How do?

So this is something that's been preying on my brain for a few days now.

As an older gamer, I remember the days when conversions were really quite common place. From the simple head or weapon swap to truly impressive scratchbuilds, it was rare to see an army without some kind of conversions.

In the really early days, when you had to carve up solid models, I stuck to simple stuff. Then the advent (from my GW background) of multipart plastics made Kit Bashes the order of the day. Not only were the parts already separate, but being plastic much easier to bung together.

Then...something changed. And not just with GW, but the wider market. One of things that's always puzzled me about Warmahordes was the lack of customisation. And from that, the lack of need to convert. And GW seem to be following suit, going for more elaborate base kits, which lack the former flexibility. Which although still in plastic, are nearly as difficult to work with as the old Metal Lump models - because the parts aren't standardised across a given range (well, not all the time)

There's also fewer to no 'missing units'. So no more need to convert X on a Y character - because there's one you can buy off the peg.

Now of course, conversion does still go on. The lack of need is absolutely not the same as lack of desire.

I just feel the general industry's shift to more standardised kits has left the hobby a little poorer.

People want standardization. Thats not to say conversions are dead. Far from it. Its just that its definitely not something most people want to mess with aside from a head swap or something.

See, that's a great shame to me.

Wanting standardisation is fine - and very much for the individual player or hobbyist to decide. But it can stifle the artistic side of the hobby.

One of my personal favourites was my Savage Orc Warboss on Wyvern. It's basically made from the High Elf Dragon, metal Wyvern, Orc Boss box, modelling string, sprue off cuts and a bit of my own blood from when my saw slipped and anointed (still got a scar!).

It worked beautifully, and has taken pride of place in my local GW's cabinet for best part of ten years now.

Sadly he no longer has rules in the game, but I'm still massively proud of that effort.

We really are going to need that Mad Doc Random Ramblings thread soon, aren't we?

Are maybe a link to your personal Blog Site?

I make my own versions of most of the IG characters, even named ones. Granted, it made more sense back when you could have "Cadian Al-rahem" or "Catachan Pask", but at least I can call my army whatever and use them.

Only one I think I have that I use (and prefer) is the Creed model, because he looks a better general than I think I could ever hope to come up with.

I'd say conversions are not dead, more like in its prime.

Yes, while GW kits are pretty pick and mix, with options for what you want, customisation of your army is where the converting part really shines nowadays.

For example, different design of plasma weaponry across your army. Different heads than standard. Converting a completely different faction to be another (I'm currently doing this, turning chaos cultists into a hive militia for my counts as conscripts in my steel legion army) and many more.

Also Doc, you got to take into account some armies lend much better to converting than others. Space marines, Necrons and Eldar don't really lend themselves to much converting.

Chaos marines, Orks, and imperial Guard, well, the world's your oyster, so go nuts!

There must be a lot of characters without a full range of weapon options.
Even squad leaders are missing a lot (Aspect Exarchs), so conversions are still needed.
Some units still need some work (IG vets), and kitbashes can handle a lot of those, but with posed multipart kits, the options are thinning out.

Yeah, it's not that converting is dead, really. More like converting to access game rules is dead.

Also, long as you're not playing with GW's ball, there's an infinite number of conversion options available:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
How do?

So this is something that's been preying on my brain for a few days now.

As an older gamer, I remember the days when conversions were really quite common place. From the simple head or weapon swap to truly impressive scratchbuilds, it was rare to see an army without some kind of conversions.

In the really early days, when you had to carve up solid models, I stuck to simple stuff. Then the advent (from my GW background) of multipart plastics made Kit Bashes the order of the day. Not only were the parts already separate, but being plastic much easier to bung together.

Then...something changed. And not just with GW, but the wider market. One of things that's always puzzled me about Warmahordes was the lack of customisation. And from that, the lack of need to convert. And GW seem to be following suit, going for more elaborate base kits, which lack the former flexibility. Which although still in plastic, are nearly as difficult to work with as the old Metal Lump models - because the parts aren't standardised across a given range (well, not all the time)

There's also fewer to no 'missing units'. So no more need to convert X on a Y character - because there's one you can buy off the peg.

Now of course, conversion does still go on. The lack of need is absolutely not the same as lack of desire.

I just feel the general industry's shift to more standardized kits has left the hobby a little poorer.

I agree 100%. The majority of kits GW puts out these days are largely single pose with maybe a weapon or head swap. Unit and modelling options have been on a steady decline. I was very excited when I heard that the Primaris Marines were coming out. "A true scale Tactical Squad!", I thought. That's not what we got. We got a unit of taller Marines who could use one of two guns... more if you count sticking a scope on. No heavy weapons. No pistol/chainsword combo. No variable special weapons. We didn't get true scale Marines. When I saw what we got, I almost immediately lost interest.

I then considered the Death Guard. They look cool. But... they largely have the same issue. The models are, for the most part, single pose with the occasional weapon or head swap.

I'm at a point where I want to try something new, but don't see anything new that looks like it's worth my hobby time. The game isn't good enough to hold my attention without paired hobby activity. If the game was clean and consistent with a standardized store event scene, such as with Armada or X-Wing, I'd be happy to play with my old stuff. It's not.

I'm really hoping that we'll see more multi-part kits with parts being compatible being kits. I'm not expecting that we will.

The sheer amount of wargear options in 40k is one of the most off-putting things about the game to me. I always feel like I'll regret my choice when kitting out a new model, and most of the time, I do.

I do enjoy converting, as long as it doesn't change how the model works in-game. You can do that in Warmachine as well. Most of my conversion work is reposing, fixing of ugly sculpts, and sex change operations, things that add variety without impacting the game.

I also think conversions should be optional. If someone doesn't want to convert, that's their choice and they should be just as accepted in the community as those who do. I don't like the implicit shaming of people who just play stock models.

Furthermore, I don't convert just for conversion's sake. I convert because I have an idea that requires conversion, and I will not be satisfied with sloppy work. I want my converted models to look like they weren't converted, otherwise what's the point? I convert to get a look I like, and that means parts need to match up as well as in official miniatures, and green stuff sculpting needs to not look like green stuff. This means I won't convert something if I don't think I can pull it off.

At the end of the day, I think this issue comes down to individual value judgments.

Some people like the lack of variation and that they can simply build the models and play without having to make much in the way of wargear choices. For them, this is a good thing.

For me, it's bad enough that I feel as though I'm being pushed out as a hobbyist.

GW always talked about the '4 Pillars' of the hobby. Some people snarkily refer to that as the HHHHobby.

Collecting - still a thing.
Building - less appealing with mono posed model kits.
Painting - still a thing.
Playing - less appealing with fewer unit options.

 Alpharius wrote:
We really are going to need that Mad Doc Random Ramblings thread soon, aren't we?

Are maybe a link to your personal Blog Site?

May I suggest a new category for Lego's end of the year member review?

 BrookM wrote:

 Alpharius wrote:
We really are going to need that Mad Doc Random Ramblings thread soon, aren't we?

Are maybe a link to your personal Blog Site?

May I suggest a new category for Lego's end of the year member review?

Ah... personal attacks. Good times. If we add a spam category, let's also add a category for personal attacks that add nothing to the conversation.

To stay on topic...

It's OK if you disagree. Some of us are mourning what we see as a wealth of options being replaced with entry level single pose kits. Things change. Such is life. If GW keeps at this, they'll lose some customers and gain others. Hopefully for them, they'll gain more than they lose.

Is it an attack or good-natured ribbing?

I still convert a LOT. I prefer as many of my models as possible to be something different.

I tend to buy a lot of old models that need re-conditioning. Repairing them and modifying them tend to go hand-in-hand.

I'm on the side saying this is the best time for conversions, with all the multi-part plastic kits available nowadays converting up minis has never been easier. I think what we see is typically stock troops and converted HQ's to make them stand out a bit more. for my Necrons I converted up a destroyer lord and my lychguard. Also, if you're looking for people having a great time converting minis check out INQ28. that's what our group is during currently and I've never had more fun building a force. That type/theme of game tends to lend itself to heavy conversion.

pictured is my 70% done inquisitor for Inquisimunda. I'm running a campaign so I actually have like 30 more completely converted minis as well.

Totally agree.
warning.
I find it not only the model kits and the producers, but the generation having been raised on collectible card games by companies that want to sell a product for every niche then manufacture the rules to push sales of just those products.
Being brought up in that environment, and with some other factors, kids (yes, even 25 year old people are 'kids') are also generally less self-reliant, less creative (in the sense of actually making something from scratch, inventing coherent backgrounds that really stand up, demanding originality from themselves and holding this as a personal virtue) and more inclined to game the system, cheat, lie (yes, right, my experience) and generally live more shallow existences for less redeeming ends (yes, again, my own opinion, impale me for it).
Now, I may seem to be painting with a broad brush and I am, but I also recognize that the kids that have to live in this environment and aren't this way suffer in a really big way, just as many of us may have suffered trying hold up the pillars of the old world against the tides of human entropy in the slide to generation me me me.
Fact is, at least in the West, much of this can be painted with a broad brush as it is a systemic problem endemic to institutions and their mismanagement but I will leave it at that.
Again, my opinion.
So, GW and other companies not only aiming to profit in this environment, after having encouraged it to some degree, also now employ products of this environment and we enjoy (???) the results of a vicious circle, monopose masterpieces with neither the need nor the potential for creative recomposition natural to a different era, mine/ours(?), on my analysis because the idjits making the stuff don't see the virtue/profit in it.
OK, broken... :

 Fifty wrote:
Is it an attack or good-natured ribbing?

The latter, but alas, as with many things in life, I also fail at comedy.

On topic though..

I convert a lot, by which I mean I mainly order heads from a different company and sticking them on GW models.

Losing that lawsuit may have steered GW hard into this direction as well. No model = no rules. Though they are also clearly writing rules with models in mind, a lot of the stuff you had to convert onto a model back then has been outright removed these days, like power axes for Imperial Guard minis, or the equipment choices of a lot of generic HQ's in general. If it's not in the box, chances are it's no longer an option. (which does make one wonder why shotguns are still in the Imperial Guard armoury..)

Going off the beaten path and doing your own thing, like with INQ28 or making RPG minis in general is certainly a great incentive to do weird or outright awesome gak, it's just a shame that GW is no longer actively doing it outside of Blanchitsu(sp?).

I'm not even sure it's just GW.

X-Wing doesn't require any, nor does RuneWars, or Warmahordes, or Infinity (may be wrong on Infinity. Please feel free to re-educate your humble scribe).

It just feels like an industry shift away from the slightly bonkers days of kitbashing being the norm.

Perhaps it's all on us as the hobby to push ourselves here. After all, it's fine and well bemoaning the lack of need to convert - but if we're not doing it as individuals, that aspect's visibility reduces.

 Alpharius wrote:
We really are going to need that Mad Doc Random Ramblings thread soon, aren't we?

Are maybe a link to your personal Blog Site?

No, we need someone to start discussions on a "discussion board".

That said, I think this drive to "standardization" is driven partly by the companies themselves. AS a 6Sigma guy, one of the first things beat into your head is that standardization is critical to reduce waste and improve efficiency! Therefore, the compnaies themselves steer their product lines in that direction.

Secondly, many gamers just want their games handed to them. What I mean is, they just want to know what things do what to whom, and go from there. Creating and story-telling and customization is a burden. This is the most vocal market, and probably the people most likely to drive sales. The other group can just get on with it themselves without a company at all.

So the Company is doing what it needs to do to survive and catering to what the buyers tend to want. Plus, if you have to scratchbuild something, the company makes $0 dollars on that.

As someone who always found that fudging about with fat fingers and tiny bits of plastic, metal, balsa wood and various glues to be one of the less enjoyable parts of the hobby, I personally celebrate the move towards reduced *need* for conversions. I totally agree it is a thing though. However, I absolutely *hate* the notion that in order to field model X (say, for the sake of argument, a Gundabad Orc Standard Bearer for the Hobbit SBG) I have to spend a lot of time, effort and money farting on, making my own out of whatever bits I can get my hands on, which inevitably will end up looking like arse.

I totally support conversion as a legitimate element of the hobby, and something to be celebrated for those that *want* to do it. However I would personally much rather just be able to buy the relevant, nicely sculpted, model off the shelf so I can get straight on with painting it and getting it on the table (or, more like, in the box to sit on the shelf for a decade until I get around to finishing the rest of the unit.... :-) )

I'm entering a tournament at the weekend (Stockport in Flames 2017) and *needed* Azog in Heavy Armour, but of course there is no proper model available from GW. So I plucked up courage and sculpted the relevant armour in greenstuff over the top of a fething £15 finecast model. It is almost passable. Almost. But its a lot worse than something a professional would have done. It was only the fact I had spent £15 on the thing that meant I didn't bin it in shame and change my list.

