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.

I'll be MIA for a bit though; driving. I'll be back when I can.

 Azreal13 wrote:

 jreilly89 wrote:

 Azreal13 wrote:
Yes. Because my way (having a live and let live attitude) is clearly the better way.

You are (assuming you're still in the UK) literally continent away from me. Why should I have to bow to your rules? That's what my forefathers fought for.

Now you're not even being coherent. This is a digital discussion, our locations are irrelevant? Neither am I trying to force you to do anything (and Dakka discussions aren't legally binding btw) I'm disagreeing with you, if I was trying to force you into anything then that would make me a hypocrite, but I'm well within my rights to think your attitude towards the matter at hand is wrong and well within my rights to say so.

This is how you responded.

 Azreal13 wrote:

 jreilly89 wrote:

So, in summary, I have to play the game the way you want me to?

Yes. Because my way (having a live and let live attitude) is clearly the better way.

You're well within your rights to disagree with me, but saying I have to play the game the way you want me to is a pretty jerk move.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Vermis wrote:

I'll be honest...I'm not a fan. I really do think it takes away from the game too much. At this point, I'd say go full force and just plop these down instead of the enforcers:

At some point it starts to look like you're trying to forbid not just Iron Man references, but an incidental combination of red and gold paint on any armoured or robotic minis, in case you make an accidental inference.

By saying I don't like the look of it?

Your sarcasm detector needs new batteries.

 jreilly89 wrote:

What I'm trying to get it as I spend a large amount of money and time on hand painted models, so I should be able to enjoy the hobby the way I want to.

And nobody else can enjoy the hobby the way they want, by painting minis red and gold? They have to spend their money and time the way you want, in the unfortunate scenario that they want a game against you or your friends?

That, or just accept people don't want to play the game the way you do.

There's irony. In this context people can play the game how they like, as far as I'm concerned. I'll play against your painstakingly painted minis, or spruecrons, or grey armies. But those last two options are still on a different level to the simple choice of paint colour.

I'm the same in one way: my minis have to be carefully modelled and painted, but that's my minis. My time and money to spend on miniatures, not someone else's time, money and minis; and it's time and money that's somewhat removed from actually playing the game, too.
All the same, I can't deny that I'd encourage or nag for the use of 'proper' miniatures (though don't underestimate the time and investment put into sprue composition And I'd probably even help put fins and panels on the paper cup) but again, that's something different to casting gamers out and turning your back until they spend the kind of money you do.

Is that it, though? When you bring up 'budget' wargaming, does that mean it's about the old 'I spent too much money on GW minis and the hhhobby so other people should too', with an addendum of '... and it has to be absolutely perfect', rather than immersion?

 Vermis wrote:

 jreilly89 wrote:

What I'm trying to get it as I spend a large amount of money and time on hand painted models, so I should be able to enjoy the hobby the way I want to.

And nobody else can enjoy the hobby the way they want, by painting minis red and gold? They have to spend their money and time the way you want, in the unfortunate scenario that they want a game against you or your friends?

That, or just accept people don't want to play the game the way you do.

There's irony. In this context people can play the game how they like, as far as I'm concerned. I'll play against your painstakingly painted minis, or spruecrons, or grey armies. But those last two options are still on a different level to the simple choice of paint colour.

I'm the same in one way: my minis have to be carefully modelled and painted, but that's my minis. My time and money to spend on miniatures, not someone else's time, money and minis; and it's time and money that's somewhat removed from actually playing the game, too.
All the same, I can't deny that I'd encourage or nag for the use of 'proper' miniatures (though don't underestimate the time and investment put into sprue composition And I'd probably even help put fins and panels on the paper cup) but again, that's something different to casting gamers out and turning your back until they spend the kind of money you do.

Is that it, though? When you bring up 'budget' wargaming, does that mean it's about the old 'I spent too much money on GW minis and the hhhobby so other people should too', with an addendum of '... and it has to be absolutely perfect', rather than immersion?

It's not about the "you need to spend the same level I do", it's "I get one game a month, two if I'm lucky, and after all the money and time I've put into this hobby I should be allowed to play it how I want to". I mean no ill-will towards people who want to play that way, but I shouldn't be forced or expected to play with them.

For instance, I played a 2v2 about a month and a half ago against a guy who had all unpainted minis, and who ran Orks and these Wargames minis as his conscripts:



It was a fun game and he was a nice enough guy, but I'll be honest that I didn't enjoy it as much because I felt it detracted from the experience.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Azreal13 wrote:
Your sarcasm detector needs new batteries.

You know Azreal, I will concede that I didn't notice the sarcasm and so I apologize, but man, you always have such a condescending attitude. I'm glad we don't ever have to play 40k together.

jreilly89 wrote:
Because, again, it's subtle. It's not Catachans fighting against the Vietnamese, it's Guardsmen fighting in a jungle environment, using Vietnamse-esque tactics. Yeah, the Sly reference is funny, but the basic inspiration for Catachans is used in a fun, subtle way, rather than an obvious in your face reference.

It's an army of musclebound guys in (or out of) vests, with red headbands. It ain't that subtle. Doesn't remind me of Full Metal Jacket, anyway.

