking at miniatures online. Swords and axes and maces and shields are easy enough, but then you get into different types of special and heavy weapons from other sci-fi stuff that seem to have little visual analogue to 40k weapons.
And then I start to feel like using non-40k models to play 40k with just doesn't feel authentic to the setting. It'd be like playing a Star Wars game with miniatures of Redshirts or SG teams or infantry armed with powerguns. It feels weird to say, "Okay, and this squad fires their boltguns, flamer, and meltagun..." when those models clearly are not armed with those weapons. It's the same feeling I get when I try to use my not-Celestine model. I always call her Celestine, because it's the Celestine model (slightly modified), using the Celestine rules, and it feels weird to not call her that just because the bits of fanfiction I wrote involve a character who was specifically built-up to be a replacement for Celestine.
It's because GW has you in their grips.
If you say to your opponent at the beginning of the game "okay, all those chaps with henry-martinis have lasguns, the guy with the pistol has a las pistol, and the guy pointing has a flamer" he'd say "okay, sounds good."
It's that easy
It's not cheating the system
It's not un-authentic
It's a way to match the theme you've laid out for your army.
If you don't do cooky themes, fine, some of us do.
We, (atleast I) always ask if I can use proxies before the game even starts.
Pouncey wrote: I'd use third-party models more myself, but I have a hell of a time remembering (sometimes even figuring out) what's gonna count as each different weapon when I start looking at miniatures online. Swords and axes and maces and shields are easy enough, but then you get into different types of special and heavy weapons from other sci-fi stuff that seem to have little visual analogue to 40k weapons.
And then I start to feel like using non-40k models to play 40k with just doesn't feel authentic to the setting. It'd be like playing a Star Wars game with miniatures of Redshirts or SG teams or infantry armed with powerguns. It feels weird to say, "Okay, and this squad fires their boltguns, flamer, and meltagun..." when those models clearly are not armed with those weapons. It's the same feeling I get when I try to use my not-Celestine model. I always call her Celestine, because it's the Celestine model (slightly modified), using the Celestine rules, and it feels weird to not call her that just because the bits of fanfiction I wrote involve a character who was specifically built-up to be a replacement for Celestine.
It's because GW has you in their grips.
If you say to your opponent at the beginning of the game "okay, all those chaps with henry-martinis have lasguns, the guy with the pistol has a las pistol, and the guy pointing has a flamer" he'd say "okay, sounds good."
It's that easy
It's not cheating the system
It's not un-authentic
It's a way to match the theme you've laid out for your army.
If you don't do cooky themes, fine, some of us do.
We, (atleast I) always ask if I can use proxies before the game even starts.
Thanks
Austin
Yeah, see, I play Sisters of Battle. IG have tons of great analogues. Nuns with guns and power armor... not quite so much.
The weird part of my discomfort with using third-party models is that I only ever play at home, against my mom, who is totally okay using third party models and loves it when I kitbash and convert stuff. (I also started on a line of scalie guardsmen with Cadian models. I was gonna use Forge World Death Korps models instead, but then I was looking at them and figured the rebreathers would be too much of a pain to deal with to get the heads on, and at best I'd have tubes running up to the neck and just suddenly stop. Plus most of my IG are already Cadians.)
Though I do use some Reaper Miniatures stuff as Crusaders for my Battle Conclave. Primarily since I wanted an all-female army. Also have a modified cowgirl to use as a Uriah proxy.
I don't deny that GW has me in their grips as much as Blizzard does. Been playing WH40k off and on for 13 years, and WoW for 7 1/2.
Ouze wrote: The only place I would draw the line is when the model being used is not a appropriate proxy, such as the Dreamforge Leviathan as a Warhound. I love the Leviathan and think it's a great model and would play it as a substitute for a Knight, or using homegrown rules with VDR or whatever, but it's just not the right size and dimensions to proxy as a Warhound - stuff like that.
Rule of cool, whatever looks awesome and is approximately the right size, I am down with.
The DFG Leviathan is significantly bulkier and larger than a Knight. It is nearly identical in size to an Armorcast Warhound. If the classic beetleback Warhound is a Warhound, then the DFG Leviathan can play as such. Plus, Rule of Cool is on the Leviathan's side -- it's a seriously cool kit!
Dalymiddleboro wrote: I'm sorry but when I see Dreamforce dreadknights, colonial historical miniatures, and tier things if the like I just can't stand playing against them. I feel they don't fit the 40k aesthetic and are a cheap way into cheating what the hobby is. People spend not only time building and painting their mans, but time earning the money to buy the actual product. Those third part miniatures is kind of insulting to the people who saved for the real thing. What do you guys think?
your first and main example makes it so easy for me to disagree with you since dreamforge leviathans are vastly superior to the slowed looking baby carrier abomination that GW produces. even the name sucks dreadknight lol.
I don't see a problem with it, especially when there is a theme behind it. A friend of mine has an Imperial Guard army with models (unsure of the range or company) that look like the bad guys from Killzone, its a sick looking army. I feel that as long as they are using models that are reasonable close in both size and represent the weapon and armor well I will have no issue. I hated when GW went with the "our models only" approach when before it used to be just 50% of the model had to be GW, made for a lot of great conversion pieces and armies. Also, GW is partly at fault here for not expanding their miniature line to include certain things like armor patterns, different IG Regiments, ect.
gmaleron wrote: GW is partly at fault here for not expanding their miniature line to include certain things like armor patterns, different IG Regiments, ect.
Once upon a time, GW sold the following IG regiments:
- Armageddon Steel Legion
- Atillan Rough Riders
- Cadians
- Catachan Jungle Fighters
- Mordian Guard
- Praetorian Guard
- Tallarn Desert Raiders
- Tanith
- Valhallan Warriors
- Vostroyan
Plus
- Adeptus Arbites
- Stormtroopers
Plus FW - Elysian Drop Troops
- Death Korps of Krieg
carlos13th wrote: and yeah I find it odd that people complain about using real world tanks because many 40k tanks are based of real ones.
One of the reasons the GW designers make Sci-fi tanks is they can loosely base them around real world designs they like, but don't have to worry about the minutia of detail and instead can modify the designs by rule of cool. They think if a realworld design isn't an exact, scaled down replica the risk of nerdrage is too high!
So although there is some basis on real world tanks for the 40k models, they have been modified to fit aesthetic and weaponry of the 41st Millennium. I'd have no problem with someone basing their vehicle around a real world tank so long as they make it fit 40k.