Each to their own when it comes to their hobby, but I really like the direction things are going myself.

P.s. I have been collecting and painting toy soldiers since 1985. If I was ever going to get good at converting or sculpting it would have happened a long time before now! :-)

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
nfinity (may be wrong on Infinity. Please feel free to re-educate your humble scribe).

I don't play it, but my friends do. Looks like all spindly multipiece metal anime miniatures to me.

A lot of new and younger gamers see the hobby side of table top gaming as a barrier to play. Consider that for a gamer these days, they have all these options: video games, board games, and CCG's. These games- you make the purchase, take it home, open it up, and you can immediately start playing. There is little to no prep work for most of these games. * Even for RPG's these days like D&D or Pathfinder, you can now purchase pre-painted models of pretty good quality. Why are games like X-wing and STAW so popular? Prepainted models and customization.

Now look at 40K. Ignoring the issue of price of the game which is a whole separate argument: You need a rule book (no biggie, you always need a rulebook). Then you need an army book. Then you buy a "Start Collecting!" box of Space Marines because, well, it's the starter box. Then you need either clippers or a hobby knife- preferably both. Maybe a file set for mold lines. Oh, and don't forget the paint. Plastic paint for plastic models, or superglue for everything. Hmm. Those bases look pretty plain. You'll need some grit, sand, fine gravel, or whatever bits to add to the base. Awesome! My model is now assembled! Only 11 more models to assemble. After a couple games, we'll realize we need about 50+ more models for a proper army. Oh joy! Now you have a grey plastic space marine sitting on a base. Gotta paint it! Brushes, paint, primer... as many choices and options here as you can possibly imagine. Sure, there are resources available at every step of this hobby, but when all I want to do is play 40K but I have to spend significant time (days/weeks) before I can even step foot into a GW store to play... it's no wonder that painted armies sell so well on eBay.

More than one big company (Hasbro, Asmodee) look at this aspect of the hobby as a barrier to getting into their games. So they make premade and painted models of OK quality for their games. The new Star Wars miniatures game coming out by FFG has a high model count, and all the models are one piece, prepainted (unless that has changed since the announcement?).

Gamers have complained since, well, back in the 80's when I started table top gaming about the prep time, the lack of models, and the lack of choices. Back then, if you wanted to play, you HAD to convert or scratchbuild models. Who can forget the infamous "Deodorant Hover Tank" that GW put into White Dwarf? Why did Privateer Press suddenly take off? Well, part of it was rules, the other part was that every model had rules, and every rule had a model, and there was no painting requirement for tournaments (except for Hardcore). X-Wing took off because of solid rules, depth of game play (customization of ships), and the only prep was punch out some tokens, put a ship on a peg and base, and you could start playing.

TLDR; Changing social values and immediate expectations of gratification means the hobby aspect of table top gaming is being less emphasized or minimized so the player can play immediately.



* Some board games could require some prep time to punch out counters or set up the board, and there are some players that obsess over the perfect M:tG deck

Though didn't Privateer also put the boot down and state that for official events conversions were absolutely forbidden?

Warmachine's rules set requires a tighter control of conversions, Otherwise you can gain a lot of in game advantages with modeling.

Well we've sadly seen that in GW games as well - people modelling for advantage. I've seen Ork Trukks with massive, LoS blocking adboards on the side. I've seen 'scratch built' Bloodcrushers that were just Bloodletters plonked on LotR horses, on too small a base for an actual Bloodcrusher.

But is that not throwing baby out with the bathwater? The actions of a tiny, thoughtless minority shouldn't be reason to reduce part of the hobby's presence?

 BrookM wrote:
Though didn't Privateer also put the boot down and state that for official events conversions were absolutely forbidden?

As far as I know, they have stated that your have to be 50%+ PP, you have to keep them recognisable as what they're meant to be, you can't swap a weapon for a different kind of weapon (but you can swap a sword for another sword), and for official events you can't have non-PP IPs in your army.

All of those are pretty reasonable, especially if you consider that they're meant to lessen confusion about what a model is supposed to be.

If they've changed any of this since, I've missed it.

 Crimson Devil wrote:
Warmachine's rules set requires a tighter control of conversions, Otherwise you can gain a lot of in game advantages with modeling.

No you can't.... Warmachine rules are completely independent of the model in every way.

 LunarSol wrote:

 Crimson Devil wrote:
Warmachine's rules set requires a tighter control of conversions, Otherwise you can gain a lot of in game advantages with modeling.

No you can't.... Warmachine rules are completely independent of the model in every way.

Warmachine just requires the correct base and uses an imaginary cylider to determine line of sight, correct? GW should really get on top of that.

A big part of the problem with 40k is just that the rules don't really take advantage of the customization in a way that's rewarding for players. Customization is all about individuality, but 40k isn't a game about uniqueness. You don't need one of something; if its worth playing you need at least 4 of them and if the game changes, the models you customize are often challenging to change in a way that keeps up.

We're also entering an age where model quality is far more competitive than its ever been and companies are becoming more invested in maintaining and selling the appearance of their game and IP. This more than anything seems to be what is driving the trend to be less approving of armies that don't look like "their game".


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kriswall wrote:

 LunarSol wrote:

 Crimson Devil wrote:
Warmachine's rules set requires a tighter control of conversions, Otherwise you can gain a lot of in game advantages with modeling.

No you can't.... Warmachine rules are completely independent of the model in every way.

Warmachine just requires the correct base and uses an imaginary cylider to determine line of sight, correct? GW should really get on top of that.

Yes, though no one uses the imaginary cylinder...

Personally, I don't get the love of conversions. I really don't care whether my opponent's army has conversions. Most of the time, I can't even tell unless I'm intimately familiar with an army's model range.

As a general rule, the more conversions my opponent has, the less likely their army is to be painted or painted well. I don't mean this as an attack, just a statement to point out that different aspects of the hobby appeal to different people. As such, if people aren't as interested in the part you find most important, well....get over it. Every person has their own hobby priorities.

I prefer the painting aspect, and appreciate when my opponent has a well painted army. Conversions are cool, but don't appeal to me very much. If my opponent is super into his converted army, good for him. I just get annoyed when the conversation inevitably ends up into "Why isn't your army converted?".

Taking GW kits as the standard, I do like the fact that now all the options in the book are on the sprues; when I was a little Timmy I often had to make due with whatever the kit came with, which meant I couldn't optimize my lists because I couldn't make a lot of the options (indeed a lot of my Chaos Terminators still have "count as" weapons simply because I couldn't get the correct ones in sufficient numbers or find enough alternatives).

However converting has always been the most fun part of the hobby for me, especially using bitz in creative applications. Like the Greater Daemon conversion article from Black Gobbo, where they made a googly eyed cthulhu esque greater daemon by turning a lictor's body upside down and using the ball joints originally meant for it's legs into giant bulbous eyes.

The latter days will never go away, but we'll be seeing less and less "unique" armies and more and more standardized Armies. Without the necessity to do so a lot less people will try to do so, since following the instructions is just so much easier

I would say the newer plastic character sprues are a bit more specific in how they go together.
I think the observation is that it is harder than it was to convert, so new modelers may have greater difficulty than we (as in, us old farts) had starting out.
The good thing is hacking up plastic is much easier than metal that you need to pin and green stuff within an inch of it's life.

I still like to convert, since I have had lots of practice maybe I do not notice a difficulty.
As long as models are made with weapon and gear options, they should be inherently easy to swap what you want.
I have found I stab myself a lot less than in the past at the very least while converting models.

We really are going to need that Mad Doc Random Ramblings thread soon, aren't we?

You're just worried he'll break your post count

You could argue that it was unfair of GW to allow options on models that you couldn't get without converting. If a model with X equipment is allowed by the game, by rights GW should make that model available via normal means (mono pose cast or options on a multipart sprue). Making that possible may have constricted options a tad, but then again, look at the weapon options on Plague Marines - there's plenty of options there. Primaris Marines were supposed to be mass produced cookie-cutter reinforcements, so a more standardized load-out makes sense for them. If you wanted to use Primaris for true-scale marines, there's plenty of room for conversion there.

That said, tons of conversions have NOTHING to do with model options. My 5th edition Death Guard were heavily converted with tyranid bits and green stuff. None of it was necessary at all, as all the options I fielded were 100% available. Modelers that want to convert today can still convert as much as they want - modelers who don't want to convert are no longer forced to. That's not being 'spoiled', IMO. People will convert because they want cool unique models, rather than having to convert because the option they want is locked behind a skill-wall.

Maybe its because GW and others are targeting younger less hobby skilled customers?
And so assume simple standard kits are the ones to push.And that those inclined to individualism would paint and convert their forces as they want to?

Also W.D. is now just a minatures catalog promoting standard models.

Its no longer a game supplement and hobby magazine.(There used to be a few cool conversion ideas using non GW parts!)

Given that Blanchitsu and the IG conversion articles are in the latest WD, GW is still catering to converters. The GSC Hybrid set that came out last year spawned a slew of conversions on several sites including the Shrine to John Blanche, aka the Ammo Bunker.

 LunarSol wrote:

 Crimson Devil wrote:
Warmachine's rules set requires a tighter control of conversions, Otherwise you can gain a lot of in game advantages with modeling.

No you can't.... Warmachine rules are completely independent of the model in every way.

Is that a mark 3 thing?

 Crimson Devil wrote:

 LunarSol wrote:

 Crimson Devil wrote:
Warmachine's rules set requires a tighter control of conversions, Otherwise you can gain a lot of in game advantages with modeling.

No you can't.... Warmachine rules are completely independent of the model in every way.

Is that a mark 3 thing?

No, it was that way in MkII as well, models take up the area their bases cover and have a specified height depending on base size.

Base overhang has always been a problem, which is why you use proxy bases. It's like "wobbly model syndrome" in 40k. You can also butt charge.

As somebody who started all this hobby malarky before GW (or anybody else) had plastic kits there's a load more converting going on than when I started

although GW and the other companies did plenty of that for you with most figures re-appearing with head/weapon swaps later on

if you did your own you needed to hack up metal minis with no more than a craft knife (no dremmel either back them) not simple

then in came plastic and conversions got a lot easier and the dremmel appeared to improve things still further,

the first great flowering various companies rules teams went 'it would be cool if....' without talking to the sculptors meaning rules without models so converting was often needed if you really wanted to be WYSIWYG above and beyond converting to just make something cool and unique to you

and as more and more stuff appeared in plastic both got easier and easier,

but now the big players are much tighter in terms on only having rules of models they make (and it's not as if GW is the only one to do this most of the other big players are the same, if they put out rules the models are there or coming shortly)

so if you convert it's because you want to rather than have to which is probably a better scene all round, fewer knife injuries, more time to actually game for those that don't like converting, generally easier pick up games as most of the time people know what a model is (even the best conversion can be confusing, and less well done ones can be a nightmare), and for those that do enjoy converting (like me) theres a wealth of plastic and resin bits to play with before you have to learn to sculpt which you'll probably end up doing eventually anyway

TLOS is really to blame for this. When the dimensions of the model come into play as part of the game conversions get frowned upon due to "modeling for advantage"

That said I still see a lot of conversions on the table in GW games (other games not so much because of how kits are designed/models released), I think GWs desire is to move away from it being a need to it being a want. No one should have to convert to field a unit on the table, but if you want to make something different and cool great. Just look at the new IG book with kit bashes in the pictures section for different regiments. It is obvious they are still encouraging it, they just aren't requiring it as they have in the past.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Cream Tea wrote:

 Crimson Devil wrote:

 LunarSol wrote:

 Crimson Devil wrote:
Warmachine's rules set requires a tighter control of conversions, Otherwise you can gain a lot of in game advantages with modeling.

No you can't.... Warmachine rules are completely independent of the model in every way.

Is that a mark 3 thing?

No, it was that way in MkII as well, models take up the area their bases cover and have a specified height depending on base size.

Base overhang has always been a problem, which is why you use proxy bases. It's like "wobbly model syndrome" in 40k. You can also butt charge.

yup other games that are more abstract with LOS rules actually make it easier for conversion. WM just always catered to a crowd less concerned with converting, and from a purely competitive standpoint conversions can be an unfair advantage in some games (beyond pose changes and head swaps) counts as armies are an issue if your opponent continually has to keep straight what is what.

Don't forget that you used to be able to order any metal bit or individual plastic sprue from GW back in the day. The elimination of the bits order has done more to curtail conversions for me than anything else. I still have the bits bible from 2004!