By saying I don't like the look of it?

By saying 'I'm never going to play against that'. You can dislike the look of something, but play against it anyway. You say your regular group all feel the same way you do, but how much does that mutual agreement stifle any whims in the future? What happens if someone has to move away, or the group breaks up? With your attitude to what other gamers do, it could somehow turn so that you're not the one doing the excluding.

Hope none of them collect Ultramarines. Give one a red cloak and you're down one more opponent.

This one time I was playing this guy, the mission scenario was has GW gotten better in the last year, and his army was totally full of stand in arguments about minis ruining his experience, which totally ruined my experience!

All this Iron Man scheme hate. Look at these abominations unto the hobby! /s

 Vermis wrote:

jreilly89 wrote:
Because, again, it's subtle. It's not Catachans fighting against the Vietnamese, it's Guardsmen fighting in a jungle environment, using Vietnamse-esque tactics. Yeah, the Sly reference is funny, but the basic inspiration for Catachans is used in a fun, subtle way, rather than an obvious in your face reference.

It's an army of musclebound guys in (or out of) vests, with red headbands. It ain't that subtle. Doesn't remind me of Full Metal Jacket, anyway.

By saying I don't like the look of it?

By saying 'I'm never going to play against that'. You can dislike the look of something, but play against it anyway. You say your regular group all feel the same way you do, but how much does that mutual agreement stifle any whims in the future? What happens if someone has to move away, or the group breaks up? With your attitude to what other gamers do, it could somehow turn so that you're not the one doing the excluding.

Hope none of them collect Ultramarines. Give one a red cloak and you're down one more opponent.

Then you should have no problem playing against this! I mean, it's all the same.

Ah, reducto ad absurdum. The last bastion of someone losing an argument...

It's not even that absurd. It's clearly a Ghost Ark and Catacomb Barge in the first pic (alongside some two handed melee orientated infantry whose unit name escapes me) and a couple of Tomb Spiders, Warriors and Scarabs in the second.

I bet once there was a coat of paint on those there'd be nearly zero difference, at tabletop level, of the overall Necronyness of the army.

 jreilly89 wrote:

Then you should have no problem playing against this!

In all seriousness, no.

I won't pretend it's sophisticated or anything other than rough; but it's got a Minecraftish charm, and I can see the work that went into selecting, cutting and shaping certain sprue parts to represent certain features and poses. I dare say it might represent more thought, effort and creativity than clipping ready-made parts off the same sprue. I'm especially impressed by the way sprue pieces are composed to represent scarabs scuttling and floating over eachother, as opposed to a simple heap of bits or five or six pieces lying flat on the base. Biggest criticism off the top of my head is that I think the shapes of the vehicles could be cut a little more cleanly. Did they use foamcore or plain EPS?

And it's fun.

I might stop short of saying it'd be a privilege to play against it, but I can respect and appreciate it for those reasons.

I mean, it's all the same.

 jreilly89 wrote:

Then you should have no problem playing against this! I mean, it's all the same.

What is wrong with that? That is actual art. Someone had to actually cut the sprues to a certain length and glue them into a certain position to make them look like how they do. So they basically sculpted their own minis. They actually created something instead of what you and I and most likely every other person who doesn't use green stuff and just glue by numbers and create no art.

I can see the passion and the creativity the person did to make this. To make something out of sprues but when we see it and it is WYSIWYG that does take some tallent.

Herzlos wrote:

 jreilly89 wrote:

Because it's pretty clearly trying to bring an outside universe into 40k? Same reason I posted above why I wouldn't play against a guy's Iron Man army, even though it's company sponsored: smashing two unintended universes together and ruining my immersion.

Do you feel the same about official GW figures that are a direct rip-off of some other IP setting? Like Sly Marbo? Tau? Stormcast?

Given that GW used to encourage custom Space Marine Chapters, how close is too close in terms of inspiration from other worlds? What if the creator didn't realise the link?

I still remember some old tournament army that was a mix of, I think, Space Marines, IG (heads and some bits), and some historical military stuff (for tank greeble and bits, and decals). It was inspired by the US army if I remember correctly ( and had a dread named Ryan). I think it was called White Stars (chapter) or something like that, and the combination of these three influences was complete not GW canon but also one of the most fun armies to see and to explore its theme and internal coherence (sadly only online).

Vermis wrote:

And nobody else can enjoy the hobby the way they want, by painting minis red and gold? They have to spend their money and time the way you want, in the unfortunate scenario that they want a game against you or your friends?

Somebody should probably mention that red and gold or red and white are very popular colour schemes because of the contrast they provide and that was the reason Iron Man has these colours and any nano-tech voodoo in-universe explanations are made up after the fact. The same goes for red/green/white or red/blue/white (so many national flags use these two), and red/white/black is so often used for propaganda purposes because it exudes authority. The Nazis didn't choose it for the fun of it (and the same goes for this scheme's association with the Inquisition).

Disliking a random colour scheme just because you saw it somewhere else first is kinda arbitrary.

Well, we're soundly off-topic and 55 pages in. If you want t continue this discussion, please start a new thread.

Thanks!