This is one of those rare times where I'm going to jump to GW's defense. I'll take GW's Khorne Lord on Jugger any day of the week. That model is 200% solid ace, and one of my favorite of all time from any company.
The above model has a great paint job, but the rider is very 2-dimensional, with a pose like an early 90's miniature, and proportions out of World of Warcraft. Not a bad mini, but I don't think it holds a candle to GW's Juggerlord.
Well given if you want non male guard, 3rd party only.
You only have cadian, catchan in plastic.
Death korps and such in resin, rest are older metals.
The guard range is not huge, highlanders, colonial style, so many great alternative designs. And given guard is so vast no one pattern fits all. So fluff wise its correct
You make a hard sell Wulfmar, it is indeed nice looking, if I were to get more SM it would probably be those minus some of the Tac. bits. Hmmmm maybe for a Deathwatch Sternguard...
Maybe for a 30k army.
But until then GKPAGK models still look damn good for their role.
I find that some models provided by recasters have way better quality than original GW ones. Same with 3-d party. And conversions are undoubtfully a good thing.
I can kind of see where the OP is coming from, although I think I feel a bit less strongly about it than him.
I only use GW bits in my 40k armies. I have models from other ranges but I don't mix them. But I wouldn't mind if someone wanted to use reaper ninjas to represent Death Cult Assassins or something like that.
However, I used to love Lego when I was a kid. One Christmas someone got me some Mega Blocks...
@OP: No, wholeheartedly, the opposite in my opinion. Something which allows for more individuality in a creative hobby is a positive thing.
3rd party models allow for some things that are difficult to achieve by sticking strictly to the GW range. eg.I want to give my wolf guard fur cloaks. The problem is there is only one such piece on the SW pack sprue. So naturally I'm going to source ones from elsewhere instead of having to give all my wolf guard an identical cloak. Another is 5 sets of kneeling legs I need. The ones produced by Kromlech are better and more varied than the single piece GW make. In short I'm not going to restrict my modelling options because GW haven't catered for them. And that's not a criticism of GW, I'm actually pleased enough with what comes in most boxes. It just isn't always enough or a converter.
Regarding conversions As a hobbyist, there are things I like a lot about space marines and things that I don't. e.g. the oversize shoulder pads, which I flle down. I also find the backpacks boring so I replace them with more modern combat packs. Converting allows me to change these things from an aesthetic that annoys me to one I like. I collect the hobby to entertain myself, not appease others. If other players think my canvas backpacks mar the 40k universe then -respectfully- that's their tough luck!
I also agree with the OP to an extent. However I will never refuse to play a person using 3rd party stuff or or conversion's that someone has made to fit the 40k theme.
Where I draw the line however is playing against armies full of a mish-mash of 3rd party models and quick conversions for the sole sake of it being cheap. To clarify, I have seen people flip a disposable coffee cup upside-down and glue fins on it and try and tell me it was a drop pod company logo and all on it simply because he didn't want to buy any drop pods to play a drop pod army. Add to that paper craft models, little green army men and people just throwing various random mini's together and calling it an army without even a hint of trying to tie it together.
So yeah.....sometimes 3rd party mini's and conversions can feel insulting even if you have some 3rd party mini's yourself simply because they put no effort into it and happily brag about using literal garbage as models.
Edit: Also @ thegreatchimp in fairness, space marine backpacks are not combat packs full of storage....they are mini-nuclear reactors designed to power that hulking suit of power armor Just throwing that out there in defense of the classic marine backpack (though the conversions sounds quite cool so keep it up)
There's certainly arguments to be made either way.
I've seen some green-stuff projects floating around the web that look absolutely fantastic and definitely should be usable. I also can't fault people for things like sticking lady heads on imperial troops.
On the other hand, stuff bought elsewhere does effectively take away from GW. Some may see this as a positive, but it does contribute, in a small way, to the decline of the IP. So long as GW actually produces that product, that is. Stuff like lady heads and the like take nothing from them. Though, when making that leap, one could always inform GW of that decision. Might make them see some potential profit... Anyway, I get the whole support the company thing. I like supporting the company. They've been cool with me.
My Eldar are all GW bits. Not because I think its 'right', but because I haven't seen 3rd party bits that I wanted to use yet. Either the aesthetic is wrong, or the quality isn't what I want. But if I saw a bit I wanted somewhere else, I'd use it.
On the other hand, many of the best Ork armies have mixes of GW and non-GW bits. None of the good ones seem to be assembled as intended. I mean, Orkz! It just works better that way.
A guy showed up with all non-GW models. They looked great. Decently armored and geared. Well modelled futuristic soldiers. They didn't feel 'right' when he fielded them as Marines, as Marines have certain equipment/vehicles. But they made an amazing IG elite force. Or using Marine rules to play counts-as a renegade system's elite soldiers.
I think this is what some people are referring to when talking about a Sherman in 40k. The feel has to be right. I doubt they'd prefer an Empire Steamtank instead, despite being GW. They're seeing the Sherman and thinking WW2, not 40k. Much like using SW Storm Troopers or Transformers. But I doubt they'd have a problem with nodded T72s with some futuristic bits. They've probably just had bad experiences with people who are more proxying than custom modelling.
(That said, while the Leman Russ is a specific tank/armed-and-armored-tractor, the rules for LRs actually cover most IG battle tanks, which are very diverse. In some forces, they really will take a heavy industry vehicle and bolt on arms/armor)
It's really about constant themes. No, those stock cadians are not gue'sava, and that stock Sentinel is not a Crisis Suit. But those Cadians carrying Pulse Rifles, and that sentinel retrofitted with anti grav or jets, painted to match your sept, are better Tau than stock kits, IMO.
As for supporting the company, you should support products you use. In 40k, to me that means:
- If you play their rules, moded or not, actually buy a rulebook (second hand isn't a problem - they still got their first sale) and any books your forces use.
- If you want to use their models, buy their kit. If you don't, then don't buy it. Recasts, and just CAD'ing copies of their kit to print doesn't support the kits. But printing a custom model, or a third party's model, even for a GW concept, is fine - you're supporting the kit you want to use.
There is a point were it becomes too much. Like the brony who made a 3000 point sm bike army out of my little pony action figures. And preceded to never use any of his other armies ever again in favor of his special little $100 creation. But esisnkern stormtroopers? The Victoria praetorians? Dude that stuff rocks.
Midnightdeathblade wrote: There is a point were it becomes too much. Like the brony who made a 3000 point sm bike army out of my little pony action figures. And preceded to never use any of his other armies ever again in favor of his special little $100 creation. But esisnkern stormtroopers? The Victoria praetorians? Dude that stuff rocks.