Sure, you can still get plastic bits from ebay, but you're generally ordering them in larger quantities or bundled with other things you don't actually need. And this is assuming there's even stock available for the bits you want. It's a lot more expensive than it used to be (hard to imagine).


That said, the various Inq28 projects keep the conversion light burning, even if I can only appreciate it from a distance.

 LunarSol wrote:

 Crimson Devil wrote:
Warmachine's rules set requires a tighter control of conversions, Otherwise you can gain a lot of in game advantages with modeling.

No you can't.... Warmachine rules are completely independent of the model in every way.

Erm, yes you can. Have you never used a deathclock? Confusion over what a model is is part of why this rule is in place.

 The Power Cosmic wrote:
Don't forget that you used to be able to order any metal bit or individual plastic sprue from GW back in the day. The elimination of the bits order has done more to curtail conversions for me than anything else. I still have the bits bible from 2004!



Sure, you can still get plastic bits from ebay, but you're generally ordering them in larger quantities or bundled with other things you don't actually need. And this is assuming there's even stock available for the bits you want. It's a lot more expensive than it used to be (hard to imagine).


That said, the various Inq28 projects keep the conversion light burning, even if I can only appreciate it from a distance.

The Bits Wagon was a treat when it rolled into town. I miss being able to order individual parts right from GW. Made customizing your army to suit you so much easier than sifting through the eBay bits sellers who are charging an arm and a leg for the popular bits. I still buy them, because I want to make my army a certain way to suit my vision of them.

My favorite part of the hobby has always been the converting and customizing aspect. Being able to create an army that is truly your own, your own characters and background is why I still play. It gives me an attachment to my army, an makes the game more fun to me. I found it hard to develop that attachment with other games that are character driven (Warmachine, Malifaux, Guild Ball) and lack the ability to create your own army/crew/force from the ground up.

Eh, bunch of cranky old farts whinging while looking back with rose tinted glasses.

Most converting back in the old day was either converting to access game rules, converting because you couldn't afford the proper model or converting because the official model looked like crap.

Most of those conversions looked like crap anyway.

I still have my crap looking Saurus spearmen conversions from back when I couldn't afford regiments of metal Saurus and the plastic ones were only armed with a hand weapon

The number of actual good looking conversions, the ones that stopped you in your tracks to investigate further, they're more common now than they were before simply because the models they use as a basis for them are plastic. Back in the day even if a plastic model existed it usually looked like junk next to the metals, so high end converters would start with metals anyway.

Models off the shelves these days look better than they ever have before and often there's less need to convert. There's never been more models on the market that I want to paint just for the sake of painting them. But the people crazy enough to have a vision then actually see it through with awesome conversions hasn't lessened.

I loved being able to hand my RPG players a big ol' box of parts, and letting them build their character if they wanted.

Yeah, monopose models may look better as individual models, but I greatly preferred being able to mix and match pieces to make the character that I wanted.

The new models don't even tempt me in that way - I used to buy lots of plastic WHFB miniatures, and mostly for armies that I had no interest in playing in the game.

I would buy them and use them for D&D.

The Auld Grump - then GW sent letters around to the FLGSs, asking them not to let people use GW miniatures for any non-GW games... said letters being promptly circular filed.

Those letters never made any sense to me - why complain why people were buying their stuff, as long as they were buying?

*EDIT* Net result of monopose plastics? I don't buy GW miniatures these days - and that is a big chunk of why.

 The Power Cosmic wrote:
Don't forget that you used to be able to order any metal bit or individual plastic sprue from GW back in the day. The elimination of the bits order has done more to curtail conversions for me than anything else. I still have the bits bible from 2004!



Sure, you can still get plastic bits from ebay, but you're generally ordering them in larger quantities or bundled with other things you don't actually need. And this is assuming there's even stock available for the bits you want. It's a lot more expensive than it used to be (hard to imagine).


That said, the various Inq28 projects keep the conversion light burning, even if I can only appreciate it from a distance.

I do agree that the old bits catalogue was great.

On the flip side, because of so many dual kits these days (which I'm still 50/50 on whether I like them or not because they're always so expensive) most people have a bits box that is way better than it was back when you could order bits directly.

If you do your modelling with friends these days you often have incredible access to parts.

I would say that Infinity absolutely needs conversions. There's still s lot of units in that game with rules and profiles, but no models. Or, in some cases the model exists, but it's an old, ugly figure that doesn't fit the newer aesthetics. Conversions are a good way around that.

As one of the "young 'uns" I see getting ragged on constantly in various sections of dakka, I'd like to challenge some of your assertions and broad brushes.
I find converting, from a simple head swap to some rather more ambitious projects (admittedly nothing made from scratch because i know it'd look like arse) really enjoyable, even when there's no incentive to do so for rules reasons, and even though it adds time from sprue to playing. And as far as I'm aware, generation 'me me me' hasn't had our brains and attention spans totally fried just yet, certainly in the conversion department, because I see a lot of conversions in the armies of young 'uns.
Maybe model companies are going down the more static route for greater consumer ease, but it's not so bad. The new nurgle marines have a level of detail that does require a certain level of monoposing and a little less of the old standardised options. And the primaris are still just as convertable as the old marines, I actually find that a simple head swap to the MK VII helmet makes them look so much better, and everyone has tons of spares lying around.

I'm not seeing any end to converting. Most people with at least the minimum enjoyment of making kits will do something to make it "their" model.

There are loads of FB groups dedicated to all sorts of games and themes chock full of conversions. There's a decent SWA group where half the poss are Warbands or terrain converted from all sorts of gubbinz. Ditto the Battlegroup one/Club groups/Specialist games/etc.

I suppose it depends on the frame of reference, if it's 40k where allot I players seem to begrudge the notion of buying models much less painting them then yeah you might not see allot of it but there's plenty about.

I'd suggest as well that the "monopose" stuff the GW seems to be putting out is no barrier to converting. It's plastic afterall, it doesn't get any easier to convert.

 notprop wrote:
I'm not seeing any end to converting. Most people with at least the minimum enjoyment of making kits will do something to make it "their" model.

There are loads of FB groups dedicated to all sorts of games and themes chock full of conversions. There's a decent SWA group where half the poss are Warbands or terrain converted from all sorts of gubbinz. Ditto the Battlegroup one/Club groups/Specialist games/etc.

I suppose it depends on the frame of reference, if it's 40k where allot I players seem to begrudge the notion of buying models much less painting them then yeah you might not see allot of it but there's plenty about.

I'd suggest as well that the "monopose" stuff the GW seems to be putting out is no barrier to converting. It's plastic afterall, it doesn't get any easier to convert.

Yes, yes it does 'get easier' - the more points of articulation, and the more variety of parts, the easier it is to modify.

The old , multi-pose, models were a lot easier to convert, or even just mix and match.

The Auld Grump

Even after 20 years with GW models, I still convert my models all the time, even from the new ranges. I have a skirmish collection of a dozen Stormcast, who all have headswaps with bareheaded Space Marine heads, several of which had to have the ear-comms removed and a new ear sculpted in so the head would have no tech-bitz.

Lord Relictor with head and staff swap:


I just recently made this custom (albino to add some character) Orc Shaman from a Savage Orc standard bearer I bought as a single at GenCon, simply by cutting down/resculpting the standard:

 TheAuldGrump wrote:

 notprop wrote:
I'm not seeing any end to converting. Most people with at least the minimum enjoyment of making kits will do something to make it "their" model.

There are loads of FB groups dedicated to all sorts of games and themes chock full of conversions. There's a decent SWA group where half the poss are Warbands or terrain converted from all sorts of gubbinz. Ditto the Battlegroup one/Club groups/Specialist games/etc.

I suppose it depends on the frame of reference, if it's 40k where allot I players seem to begrudge the notion of buying models much less painting them then yeah you might not see allot of it but there's plenty about.

I'd suggest as well that the "monopose" stuff the GW seems to be putting out is no barrier to converting. It's plastic afterall, it doesn't get any easier to convert.

Yes, yes it does 'get easier' - the more points of articulation, and the more variety of parts, the easier it is to modify.

The old , multi-pose, models were a lot easier to convert, or even just mix and match.

The Auld Grump

I think it depends whether we're talking about "just mix and match" or a really nice conversion that someone might enter in to a painting competition.

The former, multipose models are great, the latter, it's often not a big deal because even multipose models will often have aesthetic compromises to make them such so a lot of work has to go in to make them look decent.

I like converting stuff. I like making unique miniatures. Back before I had the means to purchase large amounts of metal stuff for Necromunda, and the Orlock/Goliaths could only be bought via bitz order, I made unique miniatures using the plastic minis from the Necromunda box and my stash of bits. I've got an Orlock with a 2nd Ed CC sprue Marine Power Fist. I've got a Goliath with the same powerfist, after I cut off his big knife-wielding arm with a pair of nail scissors! I turned parts from a hand flamer and the handle of a power axe into a web pistol. I've got an Orlock heavy holding the Heavy Bolter from the original Land Raider kit!

I've always found kitbashing to be tremendous fun, so much so that I got 90 of the 'Mutants' GW put out when the EoT campaign came out. It was a bag that had a sprue of Catachans, a sprue or Orks, a sprue of Zombies and a Chaos Mutation sprue. It was enough, if you were clever, to make 15 miniatures. And I went even further. I challenged myself to make miniatures using as many pieces as possible. I've got one miniature who uses parts from the Ork, Zombie, Chaos Marauder, metal Necromunda weapons and that cut-off Goliath knife arm from the one I mentioned above. I've got a guy who has parts from the Chaos vehicle upgrade sprue to make unique spikes on top of an Ork shoulder pad, and he's wielding a Marauder Champion's sword and a CSM power fist. I've been doing strange things like that ever since I first used a spare 2nd Ed Hive Tyrant head on a 2nd Ed metal Chaos Terminator body.

I save - horde! - bitz from all sorts of places for later use, just to create interesting things. I made a Deathwatch army using bitz I had collected over the years, making tons and tons of unique minis and poses using the extensive Space Marine range and the wealth of bits you got across everything from my original Warriors of the Imperium kits (where the best and most posable Marine arms come from) right through to the newer Stern/Vanguard kits. Can you do the same thing with these guys? Or these? I doubt it.

I've made unique miniatures for single games, using parts from all sorts of the GW range to make things that look like nothing else.

And now we have things like this, or worse, these*. Amazing looking kits with tons and tons of detail, simply magnificent looking... but what can you do with them? All the bits in these kits only go with the other bits these kit. Joins are made in a specific manner that stop cross-pollination of kits.

And part of it is just this cynical need to "stop" the bits makers and 3rd party companies from 'stealing' from them. It's asinine.

 Fifty wrote:
Is it an attack or good-natured ribbing?

It's quite clearly spam. There's the can and everything.




*For the record, I own the Deathshroud kit. I think it looks amazing. When they first showed them off I was blown away. A full unit of 7 I said, all the way with this amazing kit. It's going to be the Nurgle version of this. It wasn't. It cost the same, but it wasn't. Now I don't want a unit of 7, 'cause they'll be three poses... and that's it. No variety. No choice. Difficult to kit bash as the kit only works in one way. Such a wasted opportunity. Such a squandering of potential.

 TheAuldGrump wrote:

 notprop wrote:
I'm not seeing any end to converting. Most people with at least the minimum enjoyment of making kits will do something to make it "their" model.

There are loads of FB groups dedicated to all sorts of games and themes chock full of conversions. There's a decent SWA group where half the poss are Warbands or terrain converted from all sorts of gubbinz. Ditto the Battlegroup one/Club groups/Specialist games/etc.

I suppose it depends on the frame of reference, if it's 40k where allot I players seem to begrudge the notion of buying models much less painting them then yeah you might not see allot of it but there's plenty about.

I'd suggest as well that the "monopose" stuff the GW seems to be putting out is no barrier to converting. It's plastic afterall, it doesn't get any easier to convert.

Yes, yes it does 'get easier' - the more points of articulation, and the more variety of parts, the easier it is to modify.

The old , multi-pose, models were a lot easier to convert, or even just mix and match.

The Auld Grump

Kit basing isn't really the same thing as converting. But whether it's multi or mono pose, so long as it's plastic your gonna have an easier time if you are converting.

I'm looking at those new death guard, and even if they were "monopose", they're still easier to convert than what I've been used to. I had at one point twenty-odd converted metal Escher models - that was hard work, carving away rifles held close to the body, gently bending arms and hoping metal fatigue didn't make 'em snap, carving and filing away where the part was too thick to cut with clipper, etc. It's a doddle these days.

Oh plastic will always be easier to convert. It's just the latest kits feel like a weird step backwards.

Whilst most will have some flexibility, the sculpts are of such detail, it makes simple conversions that much harder.

