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.

With all these call-out posts, I say three 3-minute rounds with chain-axes is warranted at this point. Winner gets a bolter round to put him out of his misery, because there are no real winners in chain-axe fights, just like arguments on the internet.

Regarding stylistic choice of existing 30K materials (I think we've moved well and past the topic of 40K nonsense in 30K), I guess I see the baroque Cataphracts and MkIII kind of looking weird next to top of the line STC vehicles, but I don't mind it a little bit of throw-back on my Marines. If Wolves can get away with wearing fur diapers while operating machines almost magical in their capabilities, I can get away with some damn pteruges and a crest or two.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:

 thegreatchimp wrote:
Another consideration which shouldn't be overlooked is aesthetic preferences. Money matters aside, some folks just don't like the look of certain models or armour marks. I count myself in there. Some of the HH armour is very baroque, and while that's fine in its own right, it's not for everyone...comparing a MK3 marine and a Cataphracti pattern terminator to a fire raptor or Sicaran and I just say "nah, doesn't fit." Lads running around in tabards and roman legionary-esque armour next to cutting edge death machine...I find it a bit jarring and silly tbh. I might be going against the grain there but ah well...

I like the lore, but I'm a modeller first. Don't feel compelled to buy models I'm not taken with (indeed it's half the reason I spend most of my time converting stuff). I'm sure there's a fair few other hobbyists that feel the same.

Thats kinda how I feel sometimes. Most of the heads for the MKs dont always suit me. and there seems to be not a whole lot in unique bits. while If I look at 40k marines, it gives me so many modeling options.
Like for example, for my idea for a tormentor conversion I got this. MK4 legs. Special IW torsos, A Hand resting on his sword(from the sternguard kit) hand fiddling with a console and some head im not sure of. and a servo arm backpack to represent a warsmith. Its creates a unique model. And honestly if that person is so anal to worry about what bits I put on my model because it doesnt fit the "Fluff" it sounds like they might have a superiority complex.

1) That's a bad example because no one will ever complain about Mk. 7 vambraces since they were around during the heresy.

2) People have different standards of what experience they want to have. Some people want full WYSIWYG, some want fully painted and others want fluffy armies. That doesn't make them "Anal" or have a "Superiority complex". If you don't appreciate their desire to stick to the lore then you are free to not play them. Just like they're free not to play you.

 Brennonjw wrote:

Spoiler:

 Lockark wrote:

 TheCustomLime wrote:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
Cause I want to? why should you care how I convert MY models?

Because some people play 30k for the setting and would rather their opponents do the same. Also, why ask what people think of using 40k parts on your models if you just going to actively disregard people's opinions or even get defensive about it?

Because he's still angry a month ago I told his friend plastic Cadians with Empire state trooper Heads don't equal +3Sv Abhuman Milita, and that maby he should come up with a better way to represent these upgrades.

His friend even went as far as saying that he quits 30k before even starting it because of what I said, and that people will not let him model his army how he wants to. A 3rd friend even joined dakka that day to argue with me.

It seems this is just how his whole group plays 30k, and for some reason they feel they need to get validation from the greater online 30k community that they are "playing correctly". I suspect that they have had issues when trying to play with the larger 30k community in their area, of people bassicly telling them what some people are saying now. They then get upset that people online are not validating their choices.

Their is no other explanation for why him and his friends keep coming on here asking people for thier opinions, and then getting angry when people disagree with them.

Edit:
I hate to do call out posts, but there is a pattern here that is repeating in regards to him.

True to a point, but you fail to mention that your entire argument ignored the fact that 3+ saves vary greatly across armies and races, and that the ONLY way to be abhuman is to not be a human. If you're gonna call him out for his crummy attitude, DON'T leave out the fact that you were being pretty impolite and tunnel-vissioned on the topic you brought up. Not justifying the act of asking for opinions and then getting defensive, but if you're gonna try and call someone out, give the whole story.

I never said abuhumans had to be represented in a specific way, I even sujested something as simple as painting the skin of the mini's in a non-natural skin tone to represent them being abhumans. I was then told I shouldn't be telling him how to paint his army, because he wanted to paint them in a normal skin tone. That were were abhumans because they came from a cold planet and it made them tougher, but were otherwise undistinguishable from regular humans. They were abhumans because he said they were. Their are countless ways to represent abhuman, my point was do SOMETHING to represent it.

Generally that was also my point about +4/+3Sv.

On the impolite side of things. You are only recalling my posts towords the end of the topic after having "the squad" join dakka just to tell me i'm wrong, and generally the lot of them were being impolite bugger to me for awhile. (Their were people in the topic that their only posts on dakka were to tell me I'm wrong, and even said they were friends of the OP.) I don't think your tone is going to be a paragon of virtue after dealing with that.

But that is off topic by over a month.


My point is that Hot sauce man and his friends keeps asking for peoples opinions and then arguing that "well, your opinion doesn't matter". He asks these questions, but only wants posts of people agreeing with him. It's painfully obvious at this point he is fishing for that positive response for a reason.


edit:

 TheCustomLime wrote:


1) That's a bad example because no one will ever complain about Mk. 7 vambraces since they were around during the heresy.