Ok, I'd draw the line at My Little Pony. You couldn't pay me to play against that.
personally i use some 3rd party models if i prefer them. I think if someone is using crap looking models that are super cheap just to get an army there are 2 problems.
1. they are missing out on the aesthetic of the game
2. they are most likely a WAAC-er or similar and I wouldn't play with them anyways.
the primary reason i play warhammer is because of the models and fluff so using garbage models takes away from that. But that said there are tons of third party models that are awesome and fit perfect (they just usually are NOT cheaper)
Does a KIT Shelby Cobra look less impressive than the real deal???
If we were talking about black market copies I would agree with the OP. However, we are talking about 3rd party views of a fictional setting and game. If its clear to me what the model is compared to what GW has to offer, bring it to the game.
I used to only use GW parts and models. Then they stopped doing/sponsoring tournaments, so I really didn't have a reason not to start with third party stuff. So now I use a lot of Scibor and Raging Heroes minis/parts along with GW, but I do make sure it's very easy to identify whats what (which is the most important part IMO).
Dalymiddleboro wrote: I'm sorry but when I see Dreamforce dreadknights, colonial historical miniatures, and tier things if the like I just can't stand playing against them. I feel they don't fit the 40k aesthetic and are a cheap way into cheating what the hobby is. People spend not only time building and painting their mans, but time earning the money to buy the actual product. Those third part miniatures is kind of insulting to the people who saved for the real thing. What do you guys think?
I think this is backwards and elitist. If you want that sort of gratification join a Ferrari club.
The side of the box say for ages 16 and up. So what, you're gonna pack up your toys and cry about my converted marines? That is the most childish thing I've ever heard. Just because some people have the money to justify any exorbitant expense, doesn't mean that other people cannot engage in their own way.
I wish this was a real life conversation because I'd sit you down at the games table and whup your keister with paper tokens! But you probably wouldn't play against paper tokens would you? Too busy spreading grey poupon on your crusty rolls while running over poor people in your diamond plated canyonerro aren't you?
Midnightdeathblade wrote: There is a point were it becomes too much. Like the brony who made a 3000 point sm bike army out of my little pony action figures. And preceded to never use any of his other armies ever again in favor of his special little $100 creation. But esisnkern stormtroopers? The Victoria praetorians? Dude that stuff rocks.
Ok, I'd draw the line at My Little Pony. You couldn't pay me to play against that.
I'm not a fan of MLP in any way, but I saw some converted MLP toys that looked like they'd be fantastic Space Marine counts-as. I'll see if I can find them again.
Ah, one quick Google Search for "space mareine" later...
Personally, being a furry or scaly or whatever they wanna call people whose Internet RP character is an anthropomorphic dragoness, my creations aren't from MLP but I know that some 40k gamers find them cringe-worthy. As a result, if you're not a fan of anthropomorphic animals, don't click the links, just move on and be glad that you'll never see them on a tabletop near you because I only play at home.
http://i.imgur.com/vz481VT.jpg ^Sad story about this one. He's a character model based off a friend's RP character. I spent a total of over 24 hours working on him and him alone, including a 6-hour all-nighter painting session. I finally take some decent photos of the model, show them to said friend, and I get the following response: "Neat." To say I was devastated does not fully encompass the depth of the emotions involved. Over the span of 10 seconds, I went from being excited to know what he'd think of all that effort and expecting excitement and praise, to everything having gone black (no, the power didn't fail) while I felt like I never wanted to touch the hobby ever again and just as I was beginning to contemplate throwing out every one of my miniatures and never replacing them, I snapped out of it.
I think there's two discussions going on simultaniously here and they aren't equivalent.
My take on the OP is that he was concerned mostly about toys, or non-scifi miniatures being used a cheap proxies for a proper 40k army. I could see where that would be bothersome, especially if it was a recurring issue where the owner obviously had little or no intention of actually making something that looked appropriate to 40k.
The second (and in my mind, totally separate) discussion here is about using high-quality, thematically appropriate third party models or bits to build or augment an army for use in 40k. I don't think the two discussions are equivalent. Perhaps the OP could clarify which direction he intended the discussion to take?
Dalymiddleboro wrote: Just doesn't do it for me. It's like proxying action figures in a game. I feel that if you should play something you should support the IP.
But GW don't support the IP do they? reducing choice, focussing primarily on different Chapters of Marines with different coloured armour and desperately trying to make them different, ignoring the established fluff to do so. Spending years not bothering to make models of units in their own game and then getting all upset when someone does so.
I play with GW figures and from huge range of manufacturers - many of whom make as good or better figures than GW.
As someone who has an army of both Kriegsmen and Scions who are 100% GW, Find a better way to express this last sentiment. Something along the lines of "I disagree" would be good, motyak
I'm not sure what was snipped, but if was either calling me stupid or ugly, rest assured you are correct. While a Kriegsman army is GW legal it would consist of FW units, and would therefore be totally awesome. Likewise OOP or ignored GW models like Tallarans and Vostroyans would make a cool and unique army. The "you" I'm referring to (out my butt or course) is someone taking a handful each of plastic Cadians and Catachans and tossing them together on the table with no regard for fluff or presentation, but turning their nose up at 3rd party conversions.
Here is a tiny percentage of regiments in the IG, an even tinier sliver of which have ever gotten models made of them...
http://www.dakkadakka.com/gallery/439536-Artwork%2C%20Imperial%20Guard%2C%20Retro%20Review.html http://www.dakkadakka.com/gallery/439541-Artwork%2C%20Imperial%20Guard%2C%20Retro%20Review.html Is someone seriously going to tell me cavemen, robots and amazons are cannon, but Dreamforge armor breaks the game for you?
insaniak wrote:
Zande4 wrote: @insaniak The OP is a troll though, this thread had no other purpose.
The OP's reasons (whatever they may be) for starting a thread have no bearing on whether or not people responding to that thread should follow the rules of the site.
If we feel that a thread is genuinely unlikely to generate reasonable discussion, we'll lock it. This one wasn't locked because it's an interesting topic of discussion... provided people stick to the actual discussion.
I have a conspiracy theory that DMB is actually Tom Kirby, and he has threatened that if if the mods even bane him he will team with Hasbro to create a 40K/My Little Pony crossover game. Please no one contradict me; I want to have my fantasy, and besides if you try to dissuade me that means YOU'RE IN ON IT TOOOOOOO!