 Alpharius wrote:
We really are going to need that Mad Doc Random Ramblings thread soon, aren't we?

Are maybe a link to your personal Blog Site?

Interesting tact from a MOD. A guy starts ernest discussions on the board and gets knocked down by you of all people. What do you contribute again?

 Hollow wrote:

 Alpharius wrote:
We really are going to need that Mad Doc Random Ramblings thread soon, aren't we?

Are maybe a link to your personal Blog Site?

Interesting tact from a MOD. A guy starts ernest discussions on the board and gets knocked down by you of all people. What do you contribute again?

I actually thought the same thing. The mods here are usually above this sort of comment. I didn't say anything because I'm erring on Alpharius's side and assuming there is some familiarity there and that it was just good-natured ribbing. I visit often enough to recognize a lot of the posters, but not often enough to know the "relationships" between posters. A new visitor to the site might see it and think "nope. not registering if the mods give people crap".

As the OP, I took it in good humour.

I recommend everyone else do to

The way I feel honestly is that, I enjoy the painting more than building part more. and while I love to combine compatible kits, sawing, hacking and greenstuffing isnt fun for me.

I don't think we're at the end of converting. Not by a long shot. Hobbyists by their very nature will find some way to convert a model in some fashion.

I think we're just seeing a cycle in the hobby right now.

 Hollow wrote:

Interesting tact from a MOD. A guy starts ernest discussions on the board and gets knocked down by you of all people. What do you contribute again?

Presumably hours and hours of personal time, for years, regulating, correcting, moving threads, deleting spambots, mediating, censuring and being on the receiving end of a lot of ire and horrible personal attacks from anonymous posters, all for no pay, on someone else's forum...


...so what do you contribute?

He gives Alph something to do.

I cant really think converting was the original intention of GW in the first place.

all there stuff was pretty much mono pose metal.

conversions has always been about cutting things up re pinning and re sculpting things onto things to make a thing.
it got easier with plastic but still out side of a few cases its always been about putting in the work to make something that is yours and yours only.

 Desubot wrote:
I cant really think converting was the original intention of GW in the first place.

all there stuff was pretty much mono pose metal.

Never the direct intention but the early years, Realm of Chaos etc were rife with conversion. The pages of White Dwarfs of old were packed with Evy Metal converted miniatures pages.

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:

 Desubot wrote:
I cant really think converting was the original intention of GW in the first place.

all there stuff was pretty much mono pose metal.

Never the direct intention but the early years, Realm of Chaos etc were rife with conversion. The pages of White Dwarfs of old were packed with Evy Metal converted miniatures pages.

I really do miss those.

Too many games punish or at least discourage conversions. Other companies make their games around the concept that every model is a character and thus you never need to convert. It just takes some of the fun out of the hobby.

 Breotan wrote:
Too many games punish or at least discourage conversions. Other companies make their games around the concept that every model is a character and thus you never need to convert. It just takes some of the fun out of the hobby.

Does GW out right say no conversions? im pretty sure they dont compared to like PP and i think infinity which are the only two major ones i can think of.

pretty sure GW at the least kinda promotes it like in the new IG book. they just made it a smidgen harder then it used to be but not as metal hard as it used to be from the start.

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:

 Hollow wrote:

Interesting tact from a MOD. A guy starts ernest discussions on the board and gets knocked down by you of all people. What do you contribute again?

Presumably hours and hours of personal time, for years, regulating, correcting, moving threads, deleting spambots, mediating, censuring and being on the receiving end of a lot of ire and horrible personal attacks from anonymous posters, all for no pay, on someone else's forum...


...so what do you contribute?

Ad revenue?

The Primaris marines brook little to no conversion because they only have one or two wargear options in the rules, but they can be used as donors for some pretty cool conversions.

The Plague Marines, however, basically must be converted if you want to equip them in a semi-rational manner without buying more boxes than you need the marines from just to get the bits. I've built a 14 man close combat squad from a set of DI PM and the seven from the new box, and I had to do at least light conversion work on almost every single one of them.

I think part of your perception may just be from aging. When you started, presumably you were a teenager, with more time than money, so you could afford to tweak each figure (because you couldn't afford MORE figures). Now my ability to buy vastly outstrips my ability to paint/build or even play. I'm lucky is something gets a basecoat and a dip. I imagine lots of the others on the board as well as your peer group are in the same position, so it helps create the perception that converting is going away.

Converting is far from dead. Look at 40k Second Edition where you had almost no Chapter specific iconography outside of specialist units, massive scale discrepancies, and many metal minis which required saws to remove components. Most Marine armies looked the same with the exception of their special units and characters.

Now we have a wealth of multi-part plastic components across a huge range of races that can be used to add character to your armies. The Captain for my 30K Blood Angels has components from almost 8 different kits.

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:
...so what do you contribute?

 Azreal13 wrote:
He gives Alph something to do.

I wrote a version of this, but deleted it before even posting it.

Seems I have greater self control than both'a y'all.

Lanrak wrote:
Maybe its because GW and others are targeting younger less hobby skilled customers?
And so assume simple standard kits are the ones to push.And that those inclined to individualism would paint and convert their forces as they want to?

I don't believe you can think that way if you've actually built some of GW's recent kits. A lot of them are much more complicated to assemble than some of the older multipose kits, especially if you consider the extra effort painting kits that are more highly detailed.

But really, kids are often the most patient when it comes to assembling models. You might occasionally get old farts who like to tinker with plastic models, but I think most old farts are more like me who just want to get the little bastards together so I can actually play a game in the limited free time I have available.

Honestly I often miss the old simple models that were really quick to get out of the box and on to the table compared to the current batch of kits that often have a much bigger time investment than I like.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

Lanrak wrote:
Maybe its because GW and others are targeting younger less hobby skilled customers?
And so assume simple standard kits are the ones to push.And that those inclined to individualism would paint and convert their forces as they want to?

I don't believe you can think that way if you've actually built some of GW's recent kits. A lot of them are much more complicated to assemble than some of the older multipose kits, especially if you consider the extra effort painting kits that are more highly detailed.

But really, kids are often the most patient when it comes to assembling models. You might occasionally get old farts who like to tinker with plastic models, but I think most old farts are more like me who just want to get the little bastards together so I can actually play a game in the limited free time I have available.

Honestly I often miss the old simple models that were really quick to get out of the box and on to the table compared to the current batch of kits that often have a much bigger time investment than I like.

Yeah agree with this. I bought a regular plastic Dread the other day and took a picture of the sprues:



I built everything on there in about fifteen minutes. Compare any modern kit, where there'd be hardly any space on those sprues and probably as many moving parts in one sub-assembly as there are in the whole Dread kit.

In terms of the "end of converting" - bollocks. I think we're at the end of converting by necessity, because the option you want doesn't exist anywhere, and imo that's a good thing. Players, and especially new players, being locked out of options because of a lack of knowledge or skill is not a good thing. On the other hand, for people with the skill to convert in ways which are actually interesting - creating new art, instead of just bashing together the lowest-cost option to get something which looks roughly like a conversion beamer or whatever - it's never been easier, with the plethora of bits available and the majority of kits in a much simpler material to work with.

All my 3 40k armies were chosen among other factions that also fascinated me mostly because I could do a lot of conversions and customizations.

Standardization is very bad IMHO. And I'd rather buy multiple different kits just to do some kit bashing than paying a lot of money for a single huge super expensive mono-pose model. Or even monopose units (quite expensive compared to the standard infantry boxes) like the new primaris or deathguard units.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Corrode wrote:

In terms of the "end of converting" - bollocks. I think we're at the end of converting by necessity, because the option you want doesn't exist anywhere, and imo that's a good thing. Players, and especially new players, being locked out of options because of a lack of knowledge or skill is not a good thing.

I strongly disagree with that. People have several options even without converting, in fact they have access to the majority of the stuff even without converting or kit bashing. Reducing the options available and so variety is always bad.

I belive this thread has separated into two camps regarding "Is Converting on an uptick?"

-Yes, there are far more plastics and kits to work with.
-No, because there are more monopose. Also, GW has doubled down on "No Model, No Rules."

I gravitate more towards two. It's not a stretch to say GW making kits for every conceivable option is impractical. However, restricting options not in the name of balance, but because "this is the only kit we sell" also has a chilling effect, saying "no, we're trying to be Warmachine."

For example, is there any balance reason for a Primaris Captain to only have a Power Sword (instead of any of the other melee options)? This probably has little to do with the actual cost of adding extra sprue options. This is obviously about balance!

Was there any reason for Dark Eldar to restrict Power Lances to Scourge Solarites, Venom Blades, etc? Or for a Death Watch Captain to be unable to take a Relic Blade unless wearing Terminator Armor? Or for Looted Wagons to be squatted? Clearly those discount Russ pieplates made Orks a meta-dominating force in 7th...

I think the new Astra Militarum codex shows that GW wants to encourage conversions - selling three kits to make a kick ass squad is just good business for them.

I think that the community is getting harsher and harsher on it. There is a streak of player that wants to control thier opponents options via strict conversion rules. I just ran across a tournament organizer that was advocating that any AM list with cadian helmets will have thier list overriden to have the cadian doctrine. If the model isnt 90% of the offical GW model for that regiment, then he is threating to ban the model outright.

I've seen a similar stance on space marines. If too many of your blood angels have bionics, the whole thing will be declared invalid or Iron Hands on the spot.

I've decided to just show up and cross the store off my list if I get invalidated. It's not worth the stress.

Yuck, sounds like a control freak who's got a stick up their butt.

Would love to see that organizer's face if I showed up with my Space Wolves, made nearly entirely from an army built as 13th Company back during the Eye of Terror campaign. He'd likely go friggin' apoplectic at models that were 50% Chaos and Imperial, built 100% correctly as intended right out of the box, lol.

Well, part of it is that gw seems to be moving back to monopose (innovation?) which makes converting harder despite the medium of plastic. Part of it is that gw has cracked down on bitz sellers, making it more likely you can only play around with what's in the box you bought. And part of it is that after the chapterhouse 'incident', gw has cracked down on models that don't exist without specific rules and a model to go with it. Given that gw remains the current industry leader, this is the benchmark by which to compare other things.

I wouldn't come away from this thinking that we're spoiled though, just that things have gotten worse and this is the new normal.

I don't find it as much of a pose problem as it is the sheer amount of cruft on the current models. There are layers and layers of busy nonsense on every mm of a lot of the new GW models*, and most of it just gets in the way.


*Uh, when they actually do new models, which is becoming increasingly rare. But the new death guard really bug me- on several it's hard to even spot the power armor under all the junk.

Voss wrote:
*Uh, when they actually do new models, which is becoming increasingly rare. But the new death guard really bug me- on several it's hard to even spot the power armor under all the junk.

I don't really think Death Guard are the best example. They're supposed to be busy. Chaos models in general aren't really supposed to be clean.

Chaos models have always had a chaotic aesthetic. Where the excessively busy aesthetic bothers me is in other factions that could potentially have very clean and simple models that look awesome. And it's not really a new thing, GW have been doing it for ages. Look at the 5th edition Bretonnian models, some of my favourite models, simple aestetically clean knights and peasants, 6th edition Bretonnian models by comparison were incredibly busy and caked in excessive details.... those models came out almost 14 years ago.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 MagicJuggler wrote:
I belive this thread has separated into two camps regarding "Is Converting on an uptick?"

-Yes, there are far more plastics and kits to work with.
-No, because there are more monopose. Also, GW has doubled down on "No Model, No Rules."

I wouldn't say they're mutually exclusive concepts.

I reckon there's probably less "average" people making crappy looking conversions because GW no longer have rules that require conversions, it's not as easy to kitbash models and the off shelf plastic models look better than the old plastics anyway so there's less reason to convert.

But when it comes to the passionate people who have a vision they have to see through and the skills to follow it through, I think there's more of those people than ever. These are the conversions that actually make you stop and think "wow that looks cool", not the conversions that make you think "they just stuck an arm from kit A on to a model from kit B in order to improvise for a model that doesn't exist".

So yes, we have less conversions than before, but we also have more conversions than before.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

Voss wrote:
*Uh, when they actually do new models, which is becoming increasingly rare. But the new death guard really bug me- on several it's hard to even spot the power armor under all the junk.

I don't really think Death Guard are the best example. They're supposed to be busy. Chaos models in general aren't really supposed to be clean.

Chaos models have always had a chaotic aesthetic. Where the excessively busy aesthetic bothers me is in other factions that could potentially have very clean and simple models that look awesome.

Probably why I like the DG & Orks so much. They just cry out to try & do something even more ridiculous to them. It's like Halloween every day for DG/Orks fans.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
I don't really think Death Guard are the best example. They're supposed to be busy. Chaos models in general aren't really supposed to be clean.

