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

When GW did official tournaments were you not also at the Whim of tournament organisers? Actually at any tournament where the company does not have an official line allowing using other manufacturers models (Mantic for example have an army list they expect you to use other manufactures models for) you are at the whim of the organiser if you take in non official models.

I don't see how PP is vastly different to GW in this instance.

 carlos13th wrote:
When GW did official tournaments were you not also at the Whim of tournament organisers? Actually at any tournament where the company does not have an official line allowing using other manufacturers models (Mantic for example have an army list they expect you to use other manufactures models for) you are at the whim of the organiser if you take in non official models.

I don't see how PP is vastly different to GW in this instance.

GW also couldn't decide on how to do it. Some years there was a fluctuating percentage for how much must be GW parts, some years it was just a vague "must be majority of GW parts".

There's also been plenty of stories over the years of TOs finding out during the middle of games that a model isn't GW and having players remove or replace that model.

 DarkTraveler777 wrote:

Your case rests on the arbitrary judgements of TOs. For me that is a risk too great to take with the costs of an army and I don't think I am alone in that mindset.

Not really. I even gave two examples of extremely heavily converted armies that are entirely legal using pp's conversion rules. 'Arbitrary judgements' won't come into it if you're smart and reasonable about your conversions. Play around with the pose, the bling, swap the weapon (like for like), green stuff, and chop the hell out if things, and you're still ok - you're not stealing from the conversion rules.

Turn up with an entire third party army with arty and impressionist weapon swaps and you might have some issues, and to be fair, that comes with the territory - gw were just as picky when they ran tourneys.

Edit: and just to prove a point: http://privateerpress.com/community/privateer-insider/insider-3-10-2014

Here are a few war hog conversions shown in their recent pp insider. They're done by a member of the pp staff. they're still obviously war hogs, but they're themed, converted, and characterful. ("War cleavers" don't really specify weapon types)

You could just talk with your local TOs to get an idea of what is acceptable or not and explain what it is you are planning to do. Not really a hard issue to circumvent. I'm sure once your army got in a few tourneys it basically become fait accompli that it will be accepted in future ones.

Talkings hard I know.

 kronk wrote:

Bullockist wrote:
I love the whole wysiwyg argument against PP. In PP there are no weapon swaps, therefore wysiwyg is not an issue in any case bar tournaments and then only so your opponent knows exactly what each mini is at a glance.

Lack of variety and customization would make me sad.

I tend to come down on the side of preferring customization, but it's really a different strokes kind of thing.
In order to put out a ruleset that is ideal for tournament play and to keep the game as balanced as possible, a company simply has to limit the variables in a ruleset. This means limiting a players options.

If you want tons of options, then GW (or even generic games) are for you, but they will never be as good for tournament as a tight ruleset like WM. You really can't have both.

I prefer rulesets that are even more open, but if I were interested in tournament gaming, I'd want a ruleset like PP writes.

Also, there's nothing keeping you from customizing your PP models if you so desire, it's just not going to have an in-game effect.

 TheAuldGrump wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

Tyranno wrote:
3: The people who blame GW for everything.

Well GW were mostly responsible for the Berlin Wall, so it's natural for some people to harbour resentment towards them.

No, sorry - that was me.

I needed a place to store my Legos.

The Auld Grump... I kinda wish that I had that many Legos....

Actually, with the few million legos I have bought my son over the years I am now building my new 6 foot by 10 foot wargame table - entirely built of legos!!!

 Wayshuba wrote:

 TheAuldGrump wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

Tyranno wrote:
3: The people who blame GW for everything.

Well GW were mostly responsible for the Berlin Wall, so it's natural for some people to harbour resentment towards them.

No, sorry - that was me.

I needed a place to store my Legos.

The Auld Grump... I kinda wish that I had that many Legos....

Actually, with the few million legos I have bought my son over the years I am now building my new 6 foot by 10 foot wargame table - entirely built of legos!!!

Ooooohhhh!

The Auld Grump

winterdyne wrote:
Play x-wing. It's a real game.

Actually do. It's probably the best written rulesets I've ever played, and it's bags of fun.

If someone is complaining about balance in 40k they need their head looking at. 40k has never been balanced and was never really intended to be balanced - there is a reason the GW tourneys in rogue trader days were space marine on space marine.

IF you can figure out the dang dice...