To answer the title of the thread since I can't see what Daly is posting.
To me, If the third party models and conversions are appropriate looking and add to the visuals of the army, it's fine. If they make no sense at all in the army, not so much. That said it's a pretty subjective question and it's likely different people will have different tolerances for this.
Gitsplitta wrote: I think there's two discussions going on simultaniously here and they aren't equivalent.
My take on the OP is that he was concerned mostly about toys, or non-scifi miniatures being used a cheap proxies for a proper 40k army. I could see where that would be bothersome, especially if it was a recurring issue where the owner obviously had little or no intention of actually making something that looked appropriate to 40k.
The second (and in my mind, totally separate) discussion here is about using high-quality, thematically appropriate third party models or bits to build or augment an army for use in 40k. I don't think the two discussions are equivalent. Perhaps the OP could clarify which direction he intended the discussion to take?
Indeed. Worse, the OP seems to be arguing against conversion and scratchbuild as a third way.
To illustrate the point on conversion & scratchbuilding, this is one of my converted Hellhounds:
Yeah, I kept the Chimera tracks and cab, along with the Promethium drums, but the rest is pretty much pure scratchbuild, not even 3rd party bitz.
I don't think I've taken any heat over it.
And then, there's my Hydra conversion:
Never taken any flak over that model, either.
I see no reason not to convert if that's what makes people happier. It's more in the original spirit of The GW Hobby (tm) than simiply buying things and building them OOTB.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Boggy Man wrote: While a Kriegsman army is GW legal it would consist of FW units, and would therefore be totally awesome. Likewise OOP or ignored GW models like Tallarans and Vostroyans would make a cool and unique army.
My Guard is composed of Tallarn models - I have well over 100 of them that I can field. Actually, I think it's closer to 200 Tallarn models. Definitely over 150. Hmm.. I may need to check.
Midnightdeathblade wrote: There is a point were it becomes too much. Like the brony who made a 3000 point sm bike army out of my little pony action figures. And preceded to never use any of his other armies ever again in favor of his special little $100 creation. But esisnkern stormtroopers? The Victoria praetorians? Dude that stuff rocks.
I think you're referring to a bretonnia army that a user here on dakka made with pony models.
he spent more on those than he would have spent on the models needed to play the game.
He also took Best general at a GT, and none of his opponents minded at all
He hasn't used the army since.
people need to lay off him, pony up, and start understanding the magic of freindship.
No pony is perfect, but his army was funny, and he's a good guy.
Thanks
Austin
docdoom77 wrote: I think what you buy is up to you and you can do whatever you please, but you might have more fun if you stepped off that high horse and let other people have their fun too.
There's absolutely nothing wrong with using 3rd party materials. I love the variety it brings to the table.
In the end, it's your choice, but it's definitely not the one I would make.
It's silly to argue that someone else's miniatures somehow devalue yours on the tabletop.
I agree and disagree. I think 3rd party parts or single models here and there add to the visual experience.
However! I do get upset by chronic proxy players. I took the time to buy (and usually paint) the official model or a close 3rd party equivalent. When you constantly use DE skimmers turned onto there end as drop pods or someone's borrowed model(s) I start to get a bit peeved.
Somewhere a line does have to be drawn between paper cutouts and 100% GW/FW elitism. And as someone who does try to field mostly painted models it does make me frown when it is obvious you have no intent on even attempting to paint your army.
I know I am a bit of a snob but but I am okay with that because I suck at the actual game.
docdoom77 wrote: I think what you buy is up to you and you can do whatever you please, but you might have more fun if you stepped off that high horse and let other people have their fun too.
There's absolutely nothing wrong with using 3rd party materials. I love the variety it brings to the table.
In the end, it's your choice, but it's definitely not the one I would make.
It's silly to argue that someone else's miniatures somehow devalue yours on the tabletop.
I agree and disagree. I think 3rd party parts or single models here and there add to the visual experience.
However! I do get upset by chronic proxy players. I took the time to buy (and usually paint) the official model or a close 3rd party equivalent. When you constantly use DE skimmers turned onto there end as drop pods or someone's borrowed model(s) I start to get a bit peeved.
Somewhere a line does have to be drawn between paper cutouts and 100% GW/FW elitism. And as someone who does try to field mostly painted models it does make me frown when it is obvious you have no intent on even attempting to paint your army.
I know I am a bit of a snob but but I am okay with that because I suck at the actual game.
I have a much bigger grief with people who don't paint or even assemble their models.
I use plenty of 3rd party models and proxies, but they're always painted and fully assembled.
Boggy Man wrote: While a Kriegsman army is GW legal it would consist of FW units, and would therefore be totally awesome. Likewise OOP or ignored GW models like Tallarans and Vostroyans would make a cool and unique army.
I've got 110 vostroyans. Including 4 las cannon teams, 4 autocannon teams, 9 flamers(melta) and 6 plasma gunners myself.
I see no reason not to convert if that's what makes people happier. It's more in the original spirit of The GW Hobby (tm) than simiply buying things and building them OOTB.
I keep telling you guys, I just hate painting. I love kitbashing and some light converting, but I really, really loathe painting. No excuses about not having enough time, or not being good enough to do an okay job, or not having enough space. I just have a deficit of fun when I paint.
Orktavius wrote: in fairness, space marine backpacks are not combat packs full of storage....they are mini-nuclear reactors designed to power that hulking suit of power armor Just throwing that out there in defense of the classic marine backpack (though the conversions sounds quite cool so keep it up)
Aye, I hear you. When I first collected I actually built and painted 1500pts of blood angels without altering a single model. I guess I just got tired of looking at those packs and 80's-esque shoulder pads! Had to do something different the second time around.
I remember going to the grand opening in fairfax va. They pulled my models because I had used non-gw paints on them. As a youth, I was highly hurt. Likely the start of when I started to dislike them as a company.
JC Almighty that's a whole new level of ridiculousness! How could they even tell?
I remember going to the grand opening in fairfax va. They pulled my models because I had used non-gw paints on them. As a youth, I was highly hurt. Likely the start of when I started to dislike them as a company.
JC Almighty that's a whole new level of ridiculousness! How could they even tell?
The only way that would have happened is if he encountered a particularly over-zealous staff member, in which case it would have been quickly resolved by talking to the manager. GW have never had a policy about only using their paint.
Reading this thread makes me want to go and build a Raven Guard battle company with these marines riding into battle in these rhinos.