Chaos models have always had a chaotic aesthetic.

Have they? The old plague marine kit a´was nowhere near as busy as the new plague marines.

 ulgurstasta wrote:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
I don't really think Death Guard are the best example. They're supposed to be busy. Chaos models in general aren't really supposed to be clean.

Chaos models have always had a chaotic aesthetic.

Have they? The old plague marine kit a´was nowhere near as busy as the new plague marines.

BOLS did an article on the development of plague marines.

http://www.belloflostsouls.net/2017/04/40k-retro-28-years-of-plague-marines.html

The new ones are definitely more busy, but the old ones were still pretty busy and have been since rogue trader days. If you were collecting death guard before the current set of models, I highly doubt you were doing it because of the non-existent clean and simple aesthetic

It's always been the chaos way to have a chaotic aesthetic. Personally I've never liked it, going back to the mid 90's I remember seeing my first warhammer chaos warrior army and thinking they looked way too busy.

Breng77 wrote:
TLOS is really to blame for this. When the dimensions of the model come into play as part of the game conversions get frowned upon due to "modeling for advantage"

That said I still see a lot of conversions on the table in GW games (other games not so much because of how kits are designed/models released), I think GWs desire is to move away from it being a need to it being a want. No one should have to convert to field a unit on the table, but if you want to make something different and cool great. Just look at the new IG book with kit bashes in the pictures section for different regiments. It is obvious they are still encouraging it, they just aren't requiring it as they have in the past.

And that's a perfectly fine argument until you acknowledge that the way they are changing things so as not to require converting is to eliminate options - wargear or even whole units - that aren't "supported". If they were removing the need for conversions by providing models for all the rules and options I expect you'd see much less people complaining, but as it stands it is actually a bit annoying that my choices are being limited because some people can't be bothered to learn how to do basic weapon swaps(or, at least, that GW are convinced they can't be bothered).

Further, it's not just the companies. Over the past couple of years I've seen far more frequent accusations than before of "modelling for advantage", of people demanding absolute unyielding WYSIWYG, even people insisting you shouldn't be allowed to use Forge World units if you scratchbuild them rather than buying the "official" model, in one case even that scratchbuild models should be banned entirely which is a sentiment that would have been unthinkable a few years ago. Some have complained of being "shamed" for choosing to use stock models, but frankly the trend I've been seeing has been the exact opposite - a lot of people now take a "guilty until proven innocent" approach to people who convert their armies, they assume right away that you're doing it to gain some advantage under TLoS or to confuse opponents for gameplay benefit, while others seem to have decided that those with the skill necessary to build things themselves are "cheating" by not allowing themselves to be restricted by GW/FW's pricing.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:


I reckon there's probably less "average" people making crappy looking conversions because GW no longer have rules that require conversions, it's not as easy to kitbash models and the off shelf plastic models look better than the old plastics anyway so there's less reason to convert.

But when it comes to the passionate people who have a vision they have to see through and the skills to follow it through, I think there's more of those people than ever. These are the conversions that actually make you stop and think "wow that looks cool", not the conversions that make you think "they just stuck an arm from kit A on to a model from kit B in order to improvise for a model that doesn't exist".

So yes, we have less conversions than before, but we also have more conversions than before.

See that's another thing though - how many people right now who are the latter kind of converter would be if they hadn't been the former type first? I mean, I didn't just decide one day to start sculpting, or to build multiple skirmish warbands with entirely unique models, I started bashing different arms and heads together or giving a model a different type of weapon. Without the initial few years of doing that, if my only option to learn how to convert was to jump right in at the deep end hacking apart elaborate monopose models in ways that pretty much demand at least some basic sculpting skill to make the result look any good, I don't know that I'd have had the confidence to even get started. Basic kitbashing and "requiring" conversions to cover all the possible wargear options were a stepping stone to more advanced techniques, and by curtailing the opportunities to engage in the entry level stuff they've ensured some folk will be too intimidated by the advanced stuff to even try.

Modelling for advantage may be a thing, that's why all my conversions look WYSIWYG and with the same dimensions/base than the original models.

About people that should not have to convert I disagree since GW games are also about the hobby part and not only the tabletop game. By the same logic people should not be required to paint the miniatures either. Painting is even more difficult than scratch building stuff.

And the majority of conversions, those ones needed to represent units (mostly characters) that don't have an official model are pure kitbashing, so easy that even 11 yo kids can do them.

I think that we already are short of options, reducing them even more will be terrible IMHO. I'd like an ork weirdboy with bike or jump packs or even a warboss with jump packs, but also a painboy in megarmor would be cool, and all these options are not in the codex...

 Yodhrin wrote:
....while others seem to have decided that those with the skill necessary to build things themselves are "cheating" by not allowing themselves to be restricted by GW/FW's pricing.

That's hardly a new phenomenon. The one and only time I got hounded for a conversion by someone saying I was just trying to avoid buying the "proper" model was back in the late 90's.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:


I reckon there's probably less "average" people making crappy looking conversions because GW no longer have rules that require conversions, it's not as easy to kitbash models and the off shelf plastic models look better than the old plastics anyway so there's less reason to convert.

But when it comes to the passionate people who have a vision they have to see through and the skills to follow it through, I think there's more of those people than ever. These are the conversions that actually make you stop and think "wow that looks cool", not the conversions that make you think "they just stuck an arm from kit A on to a model from kit B in order to improvise for a model that doesn't exist".

So yes, we have less conversions than before, but we also have more conversions than before.

See that's another thing though - how many people right now who are the latter kind of converter would be if they hadn't been the former type first? I mean, I didn't just decide one day to start sculpting, or to build multiple skirmish warbands with entirely unique models, I started bashing different arms and heads together or giving a model a different type of weapon. Without the initial few years of doing that, if my only option to learn how to convert was to jump right in at the deep end hacking apart elaborate monopose models in ways that pretty much demand at least some basic sculpting skill to make the result look any good, I don't know that I'd have had the confidence to even get started. Basic kitbashing and "requiring" conversions to cover all the possible wargear options were a stepping stone to more advanced techniques, and by curtailing the opportunities to engage in the entry level stuff they've ensured some folk will be too intimidated by the advanced stuff to even try.

I understand what you mean, but I respectfully disagree. I think the passion comes first and the skill follows. Especially with the internet these days people can be both inspired by and learn from other peoples' work.

Even GW has a bunch of videos up on conversions and kit bashes.

 ChargerIIC wrote:
I think the new Astra Militarum codex shows that GW wants to encourage conversions - selling three kits to make a kick ass squad is just good business for them.

I think that the community is getting harsher and harsher on it. There is a streak of player that wants to control thier opponents options via strict conversion rules. I just ran across a tournament organizer that was advocating that any AM list with cadian helmets will have thier list overriden to have the cadian doctrine. If the model isnt 90% of the offical GW model for that regiment, then he is threating to ban the model outright.

I've seen a similar stance on space marines. If too many of your blood angels have bionics, the whole thing will be declared invalid or Iron Hands on the spot.

I've decided to just show up and cross the store off my list if I get invalidated. It's not worth the stress.

Wow. Tournament Organizers like that can kill the scene, or at least twist it to what their own narrow point of view thinks is acceptable. If its clear to the opponent what each model is then its good to go. I don't like people abusing their power to push an agenda.

As for conversions, I only do it on occasion. I started back in 2nd Ed with the box set, so I was used to seeing two monopose armies on the field. I still have those Goffs and Space Marines! The new kits with fixed poses still look different when composed as an army. I really liked the plastic Guardmen boxes since you could have plenty of variety without needing too much in the way of skill of specialized hobby equipment. Hopefully that stays true.

I recently made a Librarian on a Bike by using bolt cutters on my metal Codificer. Then the option disappeared from the codex a month later. My Codicifer still glares at me from the cabinet with "Why?" on his face.

I think that as something goes from a niche market, to the broader appeal that GW has been experiencing, they can bring more people into the "game" by simplifying the hobby aspect. And as someone who got into the game because of the lore & the hobby, the game is just slowly dieing to me.

It reminds me of what happened to LEGO. It use to be an imaginative toy where you created the world. But then everything became a specialized piece and themed set.

There are a lot of signs the GW has changed over the years, but I think the nail in the conversion coffin was the stupid Alpha marines. For a long time the gold standard for conversion work in difficulty and impressiveness was true-scale marines. The fact that GW saw that and decided to kill off that trend with a profit idea is what signaled the end of conversions in my mind (people will always still shoot with film cameras, but the prevalence of these individuals diminishes into an obscurity as the industry decides which route is most profitable). I wouldn't be surprised if 80% of my army is unplayable by modern standards because it's so old.

Grav-tanks? Give me a break, I'll go play with my deodorant tank in the corner. TBH I'm surprised we've yet to see pre-painted models yet. But I think that so many painting companies sprang up in the last 10 years is also a good indicator of where the "hobby" has been going.

People posting about how difficult or annoying it is to assemble or paint a model just don't get the point and origins of the hobby, which again means I've just aged myself out of the game. And that's fine too. I get it, GW wants to make cash, the best way to do that is to sell out to everyone, not just your original niche customer base.

 jabbakahut wrote:


There are a lot of signs the GW has changed over the years, but I think the nail in the conversion coffin was the stupid Alpha marines. For a long time the gold standard for conversion work in difficulty and impressiveness was true-scale marines. The fact that GW saw that and decided to kill off that trend with a profit idea is what signaled the end of conversions in my mind (people will always still shoot with film cameras, but the prevalence of these individuals diminishes into an obscurity as the industry decides which route is most profitable). I wouldn't be surprised if 80% of my army is unplayable by modern standards because it's so old.

That's an interesting benchmark to go from. The majority of "true scale" SM models I've seen looked like a bag of gak. Almost like Slenderman in power armor.

Have had time to gather my thoughts, and digest opinions. And I think I've figured out how to best express myself on this one.

Once upon a time, GW put out rules without models. This was particularly prevalent in the very early days. Indeed as much as we remember Vehicle Design Rules as an oddity from 3rd/4th Ed, their origin lies in Rogue Trader, which featured a very primitive version. Different chassis and propulsion systems and that.

So from the get go, we were expose to skilled modellers scratch building and kit bashing. From Golden Daemon entries to White Dwarf articles it was a significant part of the Hobby at that time.

Back then it was a matter of necessity. GW couldn't produce that many kits, but didn't want that to limit the scope of the game.

Seeing such grand projects made Younger Me and his contemporaries want to build up their skills. And that starts with simple weapon and head swaps. Before long you're kitbashing infantry and modding stock models.

But in today's Hobby, everything you can field is available off the peg. And understandably, GW want to push their product, and not a cool looking model converted up from a Star Wars toy.

That's left us with less visible conversions. And when we do see them, theyre conversions of existing kits. That includes reposes, greenstuffed Nurgle hulls etc.

I fear that's robbed younger gamers, relative newcomers, without the initial inspiration I found. Over time, that could spell the demise of converting :(

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
I fear that's robbed younger gamers, relative newcomers, without the initial inspiration I found. Over time, that could spell the demise of converting :(

Don't be afraid. It's not going to happen. Golden Demon is still full of conversions. People will continue to make the models that inspire them. The wealth of hobbyists posting on the internet provides more inspiration than I ever got when I started in the hobby.

The difference is that now kids don't have to waste a weekend cutting up sprues to make 40 "spears" because they didn't come in the box I don't see that as a requisite stepping stone to actually making good conversions.

Still a starting point for skill building.

Some lucky sods have the knack, there's no doubt about it, but for us mere mortals those Spear conversions are the training ground.

Now we don't need to do that, there's less need, if not desire.

I kind of hope GW pick up this aspect of the Hobby. Duncan Rhodes converted up some gorgeous Free People's Spearmen - even if it's a pricey way to make them, it's the spirit that counts.

Considering the majority of converting is weapon swaps and detail addition (much like the GW Space Wolf Cataphractii video) there' still loads of opportunities for that sort of thing. Hell, I just saw a guy making a barbarian-themed Stormcast army by using Fyreslayer and Space Wolf heads on every figure. That sort of converting is alive and well as it ever was.

The idea that everything is available isn't strictly true. I just started an AdMech army and you only get special weapon of each type, so if you want to split the squad into two with two snipers then you're out of luck.

This past summer I just converted 10 each Crusaders, Death Cult Assassins, Afro-Flagellants and 3 Penitent Engines because I didn't want to pay a loads of money for the official ones that only have two poses. I also recently discovered I REALLY love reposing and converting Dreadknights for some bizarre reason. I dunno, it's like a puzzle trying to figure out what I need to cut away or fill in without making it look like a mess. I also head swapped Grandmaster Voldus to be wearing a helmet which never even occurred to me for some reason.