Conversion are an integral part of the hobby and the hobby is in no way 'GW games'. If an army looks good it looks good. If it has godzilla or optimus prime standing in for nids and knights then that is an entirely separate issue. Using dreamforge leviathans as knights is not just acceptable to me it's better. They are superbly detailed kits with mind boggling customization to them that you just don't see on GW kits
Automatically Appended Next Post:
insaniak wrote: The only way that would have happened is if he encountered a particularly over-zealous staff member, in which case it would have been quickly resolved by talking to the manager. GW have never had a policy about only using their paint.
Funnily enough after a friend and I blew some minds when we entered a local GWs monthly painting comp with stuff that was clearly not painted with GW paints the next comp had the 'must be painted with GW paints' rule quietly added to the description. Still haven't actually heard back about if that's enforced or not...
Dalymiddleboro wrote: I'm sorry but when I see Dreamforce dreadknights, colonial historical miniatures, and tier things if the like I just can't stand playing against them. I feel they don't fit the 40k aesthetic and are a cheap way into cheating what the hobby is. People spend not only time building and painting their mans, but time earning the money to buy the actual product. Those third part miniatures is kind of insulting to the people who saved for the real thing. What do you guys think?
Pouncey wrote: I keep telling you guys, I just hate painting. I love kitbashing and some light converting, but I really, really loathe painting. No excuses about not having enough time, or not being good enough to do an okay job, or not having enough space. I just have a deficit of fun when I paint.
Understandable, its not for everyone. Some people love wargaming but hate painting. My recommendation is coloured primers and dipping. They allow you to make something look passable with far less effort than normally needed.
Someone mentioned Raging Heroes - so I had a look once I had finished work.
Now, I feel that Anvil Industry do some seriously awesome marine models, and Dreamforge Isenkern as Deathkorps troops.
But seriously... Raging Heroes... seriously???
Spoiler:
Where on Earth where you when I bought my Dark Eldar Wytch squads? I am in love....
I know, right? The RH Dark Elves almost make me want to start playing Fantasy, just so I can field an army of them. Of course, I don't make anywhere near enough money to have that kind of disposable income over the next decade, but a guy can dream, right?
I remember going to the grand opening in fairfax va. They pulled my models because I had used non-gw paints on them. As a youth, I was highly hurt. Likely the start of when I started to dislike them as a company.
JC Almighty that's a whole new level of ridiculousness! How could they even tell?
The only way that would have happened is if he encountered a particularly over-zealous staff member, in which case it would have been quickly resolved by talking to the manager. GW have never had a policy about only using their paint.
Unless you were using those paints in the store itself in which case it was the right thing to do because it causes issues regarding their insurance coverage. They KNOW their stuff is safe and approved under their policy....3rd party paints not so much. Otherwise....yeah....overzealous employee as no GW staffer REALLY gives a crap who's paint you used on your model. (unless it looks hideous and they want to give you advice on how to fix that....IE stop using toll paints timmy)
Dalymiddleboro wrote: I'm sorry but when I see Dreamforce dreadknights, colonial historical miniatures, and tier things if the like I just can't stand playing against them. I feel they don't fit the 40k aesthetic and are a cheap way into cheating what the hobby is. People spend not only time building and painting their mans, but time earning the money to buy the actual product. Those third part miniatures is kind of insulting to the people who saved for the real thing. What do you guys think?
edit: and am i the only one that thought the my little pony conversions looked pretty cool?
I wouldn't have chosen the army myself. But yeah I thought it was a well painted and modeled army that pulled of the concept well. I wouldn't want to play every game against it but I would be happy to play against it. I have no problem if someone wants to play only with 40k stuff or Only painted stuff or even refuses to play agaisnt unpainted/non 40k stuff as long as they dont try to enforce there personal standards of enjoyment upon others and don't pretend like they are superior due to how they play the hobby or act like someone is being a dick or insulting to them by not playing the same way they do.
I have genuinely heard things such as
"If someone pays less for their army than you then they have made you look like a fool and it shouldn't be allowed"
"People shouldn't be allowed to play with x and y"
"If someone doesn't buy the official product they are insulting everyone that does."
and so on. When you say stuff like that take a good hard look at the image you are portraying, if how someone wants to play a game doesn't mesh with how you want to just don't play against them. Then it doesn't affect you at all. Its just a game/hobby after all and your way isn't the only way to take part in it.
Given this is 40k is there really anything that is truly out of place on the table as far as conversions go ?
Conversions show the games community is enthusiastic enough about the game to want to innovate. It would get kind of stale to always see the same thing on the table constantly.
Ive seen people do mauler-fiend conversions with Cryx Colossals, coke-cans converted to drop pods that actually look like drop pods and recently orkanauts and stompa's made out of transformers, gundam kits, mr potatoheads, old school tv monitors and computer monitors, plastic bowls and tanks built around ROLLER SKATES that all fit the aesthetic.
Also GW breaks their own aesthetic at times. Like in the case of Ork units which all seem to have the same design (it though lore wise it says no two ork war-engines look the same).
Also there are some units you have make a conversion for as the model for it is not sold like in the case of the Battle-Fortress, Skull-Hammer, Kustom Stompas and the super heavy Ork Bommers.
And then there are units that have nice rules, but people don't like the way they look. Seen a lot of dream-forge converted Dread-Knight's because people don't agree with the way the normal dread-knight looks.
No problem with any other firms miniatures. I only use GW myself more out of laziness but I actually like to see different brands on the table. Shows effort I think.
Also have no objection to someone using paper to try out new models or if they can't afford an army and want to try it out I have no objection to using a completely surrogate army.
I remember going to the grand opening in fairfax va. They pulled my models because I had used non-gw paints on them. As a youth, I was highly hurt. Likely the start of when I started to dislike them as a company.
JC Almighty that's a whole new level of ridiculousness! How could they even tell?
The only way that would have happened is if he encountered a particularly over-zealous staff member, in which case it would have been quickly resolved by talking to the manager. GW have never had a policy about only using their paint
.
Unless you were using those paints in the store itself in which case it was the right thing to do because it causes issues regarding their insurance coverage. They KNOW their stuff is safe and approved under their policy....3rd party paints not so much. Otherwise....yeah....overzealous employee as no GW staffer REALLY gives a crap who's paint you used on your model. (unless it looks hideous and they want to give you advice on how to fix that....IE stop using toll paints timmy)
Lol. Yeah, we used to tell customers who hadn't bought their stuff from us we couldn't handle their items all the time because we weren't insured in case we broke it.
As long as the item is an accurate representation of the desired unit/vehicle and the unit can blend/justified in the 40k universe, I am not too concerned with 3rd party choices.
I would enjoy attempting to make a hover-tank out of a bottle, but these days the designs of body-wash bottles don't appear to be as suitable, I'll have to recon some more shops.
I have always felt that one of the few genuine advantages of 40K over other games was that the size of the background and the large playerbase made it possible for people to invent and use all kinds of unofficial stuff, including comedy units like the Pony army and the Hello Kitty Marines.
So...the entire Milky Way galaxy is your backdrop with a billion, billion worlds with all sorts of civilizations and crazy stuff...and you have a problem with people using different miniatures.
jonolikespie wrote: Reading this thread makes me want to go and build a Raven Guard battle company with these marines riding into battle in these rhinos.
Both of which look stunning I will add. At the risk of going off topic, would you mind telling me who produces those marines, or are they kitbashed?
jonolikespie wrote: Reading this thread makes me want to go and build a Raven Guard battle company with these marines riding into battle in these rhinos.
Both of which look stunning I will add. At the risk of going off topic, would you mind telling me who produces those marines, or are they kitbashed?
jonolikespie wrote: Reading this thread makes me want to go and build a Raven Guard battle company with these marines riding into battle in these rhinos.
Both of which look stunning I will add. At the risk of going off topic, would you mind telling me who produces those marines, or are they kitbashed?
Rhino seems a bit plain to me, but wow, those marines!
To the last handful of posts, and in the spirit of 'GW tanks are slightly modified RL tanks': The 'marines' are Anvil, but the 'rhino' looks like an M113.
On that note, I've been thinking of revamping my Epic armies lately. Second-hand, metal, mark III rhinos from the Epic: Armageddon release can still be got sometimes, but with nothing like the regularity and cheap prices of plastic mark I rhinos from earlier iterations of the game. Problem is I like the mkIII much more than the mkI, which I'm not very fond of at all. I was thinking of getting 6mm M113s and modding them a little, but then I saw the Onslaught Miniatures Juno. Now, TBH, I sometimes have just a little trouble completely accepting different proxy designs that aren't OFFISHUL STC-APPROVED, and there's something a bit Taurus-ish about the four tracks, but it took me a couple of seconds to fall in love with them. I'd consider these better than GW's mkIII design, and I'm even debating selling the OOP mkIII rhino-chassis vehicles I have to pay for 'em. Further fluff justification? A roving chapter loses many rhinos to scrapcode before happening upon a long-lost forgeworld with newly rediscovered, superior, pre-Mars-approved STC designs. Job's a good 'un.
If that is actually, somehow, some kind of blow to poor defenceless likkle GW (aw bless) and their IP, it's their own fault. Even if I was talking about in-production 40K models, same thing.
Seriously, why people keep reponding to the post of this user, looks like poeple need more time in the internet to learn and indentify trolls, even i, as a purist (each modelo to his gamesystem where it belongs) i find annoying this post, stop feeding the troll please
Assuming it is one, the only way a troll post works is if people actually post the expected responses, like yours, or start falling out with each other.
Ignoring a post or taking it at face value and actually discussing the points raised maturely are equally valid ways of dealing with it, because neither will get the troll the result he desires.
I think as long as they fit the universe (no medieval knights 40k game), I am completely okay with third party and conversions. I've seen some that are WAY cooler than the original models
I have no issues with 3rd party or conversions myself. It's actually nice to see something someone has obviously put a bit of effort to making across the table.
jreilly89 wrote: I think as long as they fit the universe (no medieval knights 40k game), I am completely okay with third party and conversions. I've seen some that are WAY cooler than the original models
This can still fit in in some cases with Space Marines and Imperial Guard. Should at least have a little work done to them, but still a valid theme within the setting since the worlds have different levels of technology anyway.
n0t_u wrote: I have no issues with 3rd party or conversions myself. It's actually nice to see something someone has obviously put a bit of effort to making across the table.
jreilly89 wrote: I think as long as they fit the universe (no medieval knights 40k game), I am completely okay with third party and conversions. I've seen some that are WAY cooler than the original models
This can still fit in in some cases with Space Marines and Imperial Guard. Should at least have a little work done to them, but still a valid theme within the setting since the worlds have different levels of technology anyway.
Cultists cuz they have little access to better weapons, but even Imperial Guard get Lasguns.
n0t_u wrote: I have no issues with 3rd party or conversions myself. It's actually nice to see something someone has obviously put a bit of effort to making across the table.
jreilly89 wrote: I think as long as they fit the universe (no medieval knights 40k game), I am completely okay with third party and conversions. I've seen some that are WAY cooler than the original models
This can still fit in in some cases with Space Marines and Imperial Guard. Should at least have a little work done to them, but still a valid theme within the setting since the worlds have different levels of technology anyway.
Cultists cuz they have little access to better weapons, but even Imperial Guard get Lasguns.
A μ-class or feudal world is a classification of world existing in a technologically medieval state. The most advanced such worlds possess black powder weaponry. The tithes from these planets are slightly more than those of Feral Worlds (generally from Solutio Prima to Solutio Extremis), thanks to the development of agriculture. A feudal world typically has a population of 10,000,000 to 500,000,000 people.
Not everyone has technology good enough for lasguns, a PDF for a feudal world would probably use muskets. They'd probably be given lasguns once they became part of the guard probably, but it's not unheard of for imperial forces to have crossbows and such.
n0t_u wrote: I have no issues with 3rd party or conversions myself. It's actually nice to see something someone has obviously put a bit of effort to making across the table.
jreilly89 wrote: I think as long as they fit the universe (no medieval knights 40k game), I am completely okay with third party and conversions. I've seen some that are WAY cooler than the original models
This can still fit in in some cases with Space Marines and Imperial Guard. Should at least have a little work done to them, but still a valid theme within the setting since the worlds have different levels of technology anyway.
Cultists cuz they have little access to better weapons, but even Imperial Guard get Lasguns.
A μ-class or feudal world is a classification of world existing in a technologically medieval state. The most advanced such worlds possess black powder weaponry. The tithes from these planets are slightly more than those of Feral Worlds (generally from Solutio Prima to Solutio Extremis), thanks to the development of agriculture. A feudal world typically has a population of 10,000,000 to 500,000,000 people.
Not everyone has technology good enough for lasguns, a PDF for a feudal world would probably use muskets. They'd probably be given lasguns once they became part of the guard probably, but it's not unheard of for imperial forces to have crossbows and such.