I still think GW has loads of scope for conversion but I actually think that the reason it's not as seen commonly is that GW doesn't encourage it as much. I'm constantly offering bits to the newer players in the group after games as trophies for their models. Like if a unit kills a bunch of my genestealers I'll offer them a spare head or some armor plates to decorate their models with but more often than not they'll not bother. Compared to older members of the group have names, their own fluffy units that are always composed of the same models every game, small details in the paint job that were added after a lucky roll that killed a Carnifex etc. Again, in the Inquisimunda/Blanchitsu community conversions and both fantastic and rife and it's mostly made up of veterans.

I feel like GW and other companies (not just limited to miniatures) have encouraged a "stock is best" approach, where the models should be left as they are supplied. Blandness and over-consuming is encouraged via the pricing of kits. Kitbashing is generally something that's too expensive for most people. For example, the Penitant Engines I mentioned up there were made out of multiple kits and parts, but the only box I actually bought new to make them was some ork killa kansz. Everything else was given to me by friends or parts I had from the past 20 years.In order to make one I would have needed to buy an IG Sentinel for each one on top of the kanz, then the pilots which were mostly Empire flagellants, then theres some decorations from GK, Bretonnian and SoB tank bits. So yeah, having spent a great deal of time in the hobby definitely helped me but newer players don't have the luxury of having a load of spare models lying around.

Or maybe its the cost of their tools putting people off. Or maybe it's that people see really good conversions online and decide not to bother because it won't be as good.

I dunno, there is a lot of reasons but I don't think it's due to a lack of opportunities for conversion. Sorry if this is a rambling post, I'm very tired.

Quick edit: The lack of easily available bits is also an issue I think. Remember when nearly every individual part of a model was available on mail-order? If you needed the left arm of a Bloodthirster you could order just that arm. I know there's websites dedicated to ordering plastic bits but I think that's basically a lottery in terms of whats in stock. I dunno, I've not looked at them in a long time.

I'd argue one key element is the size of 40k armies now over back then.

In the 90s the Tyranid Screamer-Killer (Carnifex) was the centre piece of an aspiring bug general. These days you need 4 of them.

Converting one Carnifex was to some an achievable target, but who wants to convert 4 of them?

 Sim-Life wrote:
Afro-Flagellants

This is like, the greatest typo ever.

Someone convert these, stat! Or is it not a typo...?

Converting has its place because options are back.

40K has wargear lists which aids variety, and while AoS is static you can mix and match individual models in a unit and thus armament is important, also the lack of ranking means pose conversion is worthwhile.
When I made my Moonclan Grot army I reposed all the spear arms of my Skull Pass gobbos so they pointed everywhere. It looked a whole lot better even for this simple conversion job.


What needs to happen is the abolition of TLOS. It sounds ok as a rule until you recognise that figures wont want to stand in the same pose all day. That champion standing on a mound of skulls with his chainsword in the air might be posed differently if taking cover behind a wall or shooting a bolt pistol through a window. Units need generic size categories,, with same for terrain.
PP got this right and introduced size brackets specifically not to disadvantage modellers who rebased or posed their characters.
Removing TLOS and standardising unit sizes swill get rid of tower conversions for vehicles and long weapons pintels.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
How do?

So this is something that's been preying on my brain for a few days now.

As an older gamer, I remember the days when conversions were really quite common place. From the simple head or weapon swap to truly impressive scratchbuilds, it was rare to see an army without some kind of conversions.

In the really early days, when you had to carve up solid models, I stuck to simple stuff. Then the advent (from my GW background) of multipart plastics made Kit Bashes the order of the day. Not only were the parts already separate, but being plastic much easier to bung together.

Then...something changed. And not just with GW, but the wider market. One of things that's always puzzled me about Warmahordes was the lack of customisation. And from that, the lack of need to convert. And GW seem to be following suit, going for more elaborate base kits, which lack the former flexibility. Which although still in plastic, are nearly as difficult to work with as the old Metal Lump models - because the parts aren't standardised across a given range (well, not all the time)

There's also fewer to no 'missing units'. So no more need to convert X on a Y character - because there's one you can buy off the peg.

Now of course, conversion does still go on. The lack of need is absolutely not the same as lack of desire.

I just feel the general industry's shift to more standardised kits has left the hobby a little poorer.

Forgive me if these have already been addressed, but here's my thoughts.

1) The old days. I remember the pre-GW-plastics days and there was alot of converting in white dwarf, but it didn't seem to be as much in actual players. I agree that nearly every army might have had something converted, but it wasn't the kind of army wide covnersion/kitbashing that you see today.

2) Warmachine. Warmachine has always catered to the hardcore gamer rather than the modeler/converter and is not really a good measuring stick for the degree to which people are converting their minaitures. Warmachine simply doesn't give you more than a couple of options per unit (as compared to dozens for a 40k unit) and those are usually represented by pieces in the box.There are of course great painters and converters in warmachine, but it's no secret that Warmachine consistently wins the award for "Minis Game Most Likely To Be Unpainted".

3)The present situation. If we're equating kitbashing with covnerting (as you seem to in your post) then I feel that I see just as much converting/kitbashing as ever. I'm in a club that loves hobbying as much as gaming, so I'm biased, but we scarcely engage in any project/army/system without some degree of conversions.

4) Standardization: This is where I agree with you. Converting may now be a part of most gamers DNA, but there's an awful lot of the same stuff going around. I see it especially terrain. As lovely and varied as they are, GW scenery kits have brought a sameness to wargaming tables that is a bit disheartening. I recall original Necromunda which thrived on custom terrain. I still build my Necromunda terrain from found objects, scratchbuilding and old toys but I fully expect that most folks are going to be playing Necromunda and Shadow War on the same basic GW terrain kits as one another.

All this said, I'm still living in a mostly-outside-mainstream-wargaming bubble where conversion and kitbashing are vital parts of the hobby so it doesn't really affect me what other groups of gamers are doing.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Still a starting point for skill building.

Some lucky sods have the knack, there's no doubt about it, but for us mere mortals those Spear conversions are the training ground.

I think you really overestimate the requirement for simple conversions as a stepping stone to more complicated ones. People can learn by making a attempt, even a failed one, at a more complicated conversion.

It's not rocket science, people don't have to be babied in to it.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Still a starting point for skill building.

Some lucky sods have the knack, there's no doubt about it, but for us mere mortals those Spear conversions are the training ground.

I think you really overestimate the requirement for simple conversions as a stepping stone to more complicated ones. People can learn by making a attempt, even a failed one, at a more complicated conversion.

It's not rocket science, people don't have to be babied in to it.

I think it may be more the worry of losing people without the clear desire or absence of desire to convert at work here, worry that people on the fence don't get the nudge in the right direction and then never try rather than everyone having to be spoon-fed before they can stand on their own.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Still a starting point for skill building.

Some lucky sods have the knack, there's no doubt about it, but for us mere mortals those Spear conversions are the training ground.

Now we don't need to do that, there's less need, if not desire.

I kind of hope GW pick up this aspect of the Hobby. Duncan Rhodes converted up some gorgeous Free People's Spearmen - even if it's a pricey way to make them, it's the spirit that counts.

I understand what you are saying, that need provided the impetus to build skills (much like being thrown into the ocean provides a need to learn to swim). But as you mentioned, we live in the age of Rhodes, with videos teaching you how to convert fantasy and 40k models for BloodBowl use, convert 30k cataphracti terminators to Space Wolf Cataphracti terminators etc. There is a wealth of information for anyone with the inclination.

Further, some of us may not like the models as presented (the primaris twin heavy bolter guys are god-awful IMHO) and this may lead to additional conversion desire. I myself am holding a Garro model which I will be converting to a Helbrecht for my own Chapter of Black Templar inspired crusaders.

Finally, singlepose miniatures are great for various reasons. A singlepose miniature is more of a sculpture and less of a pile of legoparts- the pose can suit the equipment and feel more real. How many models have been assembled with a heavy bolter waving around like a pistol? In 3rd ed, before bolters came with hands attached, there were some awful assemblies from the well meaning but ignorant. Singlepose are a lot more forgiving for a starting player and are more appropriate for rank and file. There's a reason the Battle at Calth and DV sets sold like hotcakes aside from the price- the easy to assemble orks and marines allowed you to have the guts of a decent army assembled for painting swiftly,

And because of their ubiquity, and the reasonable base afforded by single pose- the characters were converted extensively.

 Geifer wrote:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Still a starting point for skill building.

Some lucky sods have the knack, there's no doubt about it, but for us mere mortals those Spear conversions are the training ground.

I think you really overestimate the requirement for simple conversions as a stepping stone to more complicated ones. People can learn by making a attempt, even a failed one, at a more complicated conversion.

It's not rocket science, people don't have to be babied in to it.

I think it may be more the worry of losing people without the clear desire or absence of desire to convert at work here, worry that people on the fence don't get the nudge in the right direction and then never try rather than everyone having to be spoon-fed before they can stand on their own.

I don't see the problem, people without the clear desire to convert models were probably doing it under sufferance anyway (and probably producing poor results for it).

I think we're far better off having less people put off by needing to convert than more people doing half arsed conversions because they have no great desire but need to do them to access rules that weren't supported by models***, and when it comes to quality conversions I don't think there's any less now than there used to be nor do I think that'll reduce in years to come.

Honestly, anecdotally, I see way more conversions at my local club/GW/FLGS these days than I did back when I started in 2nd edition 40k/4th edition WHFB.



***Of course I'd prefer options weren't pruned in order to have a model for every option, but having well-optioned kits I only see as a good thing.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Have had time to gather my thoughts, and digest opinions. And I think I've figured out how to best express myself on this one.

Once upon a time, GW put out rules without models. This was particularly prevalent in the very early days. Indeed as much as we remember Vehicle Design Rules as an oddity from 3rd/4th Ed, their origin lies in Rogue Trader, which featured a very primitive version. Different chassis and propulsion systems and that.

So from the get go, we were expose to skilled modellers scratch building and kit bashing. From Golden Daemon entries to White Dwarf articles it was a significant part of the Hobby at that time.

Back then it was a matter of necessity. GW couldn't produce that many kits, but didn't want that to limit the scope of the game.

Seeing such grand projects made Younger Me and his contemporaries want to build up their skills. And that starts with simple weapon and head swaps. Before long you're kitbashing infantry and modding stock models.

But in today's Hobby, everything you can field is available off the peg. And understandably, GW want to push their product, and not a cool looking model converted up from a Star Wars toy.

That's left us with less visible conversions. And when we do see them, theyre conversions of existing kits. That includes reposes, greenstuffed Nurgle hulls etc.

I fear that's robbed younger gamers, relative newcomers, without the initial inspiration I found. Over time, that could spell the demise of converting :(

Coming into the hobby from the early days of 2nd Edition I understand what you are saying, but I would respectfully disagree. about the warning that this could be the demise of converting.

For those who are not as adept at converting figures from another range, or manufacturer, into a GW unit for which there are no models that should not act as a barrier for entry into the hobby. Instead having a much larger range of kits and bits is a gift for people involved in the hobby as it opens up a huge range of possibilities for making your own collection unique without the need to chop up 5 different pewter miniatures using a jeweler saw (and ruining the donor minis) to get conversion fodder.

It is true that we have so many units that are now available out of the box without being forced to convert another unit to represent them, but that does not eliminate the ability nor desire to convert. If you look at the P&M section here you will find so many examples of stock units available off the shelf that have been converted to be more thematic and in line with the owner's fluff, especially when it comes to allied units.

The hobby is not hermetically sealed, and many who enjoy the hobby will take inspiration from music, artwork, other armies to inspire their own and fuel their conversions.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

 Geifer wrote:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Still a starting point for skill building.

Some lucky sods have the knack, there's no doubt about it, but for us mere mortals those Spear conversions are the training ground.

I think you really overestimate the requirement for simple conversions as a stepping stone to more complicated ones. People can learn by making a attempt, even a failed one, at a more complicated conversion.

It's not rocket science, people don't have to be babied in to it.

I think it may be more the worry of losing people without the clear desire or absence of desire to convert at work here, worry that people on the fence don't get the nudge in the right direction and then never try rather than everyone having to be spoon-fed before they can stand on their own.

I don't see the problem, people without the clear desire to convert models were probably doing it under sufferance anyway (and probably producing poor results for it).

I think we're far better off having less people put off by needing to convert than more people doing half arsed conversions because they have no great desire but need to do them to access rules that weren't supported by models***, and when it comes to quality conversions I don't think there's any less now than there used to be nor do I think that'll reduce in years to come.