I suppose its because I think of the IG more in terms of their miniatures than the lore, but the idea of a Leman Russ rolling around with a squad of crossbow guardsmen kind of makes my brain itch. From a lore perspective, I get the feudal world, but its just like "Why? Why would I play this when I can have a damn boltgun?"
n0t_u wrote: I have no issues with 3rd party or conversions myself. It's actually nice to see something someone has obviously put a bit of effort to making across the table.
jreilly89 wrote: I think as long as they fit the universe (no medieval knights 40k game), I am completely okay with third party and conversions. I've seen some that are WAY cooler than the original models
This can still fit in in some cases with Space Marines and Imperial Guard. Should at least have a little work done to them, but still a valid theme within the setting since the worlds have different levels of technology anyway.
Cultists cuz they have little access to better weapons, but even Imperial Guard get Lasguns.
A μ-class or feudal world is a classification of world existing in a technologically medieval state. The most advanced such worlds possess black powder weaponry. The tithes from these planets are slightly more than those of Feral Worlds (generally from Solutio Prima to Solutio Extremis), thanks to the development of agriculture. A feudal world typically has a population of 10,000,000 to 500,000,000 people.
Not everyone has technology good enough for lasguns, a PDF for a feudal world would probably use muskets. They'd probably be given lasguns once they became part of the guard probably, but it's not unheard of for imperial forces to have crossbows and such.
I suppose its because I think of the IG more in terms of their miniatures than the lore, but the idea of a Leman Russ rolling around with a squad of crossbow guardsmen kind of makes my brain itch. From a lore perspective, I get the feudal world, but its just like "Why? Why would I play this when I can have a damn boltgun?"
They'd probably make a Leman Russ like the steam tank if they wanted to put effort into it. But it's about wanting a theme because you like it.
If the mods and paint are done well and everything fits the theme then all is good. How else was I going to get my Warscythe wielding Fembot Necron Overlord?
Worth mentioning is the "dad rule". Dads are allowed to have one jacked up unit as long as it was 100% done by their kids.
jreilly89 wrote: the idea of a Leman Russ rolling around with a squad of crossbow guardsmen kind of makes my brain itch. From a lore perspective, I get the feudal world, but its just like "Why? Why would I play this when I can have a damn boltgun?"
From what I gathered, the worlds in question that use crossbows wouldn't be in possession of anything like a main battle tank either. Feudal worlds and their lack of tech aside, I find the lost / almost lost / declining technological knowledge of the imperium theme to be totally unbelievable though. e.g. Ability to manufacture the Vanquisher Cannon is almost forgotten, that was always one that made me laugh. "Can we redesign this by lengthening a regular battle cannon." "No sir that would be impossible."
"Can't we redesign this by lengthening the cannon - "
"You would tinker with the Omnissiah's sacred designs?"
"No, I just meant - "
"Lexmechanic Threllix! Fetch my servitor-creating axe!"
I actually quite like the idea of feudal/feral worlders given very specialized training and then dumped on a battlefield. They might be wearing plate armor and be wielding crude swords, they might not know how to speak Low Gothic coherently or what a voidship really is, but they know they serve the Emperor and after a few crash courses, they know how to use the Lee-Man Rhuss to make things explode.
I actually quite like the idea of feudal/feral worlders given very specialized training and then dumped on a battlefield
Also an afterthought: I suppose there's nothing to say that they couldn't be very effective suped-up crossbows. Anyone who doubts that possibility hasn't been on the receiving end of a wookie bowcaster. Or Rambo for that matter.
Frankenberry wrote:So...the entire Milky Way galaxy is your backdrop with a billion, billion worlds with all sorts of civilizations and crazy stuff...and you have a problem with people using different miniatures.
Hell, the galaxy apparently isn't even big enough to fit Tau in, people reject them even though they're a fully-supported miniature range from GW and have been in the game for well over a decade literally just because they don't have spikes and skulls on the models. You really expect people like that to accept anything that isn't "offishul"?
Conversions must look like what they are meant to be, and they must look cool. Those are the only two rules that should matter when it comes to non-GW miniatures to play 40k. And those "used" to be rules that GW supported in places like White Dwarf.
Hell, the galaxy apparently isn't even big enough to fit Tau in, people reject them even though they're a fully-supported miniature range from GW and have been in the game for well over a decade literally just because they don't have spikes and skulls on the models. You really expect people like that to accept anything that isn't "offishul"?
The absolute truth. I was around when Tau were released. People went nuts about them not fitting in, when they are not any esthetically different than Eldar when it comes to " Grimdark".
Above post is correct, I remember it quite clearly.
I like how the tau look myself, but not there codex fluff, now the novels and audio books that have covered them, and to a lesser extent dawn of war, that I like.
Not good guys in the modern sense, but in 40k, bloody hippies in comparison.
On topic, despite ot being a troll, he has raised a fair point, if that breaks his ssuspension of disbelief, fine, shouldn't try to impose the view on others, heavily converted armies look Damn good when done right
AegisGrimm wrote: Conversions must look like what they are meant to be, and they must look cool. Those are the only two rules that should matter when it comes to non-GW miniatures to play 40k. And those "used" to be rules that GW supported in places like White Dwarf.
Hell, the galaxy apparently isn't even big enough to fit Tau in, people reject them even though they're a fully-supported miniature range from GW and have been in the game for well over a decade literally just because they don't have spikes and skulls on the models. You really expect people like that to accept anything that isn't "offishul"?
The absolute truth. I was around when Tau were released. People went nuts about them not fitting in, when they are not any esthetically different than Eldar when it comes to " Grimdark".
Same here. When they were released I thought, "finally! A sane race. It's one of those smaller races we always hear about but never see." I like the Tau and I think they fit wonderfully.
As for medieval planetary defense guys, I love the idea. Back in RT times that would have fit right in without a bat of an eye.
jreilly89 wrote: the idea of a Leman Russ rolling around with a squad of crossbow guardsmen kind of makes my brain itch. From a lore perspective, I get the feudal world, but its just like "Why? Why would I play this when I can have a damn boltgun?"
From what I gathered, the worlds in question that use crossbows wouldn't be in possession of anything like a main battle tank either.
Often there is a tonne of techno junk on feudal worlds, but people simply don't know how to put together anything but the most simple, modular components.
I can believe some crazy barbarian would travel the world, finding a bunch of rotting, breaking down pieces of junk to cobble together something cool, but such things would be really rare and probably a eclectic, achromatic mix of parts. Like Death Lasers on a wooden hull with antigravs powered by a nuclear reactor with a hand cranked starter motor pulled by horses.