Honestly, anecdotally, I see way more conversions at my local club/GW/FLGS these days than I did back when I started in 2nd edition 40k/4th edition WHFB.



***Of course I'd prefer options weren't pruned in order to have a model for every option, but having well-optioned kits I only see as a good thing.

Goes against my experience, but okay.

I don't subscribe to the idea that unless you are absolutely sure you want to convert, the world is better off if you don't even try.

 Geifer wrote:
Goes against my experience, but okay.

It's probably a local thing. My current GW manager is very much a hobbyist so he's always doing conversions and talking about conversions he's working on and it seems like half the people sitting at the painting table are also working on converted models. Much so more than when I started back in the mid 90's where most of what I saw was out of the box stuff. At the non-GW store the display shelves are again filled with converted models (most from non-GW lines), there's no real historic comparison because those sorts of gaming stores didn't exist in the mid 90's around here.

The local club has always been conversion heavy and remains conversion heavy.

I don't subscribe to the idea that unless you are absolutely sure you want to convert, the world is better off if you don't even try.

I just don't think there's a large swathe of middle of the road people who *need* small annoying projects like weapon swaps in order to transcend to doing more quality conversions.

I think it's absolutely better that a unit that has spears as an option actually comes with spears in the box so people don't have to convert them. It might mean there's less conversions being done overall, but who cares when quality and quantity conversions by people who actually give a crap about converting hasn't changed. Those are the ones that actually matter IMO because they're the ones that inspire me, not the 40 models that have had weapon swap conversions because weapon B is better than weapon A but weapon B doesn't have a model.

I don't look at my crappily converted plastic Terminator Wolf Lord from 2nd edition and think "Gee, that's wonderful" I thank the plastic model gods that half decent Terminator models exist off the shelf now and if I still want to convert one it's going to look so much better because the model I'll use as a basis doesn't have a hideous rigid pose.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

 Geifer wrote:
Goes against my experience, but okay.

It's probably a local thing. My current GW manager is very much a hobbyist so he's always doing conversions and talking about conversions he's working on and it seems like half the people sitting at the painting table are also working on converted models. Much so more than when I started back in the mid 90's where most of what I saw was out of the box stuff. At the non-GW store the display shelves are again filled with converted models (most from non-GW lines), there's no real historic comparison because those sorts of gaming stores didn't exist in the mid 90's around here.

The local club has always been conversion heavy and remains conversion heavy.

I don't subscribe to the idea that unless you are absolutely sure you want to convert, the world is better off if you don't even try.

I just don't think there's a large swathe of middle of the road people who *need* small annoying projects like weapon swaps in order to transcend to doing more quality conversions.

I think it's absolutely better that a unit that has spears as an option actually comes with spears in the box so people don't have to convert them. It might mean there's less conversions being done overall, but who cares when quality and quantity conversions by people who actually give a crap about converting hasn't changed. Those are the ones that actually matter IMO because they're the ones that inspire me, not the 40 models that have had weapon swap conversions because weapon B is better than weapon A but weapon B doesn't have a model.

I don't look at my crappily converted plastic Terminator Wolf Lord from 2nd edition and think "Gee, that's wonderful" I thank the plastic model gods that half decent Terminator models exist off the shelf now and if I still want to convert one it's going to look so much better because the model I'll use as a basis doesn't have a hideous rigid pose.

Fair enough. Not trying to talk you out of your opinion or anything, but to share my experience, I don't come across a whole lot of people who outright refuse to do conversions. Most, if asked, say they don't think they're good enough. My problem with that is that if they never try, they'll never learn. And I'd rather encourage them in the hope that at least a few discover their passion for conversions. Because you got to start somewhere. None of my conversions from twenty years ago should ever see the light of day again, But these days I can sculpt anything I want. If it's physically possible, I can do it. And you'd better believe that I did not set out to learn converting properly. Most of my starting steps were done out of necessity, not passion.

Just saying. Of course I can't say any better than you how many are on the fence who'll become great converters. You may well be right that's it's not many. I just prefer to think that any kind of encouragement is better than nothing.

On GW's end I kind of agree. There's really not a whole lot of options. They either provide the parts for which they write rules, or don't. I don't like the way they're handling things by cutting options instead of manufacturing, say upgrade sprues to cover options so they wouldn't drop them. My biggest issue is when they do that even though the option exists, albeit in a different kit, because that is plain unnecessary. But I can understand that there is little middle ground to work with otherwise, so they have to make a choice.

 Orlanth wrote:


What needs to happen is the abolition of TLOS. It sounds ok as a rule until you recognise that figures wont want to stand in the same pose all day. That champion standing on a mound of skulls with his chainsword in the air might be posed differently if taking cover behind a wall or shooting a bolt pistol through a window. Units need generic size categories,, with same for terrain.
PP got this right and introduced size brackets specifically not to disadvantage modellers who rebased or posed their characters.
Removing TLOS and standardising unit sizes swill get rid of tower conversions for vehicles and long weapons pintels.

I must respectfully disagree here. There will always be donkey caves trying to model for advantage and removing TLOS will do nothing to stop them. TO's, in my experience, are pretty harsh on people who are modeling to be jerks and I simply won't play with someone like that. I don't think most people would honestly.

That said, what system do you suggest for standardizing unit sizes? A template? The imaginary cylinder of WM? Something else?

 Todosi wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:


What needs to happen is the abolition of TLOS. It sounds ok as a rule until you recognise that figures wont want to stand in the same pose all day. That champion standing on a mound of skulls with his chainsword in the air might be posed differently if taking cover behind a wall or shooting a bolt pistol through a window. Units need generic size categories,, with same for terrain.
PP got this right and introduced size brackets specifically not to disadvantage modellers who rebased or posed their characters.
Removing TLOS and standardising unit sizes swill get rid of tower conversions for vehicles and long weapons pintels.

I must respectfully disagree here. There will always be donkey caves trying to model for advantage and removing TLOS will do nothing to stop them. TO's, in my experience, are pretty harsh on people who are modeling to be jerks and I simply won't play with someone like that. I don't think most people would honestly.

That said, what system do you suggest for standardizing unit sizes? A template? The imaginary cylinder of WM? Something else?

You... you, do know how LOS works in WMH right? There is literally no way to MFA with it due to a model's base size being an integral part of its rules. If I put Butcher on a small base, that isn't MFA, that's straight up cheating. Conversely, I can take the Juggernaut from Thagrosh the Painter and put it on its large base it's supposed to be on would not be MFA as its base size given in its rules determines it volume.

Ruin wrote:

 Todosi wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:


What needs to happen is the abolition of TLOS. It sounds ok as a rule until you recognise that figures wont want to stand in the same pose all day. That champion standing on a mound of skulls with his chainsword in the air might be posed differently if taking cover behind a wall or shooting a bolt pistol through a window. Units need generic size categories,, with same for terrain.
PP got this right and introduced size brackets specifically not to disadvantage modellers who rebased or posed their characters.
Removing TLOS and standardising unit sizes swill get rid of tower conversions for vehicles and long weapons pintels.

I must respectfully disagree here. There will always be donkey caves trying to model for advantage and removing TLOS will do nothing to stop them. TO's, in my experience, are pretty harsh on people who are modeling to be jerks and I simply won't play with someone like that. I don't think most people would honestly.

That said, what system do you suggest for standardizing unit sizes? A template? The imaginary cylinder of WM? Something else?

You... you, do know how LOS works in WMH right? There is literally no way to MFA with it due to a model's base size being an integral part of its rules. If I put Butcher on a small base, that isn't MFA, that's straight up cheating. Conversely, I can take the Juggernaut from Thagrosh the Painter and put it on its large base it's supposed to be on would not be MFA as its base size given in its rules determines it volume.

This. True line of sight was an experiment of the 80s that failed. Standardization of heights speeds up play and avoids all the dumb 'my laser versus your laser' crap.

Coming from WMH, I was shocked to find out 40k used "true line of sight". All it does is encouraging people to model for advantage.

 Cream Tea wrote:
Coming from WMH, I was shocked to find out 40k used "true line of sight". All it does is encouraging people to model for advantage.

It allows for it sure but i dont think it necessarily encourages it as much as you think.

And it gets silly when it comes to vehicles. The number of laser shots sent from the wingtips of eldar tanks or imperial antenna rods number almost as many come from the main cannons

 Desubot wrote:

 Cream Tea wrote:
Coming from WMH, I was shocked to find out 40k used "true line of sight". All it does is encouraging people to model for advantage.

It allows for it sure but i dont think it necessarily encourages it as much as you think.

I tend to seek out loopholes in rules without even trying, not because I want to utilise them but because my mind finds them interesting. When I first heard of true line of sight, the first thought to go through my head was "now that can be abused in lots of ways". I doubt I'm alone.

To reiterate, I would never model for advantage myself, but I can't help but notice the potential.

 Cream Tea wrote:

 Desubot wrote:

 Cream Tea wrote:
Coming from WMH, I was shocked to find out 40k used "true line of sight". All it does is encouraging people to model for advantage.

It allows for it sure but i dont think it necessarily encourages it as much as you think.

I tend to seek out loopholes in rules without even trying, not because I want to utilise them but because my mind finds them interesting. When I first heard of true line of sight, the first thought to go through my head was "now that can be abused in lots of ways". I doubt I'm alone.

To reiterate, I would never model for advantage myself, but I can't help but notice the potential.

I assume lots of people notice the potential, but far fewer are of the mindset to actually abuse it.

 =Angel= wrote:
I understand what you are saying, that need provided the impetus to build skills (much like being thrown into the ocean provides a need to learn to swim). But as you mentioned, we live in the age of Rhodes, with videos teaching you how to convert fantasy and 40k models for BloodBowl use, convert 30k cataphracti terminators to Space Wolf Cataphracti terminators etc. There is a wealth of information for anyone with the inclination.

Of course simply watching video isn't going to make you able to do it nor make it easy to even try. Especially for art related things. Starting small is still better way to learn something.

Finally, singlepose miniatures are great for various reasons. A singlepose miniature is more of a sculpture and less of a pile of legoparts- the pose can suit the equipment and feel more real. How many models have been assembled with a heavy bolter waving around like a pistol? In 3rd ed, before bolters came with hands attached, there were some awful assemblies from the well meaning but ignorant. Singlepose are a lot more forgiving for a starting player and are more appropriate for rank and file. There's a reason the Battle at Calth and DV sets sold like hotcakes aside from the price- the easy to assemble orks and marines allowed you to have the guts of a decent army assembled for painting swiftly,

And because of their ubiquity, and the reasonable base afforded by single pose- the characters were converted extensively.

Battle at calth? Only single pose that had were HQ's and you get real tired of looking the umpteenth identical HQ models with no weapon options. The way the models are sculpted makes even weapon swaps surprisingly tricky conversion. Especially with the terminator captain. I'm trying to figure how to get that darn chainfist into something else. Sword, lightning claw, ANYTHING.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ruin wrote:
You... you, do know how LOS works in WMH right? There is literally no way to MFA with it due to a model's base size being an integral part of its rules. If I put Butcher on a small base, that isn't MFA, that's straight up cheating. Conversely, I can take the Juggernaut from Thagrosh the Painter and put it on its large base it's supposed to be on would not be MFA as its base size given in its rules determines it volume.

How that works with GW games where you are allowed to use base it originally came with so as to not be a jerk and force expensive/impossible without damaging model rebasing?

I'm going to be uncharacteristically salty for a moment....

On the subject of 'modelling for advantage' that is sadly a thing - but it really hit it's zenith during the era of the vehicle design rules of 3rd/4th Ed (possibly 5th? Not sure).

They were there so we could field our conversions - a way to give existing scratch builds a path onto the field.

Points wise, they usually ended up a bit pricey.

But then came the exploiters. Those who saw a way to cover a weakness, or create something which gave an advantage.

Clear example? In my local store, some goon converted 'Moriar's Chariot'. A flatbed Rhino with the express purpose of getting Moriar into combat on turn 1, where he became all but unstoppable. This was in the days of Gav's deeply flawed 3rd Ed Blood Angel Codex. Not only was he ridiculously hard, but you could also consolidate into a new combat.

That was never the intention or the spirit of the VDR. And that's a shame - that a handful of goons could taint something so comprehensively for the majority.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
I'm going to be uncharacteristically salty for a moment....

On the subject of 'modelling for advantage' that is sadly a thing - but it really hit it's zenith during the era of the vehicle design rules of 3rd/4th Ed (possibly 5th? Not sure).

They were there so we could field our conversions - a way to give existing scratch builds a path onto the field.

Points wise, they usually ended up a bit pricey.

But then came the exploiters. Those who saw a way to cover a weakness, or create something which gave an advantage.