I think using 3rd party miniatures shows either great initiative or creativity. if you have found or made 3rd party miniatures to better fit the aesthetic of your force, you clearly have more imagination than alot of people who only think of buying gw. (not that only doing so shows you have a lack of!). Also for most people it the game is about the playing, not about the money; quite often people who have more money can buy more powerful miniatures and there for win. If you cant afford the miniatures but love the game then you should welcome the person who put the effort into sourcing cheaper models, as they are clearly enthusiastic; and probably a good opponent.
The universe is a big place, and there are LOADS of planets and systems that got lost for thousands of years.
So, if the IG lost the standard templates and their forgeworld failed, they'd have to adapt and build their own equipment.
Cadia is just a small part of the whole Imperium. Not every IG army is going to look like them.
If Space Wolves have such a wildly different look to Grey Knights, why cannot other chapters look different too?
If it is the right scale, and models are WYSIWYG, go for it.
If your army's theme also fits the ideas and concepts of 40k, all the better.
3rrd-party models just make that easier to do.
So, this is just the latest thread created by the OP that I disagree with. I might even stop posting in them one day.
Skinnereal wrote: The universe is a big place, and there are LOADS of planets and systems that got lost for thousands of years.
So, if the IG lost the standard templates and their forgeworld failed, they'd have to adapt and build their own equipment.
Cadia is just a small part of the whole Imperium. Not every IG army is going to look like them.
If Space Wolves have such a wildly different look to Grey Knights, why cannot other chapters look different too?
If it is the right scale, and models are WYSIWYG, go for it.
If your army's theme also fits the ideas and concepts of 40k, all the better.
3rrd-party models just make that easier to do.
So, this is just the latest thread created by the OP that I disagree with. I might even stop posting in them one day.
Yup. No one has ever complained about my samurai rough riders. In fact people usually complement them.
morgoth wrote: Well... the rough riders are one of those things I wish weren't part of 40K, so whether they're GW or not couldn't make a difference for me.
I started playing this game in the late 90's early 2000's when they still had the mail order and bitz order area inside GW. For the first 2 years or so the White Dwarf Mags even came with a "Bitz" style mag where the people of GW showed off the conversions, how they did them and the parts needed to make them. So stating how conversions cause you problems is actually an insult to the game because it originally emphasized and encouraged conversions for the models not available. So what if i want to use High Elf Stallions for my rough rider squads. As long as the model fits the role it does not in any way devalue the model or my creativity in any way shape or form. It is the knuckle headed igit on the other side of the table playing rules lawyer that will soon find he has no one to play with because I have seen maybe 10 or 12 armies in my play time that do not include conversions of some sort. This can be from head swaps to complex 4-5 model combinations for a warlord. Third party models only enhance the game in my opinion. It gives the game character and flavor. If we did not have companies like Scribor Miniatures and Victoria miniatures pushing the envelope of the game systems out there we would have no multi part models to put together. The reason Games Workshop puts out so many new and improved models year after year month after month is because they have more competition out there with which to fight off and people are seeing that there are more than just them for gaming. This makes the need for new ideas and concepts a constant thing not just a once a year reboot of a given model or two. So the answer is that the variations of all the models makes it to where we have so many new ideas and models coming out improving the game and challenging us as gamers to expand our thoughts and ideas on new concepts in the games and our skills as painters and modelers.
Really, as long as I know what a non-GW mini is supposed to represent, and it's roughly the same size, I'm cool with it. Couldn't care less about WYSIWYG. Oh, that one with the chainsword has the missile launcher? Fine. Done deal, time to kill him.
docdoom77 wrote: I think what you buy is up to you and you can do whatever you please, but you might have more fun if you stepped off that high horse and let other people have their fun too.
There's absolutely nothing wrong with using 3rd party materials. I love the variety it brings to the table.
In the end, it's your choice, but it's definitely not the one I would make.
It's silly to argue that someone else's miniatures somehow devalue yours on the tabletop.
It makes me happy to see that the first reply to this thread is exactly what I would have said.
I use some third party stuff, but mainly HQs since I have a custom chapter.
I really don't think it matters if somebody else finds something that they like that gives no sort of advantage because of any reason, be it aesthetics, cost, or availability.
I use some pieces from third party producers for specific parts the I think have more of the feel of the 30k/40k universe than some of the GW parts. Take for instance the Jet Packs. I believe that they would be more thruster style as seen in the Visions Of Heresy books that show the massive barrel shaped tubes that are attached to the power plant on the back of the marines. I also used some of the outside versions of bases with lava on them. These differences are what makes the armies have character and separates them from other peoples. I have even started to cast my own bases with resin and use cork board to make my own lava bases just to make all of them have the same feel and give them more stability.
These are factors that i take into account when i choose models to buy and select to expand my army. It is also why i have lost a lot of faith in Games Workshop when they did away with the Bitz Sales Dept. It killed that drive to make the armies more individual and different.
morgoth wrote: Well... the rough riders are one of those things I wish weren't part of 40K, so whether they're GW or not couldn't make a difference for me.
Even these?
They got gasmasks on their horses!
If I an remembering correctly horses did actually get gas masks in WWI.
carlos13th wrote: I have to admit from what I have read about RT I prefer the fluff to everything dark all the time. RT didnt seem to take itself too seriously.
I write a lot of fiction set in 40k universe (Don't judge me!) And I usually find a dark Black adder or metalocalypse style of humor works best for the universe.
There is some degree of humor in HH books and a lot in Ciaphas Cain.
What a sad premise for a thread. I think third parties are great for the hobby as they increase diversity. There are some great products for gaming now. Sometimes proxies look gak, but some people buy only GW and daub half their army under globs of paint and leave the rest as bare plastic. It's how you model the various components into a theme that works together should determine whether you've done a good job of using third party things. Quite a bit of third party stuff looks better than GW's standard output, their bobble-headed IG are piss poor.
The view that GW games should only ever be played with GW miniatures is shared by elitist fanboys and GW-only fanatics. A lot of stuff made by other manufacturers is better than GW and in some cases it's not even cheap. People are buying it for the aesthetic, not to be cheap. Although why not paying GW RRP prices is a bad thing I don't know.
dekinrie wrote: Well if the OP doesnt like conversions he won't want to see the latest White dwarf with official conversions for the necrons guns
Nah, he'd be fine with those, seeing as they're Official Citadel Conversions that were done using parts paid for in full at the nearest GW Hobby Centre.
do they care?!