Clear example? In my local store, some goon converted 'Moriar's Chariot'. A flatbed Rhino with the express purpose of getting Moriar into combat on turn 1, where he became all but unstoppable. This was in the days of Gav's deeply flawed 3rd Ed Blood Angel Codex. Not only was he ridiculously hard, but you could also consolidate into a new combat.

That was never the intention or the spirit of the VDR. And that's a shame - that a handful of goons could taint something so comprehensively for the majority.

Ah the good old vdr. Loved it and still do, though that is the first time I've ever seen mention of someone actually going through and making the offending model. Round here we had an infamous theoretical one called "the Turd". It was a Nid gargantuan creature that was about 3" long and 48" wide (the idea being to plonk it at the front of your deployment zone as a bullet sponge). Rest of the army sets up behind it. Profit!

Problem with VDR is that either you are so concervative that anything you create is horribly overpriced or there IS going to be broken combos.

Anything that uses formula for balancing points is inheritently so flawed it's not even funny. You can be 100% sure you are way off the correct point value.

It's an awesome concept, and one I fully endorse and approve of - but only when it's use to create rules for a model, rather than a model for the rules.

I understand we're getting a Land Raidercentric version in Chapter Approved in a few weeks (I think it's out around Chrimbo?), but for Open Play only. So that's nice (and I'm hoping we get a raft of conversion tutorials alongside).

Still not sure it's something we the gamers can really be trusted with though!

It's nice concept but for competive gaming seriously bad idea. Either vehicles will suck balls enough nobody really bothers with it or there are cracks wide open for land raider to drive through for broken combos.

If anything, rules exist to be broken, at least if done responsibly. Hi-profile gamebreakers are what lead to oddities like the 2e Space Wolf Reprint, going "No, you cannot take an entire unit of Assault Cannon/Cyclone Launcher Wolf Guard!"

Mind you, the 3rd ed VDR was done by Jervis and was full of his "don't break this, you naughty powergamer" elitism. I wonder what it would be like if someone like Sean "Dr. Kromm" Punch (GURPS) were to take a crack at a more flexible pointing system, knowing he's not working under the constraint that the system should let a player field an intelligent telepathic blueberry muffin...

 MagicJuggler wrote:
If anything, rules exist to be broken, at least if done responsibly. Hi-profile gamebreakers are what lead to oddities like the 2e Space Wolf Reprint, going "No, you cannot take an entire unit of Assault Cannon/Cyclone Launcher Wolf Guard!"

Mind you, the 3rd ed VDR was done by Jervis and was full of his "don't break this, you naughty powergamer" elitism. I wonder what it would be like if someone like Sean "Dr. Kromm" Punch (GURPS) were to take a crack at a more flexible pointing system, knowing he's not working under the constraint that the system should let a player field an intelligent telepathic blueberry muffin...

We already have telepathic blueberry muffins.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
It's an awesome concept, and one I fully endorse and approve of - but only when it's used to create rules for a model, rather than a model for the rules.

I very much agree!
This is key to VDR and any kind of unit-creation mechanic in any game. It's still possible to abuse it, but when you look at a model and say "how can I make rules that represent this" you usually get a much less beardy result than looking at the rules and saying "how can I make a highly effective unit". We've generally had good luck with game systems that have unit-creation mechanics by more-or-less following the "create rules for a model" philosophy.

I would put fourth that VDR -as cool as it was- was always an odd fit for 40k. 40k is a system that has always catered to listbuilders by offering them a huge array of choices from which the enterprising math-gamer can construct game-breaking combos. To cater to that type of gameplay, while at the same time saying "now when you use VDR think differently" is a bit of a contradiction.

This is why, above all things, I endorse the existence of Open War and "Narrative" levels of the game. To me, this gave GW a huge "out" for all kinds of more amusing stuff. Unbalanced scenarios? Fine, just don't use Matched Play. Silly new ideas? Cool, just don't use Matched play, etc. This is the perfect excuse for tournament organizers to simply say "This is a Matched Play event" and they don't have to worry about stuff like that. It introduces Open War decks, VDR rules returning, etc.

Now, all of this was possible in earlier editions through various White Dwarf articles or simple player agreements --- but now it's a better platform for GW to put stuff out which is more on edge than proper matched play materiel.

Want to run stripped down Chimeras in a role similar to Russian BMD (air deliverable light armour)? Cool ,make some rules. I'll be doing a large CSM tank at some point --- and if I can use rules from GW, even better. I would have done it anyway, but a guide would be nice!

tneva82 wrote:

Ruin wrote:
You... you, do know how LOS works in WMH right? There is literally no way to MFA with it due to a model's base size being an integral part of its rules. If I put Butcher on a small base, that isn't MFA, that's straight up cheating. Conversely, I can take the Juggernaut from Thagrosh the Painter and put it on its large base it's supposed to be on would not be MFA as its base size given in its rules determines it volume.

How that works with GW games where you are allowed to use base it originally came with so as to not be a jerk and force expensive/impossible without damaging model rebasing?

Specify volumes for base sizes that GW produce, from 20mm round upwards (including square options as appropriate). Alongside a unit entry, state the base sizes which have been supplied in the past (so a standard tactical SM should state 25mm or 32mm, off the top of my head), and that the model can be based on any of these, and will be treated as the appropriate volume for LOS purposes.

A smaller base makes you a smaller target, but gives you less area to shoot *from*, as well.

***

Regarding the VDR, it was cool - I recall looking at building a Pred with twin Auto-cannon and Hurricane Bolter sponsons, until I realised how poor the metal Hurricane Bolters were

 Dysartes wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

Ruin wrote:
You... you, do know how LOS works in WMH right? There is literally no way to MFA with it due to a model's base size being an integral part of its rules. If I put Butcher on a small base, that isn't MFA, that's straight up cheating. Conversely, I can take the Juggernaut from Thagrosh the Painter and put it on its large base it's supposed to be on would not be MFA as its base size given in its rules determines it volume.

How that works with GW games where you are allowed to use base it originally came with so as to not be a jerk and force expensive/impossible without damaging model rebasing?

Specify volumes for base sizes that GW produce, from 20mm round upwards (including square options as appropriate). Alongside a unit entry, state the base sizes which have been supplied in the past (so a standard tactical SM should state 25mm or 32mm, off the top of my head), and that the model can be based on any of these, and will be treated as the appropriate volume for LOS purposes.

A smaller base makes you a smaller target, but gives you less area to shoot *from*, as well.)

And that doesn't allow for MFA? I can think of couple ways to do that right off the bat.

tneva82 wrote:

 Dysartes wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

Ruin wrote:
You... you, do know how LOS works in WMH right? There is literally no way to MFA with it due to a model's base size being an integral part of its rules. If I put Butcher on a small base, that isn't MFA, that's straight up cheating. Conversely, I can take the Juggernaut from Thagrosh the Painter and put it on its large base it's supposed to be on would not be MFA as its base size given in its rules determines it volume.

How that works with GW games where you are allowed to use base it originally came with so as to not be a jerk and force expensive/impossible without damaging model rebasing?

Specify volumes for base sizes that GW produce, from 20mm round upwards (including square options as appropriate). Alongside a unit entry, state the base sizes which have been supplied in the past (so a standard tactical SM should state 25mm or 32mm, off the top of my head), and that the model can be based on any of these, and will be treated as the appropriate volume for LOS purposes.

A smaller base makes you a smaller target, but gives you less area to shoot *from*, as well.)

And that doesn't allow for MFA? I can think of couple ways to do that right off the bat.

Please, elaborate - that was also a first stab at it. You state what size base(s) a model can be on based on what it has been sold with, and you dictate the volume they are assumed to take up for the purpose of LOS. I really don't see the wiggle room, though I'd need to think on things like vehicles which don't have bases.

 Dysartes wrote:
Please, elaborate - that was also a first stab at it. You state what size base(s) a model can be on based on what it has been sold with, and you dictate the volume they are assumed to take up for the purpose of LOS. I really don't see the wiggle room, though I'd need to think on things like vehicles which don't have bases.

If smaller base=harder to get LOS to then howabout put in some CC troops into small base. Helps hiding them, who cares they have harder time shooting their bolt pistols or whateva. Their main weapons have range of 1".

And frankly simply being able to cram more guys into smaller base HELPS shooting units as well.

tneva82 wrote:

 Dysartes wrote:
Please, elaborate - that was also a first stab at it. You state what size base(s) a model can be on based on what it has been sold with, and you dictate the volume they are assumed to take up for the purpose of LOS. I really don't see the wiggle room, though I'd need to think on things like vehicles which don't have bases.

If smaller base=harder to get LOS to then howabout put in some CC troops into small base. Helps hiding them, who cares they have harder time shooting their bolt pistols or whateva. Their main weapons have range of 1".

And frankly simply being able to cram more guys into smaller base HELPS shooting units as well.

I think Dystartes meant you could choose from the base sizes that models have come with previously, not simply that you can mount them on any base you like. So most infantry will only allowed to be based on 25mm, Space Marines 25 or 32mm, Terminators 40mm or 25mm and so on.

And half the old armies owned by people have those smaller bases, anyway. I know I refuse to rebase 100+ Space Marines across several armies, and I have about 15 metal terminators on 25mm bases.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

 Dysartes wrote:
Please, elaborate - that was also a first stab at it. You state what size base(s) a model can be on based on what it has been sold with, and you dictate the volume they are assumed to take up for the purpose of LOS. I really don't see the wiggle room, though I'd need to think on things like vehicles which don't have bases.

If smaller base=harder to get LOS to then howabout put in some CC troops into small base. Helps hiding them, who cares they have harder time shooting their bolt pistols or whateva. Their main weapons have range of 1".

And frankly simply being able to cram more guys into smaller base HELPS shooting units as well.

I think Dystartes meant you could choose from the base sizes that models have come with previously, not simply that you can mount them on any base you like. So most infantry will only allowed to be based on 25mm, Space Marines 25 or 32mm, Terminators 40mm or 25mm and so on.

Yes. So you mount up your assault terminators/space marines on 25 rather than 40/32. Instant gaming advantage. As it is due to concentration of firepower now that templates are no more small base helps shooty units too...

tneva82 wrote:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

 Dysartes wrote:
Please, elaborate - that was also a first stab at it. You state what size base(s) a model can be on based on what it has been sold with, and you dictate the volume they are assumed to take up for the purpose of LOS. I really don't see the wiggle room, though I'd need to think on things like vehicles which don't have bases.

If smaller base=harder to get LOS to then howabout put in some CC troops into small base. Helps hiding them, who cares they have harder time shooting their bolt pistols or whateva. Their main weapons have range of 1".

And frankly simply being able to cram more guys into smaller base HELPS shooting units as well.

I think Dystartes meant you could choose from the base sizes that models have come with previously, not simply that you can mount them on any base you like. So most infantry will only allowed to be based on 25mm, Space Marines 25 or 32mm, Terminators 40mm or 25mm and so on.

Yes. So you mount up your assault terminators/space marines on 25 rather than 40/32. Instant gaming advantage. As it is due to concentration of firepower now that templates are no more small base helps shooty units too...

I wouldn't call it MFA to use the bases models originally came on if you're using older models.

If someone rocks up with modern Termies mounted on 25mm bases then it just gives you a good indication that it's probably someone you want to avoid playing against

The problem with MFA is if someone does something like making a model prone, or making a model that relies on LOS excessively tall... not using a base that a model originally came with.

Yeah well terminators are easier to spot but whatabout all those PA guys? Those on 25mm base even when you buy new box=instant gaming advantage.

tneva82 wrote:
Yeah well terminators are easier to spot but whatabout all those PA guys? Those on 25mm base even when you buy new box=instant gaming advantage.

Do we really care? Space Marines have been on 25mm bases since forever, 32mm bases are pretty new so I think it's fair enough that someone would base their new Space Marines like their old ones. It's just a problem you have to live with when GW changes the bases that models came with. I wouldn't mind if someone did the same with Terminators, if they had a lot of old school Termies putting new ones to match, the difference with Termies is that old Termies have rigid boring poses and are too small compared to the current ones so I can't see too many people basing their new Termies on to 25mm to match their old models.

Going for smaller base sizes isn't really terribly relevant to the discussion at hand anyway (ie. conversions) as I haven't met too many people who convert models on to smaller bases, it's almost always larger bases.

It's kind of just a thought exercise for a problem that doesn't seem even remotely prevalent.

For what it's worth, 8th ed might be the first edition in a long time in which smaller bases actually provide an advantage due to how terrain requires the whole unit to stand in it to gain cover,

I don't think it's a problem either, considering GW doesn't generally write good rules. What's one more that doesn't work as intended?