Even me who's apparently the most Anal 30k player on dakka, isn't going to give you gak for MK. 7 Arms. The only reason I don't have MK.7 arms on any of my guys isn't because I'm a snob, It's because my army is mostly MK2/3. But I use CSM plastic arms all the time, since they pass off as MK2/3 arms well enough. If I was useing more MK4 armour in my army, I would totally toss them in for variation. Head/Torso/legs are the big ones.

I would say do that conversion, as long as the helmet is 30k "appropriate", nothing about the mini you described would be out of place. It sounds like it would look AWSOME, and hope you post pics hotsauce.

HandofMars wrote:

Regarding stylistic choice of existing 30K materials (I think we've moved well and past the topic of 40K nonsense in 30K), I guess I see the baroque Cataphracts and MkIII kind of looking weird next to top of the line STC vehicles, but I don't mind it a little bit of throw-back on my Marines. If Wolves can get away with wearing fur diapers while operating machines almost magical in their capabilities, I can get away with some damn pteruges and a crest or two.

I never realized their were MK's of pteruges. lol I'm pretty sure it's been brought up multiple times that the aquilla is in 30k, but in the context of 30k it's a badge of honour for officers and such. That and their is nothing saying that Winged wolfs, swords, skulls, ect are were not around. I'm pretty sure I've seen rhinos with the winged skull on them in the black books lol.

For me, it's literally just the head, torso and sometimes the backpack that need to be correct. I wouldn't really complain about anything else - just so long as it looks like it would fit in with a period-accurate suit, I wouldn't mind.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
For me, it's literally just the head, torso and sometimes the backpack that need to be correct. I wouldn't really complain about anything else - just so long as it looks like it would fit in with a period-accurate suit, I wouldn't mind.

Not realy sure if the backpack is something I personally would be concerned with TBH. The Chaos Backpacks are shown in book, and stuff like the plastic commander egal head backpack and stuff like that wouldn't bother me on a commander. I also could totally see a space wolf/Blood Angels/Dark Angel player using the backpacks from their plastics to add extra bling to their mini's.

It's relay the head/torso/legs for me.

(Stuff that isn't a ovioues mk of armour is also ok in my book. Like the blood angel's Mk. Nipple Armour. It looks closest to MK.4 then anything, but generally that is something I don't consider a proper MK of armour. It's their unique "thing".)

 Lockark wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
For me, it's literally just the head, torso and sometimes the backpack that need to be correct. I wouldn't really complain about anything else - just so long as it looks like it would fit in with a period-accurate suit, I wouldn't mind.

Not realy sure if the backpack is something I personally would be concerned with TBH. The Chaos Backpacks are shown in book, and stuff like the plastic commander egal head backpack and stuff like that wouldn't bother me on a commander. I also could totally see a space wolf/Blood Angels/Dark Angel player using the backpacks from their plastics to add extra bling to their mini's.

It's relay the head/torso/legs for me.

(Stuff that isn't a ovioues mk of armour is also ok in my book. Like the blood angel's Mk. Nipple Armour. It looks closest to MK.4 then anything, but generally that is something I don't consider a proper MK of armour. It's their unique "thing".)

The commander eagle is actually on the FW Legion Champion model - that doesn't bother me at all.

I think a small amount of Mk. 7 style legs is fine too because they are shown to be in use but they seem to be really, really rare.

And I actually used the Sternguard bit HSM1 was talking about on one of my tactical Sergeants. It looks pretty boss!

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

 Lockark wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
For me, it's literally just the head, torso and sometimes the backpack that need to be correct. I wouldn't really complain about anything else - just so long as it looks like it would fit in with a period-accurate suit, I wouldn't mind.

Not realy sure if the backpack is something I personally would be concerned with TBH. The Chaos Backpacks are shown in book, and stuff like the plastic commander egal head backpack and stuff like that wouldn't bother me on a commander. I also could totally see a space wolf/Blood Angels/Dark Angel player using the backpacks from their plastics to add extra bling to their mini's.

It's relay the head/torso/legs for me.

(Stuff that isn't a ovioues mk of armour is also ok in my book. Like the blood angel's Mk. Nipple Armour. It looks closest to MK.4 then anything, but generally that is something I don't consider a proper MK of armour. It's their unique "thing".)

The commander eagle is actually on the FW Legion Champion model - that doesn't bother me at all.

I meant this dude's backpack.
https://www.games-workshop.com/en-CA/Space-Marine-Commander

It's modren style with egal vents, the one of the champ is a MK4 with egal vents.

 TheCustomLime wrote:
I think a small amount of Mk. 7 style legs is fine too because they are shown to be in use but they seem to be really, really rare.

And I actually used the Sternguard bit HSM1 was talking about on one of my tactical Sergeants. It looks pretty boss!

I think the MK7 legs you are seeing are actually MK5. Both have the rounded knee pads, the difference is exposed cabling over the top of the thigh to the knee pad. (Plus bounding studs). It's the reason it's not to hard to convert MK7 legs into MK5.

On the topic of the stern gaurd tho, that box set is GOLD for 30k bits.

You get two pairs of MK5 legs and one set of MK4. You also get some cool bare heads, a cool MK4 head, a MK6 torso and a torsos with cloth over it that can more or less what ever mark you want under it. I like to point to the box for new players comeing in from BaC as a good source of plastic character parts. The MK4 head with targeting scope and a Auspex gives you most the parts you need to convert a master of signals for example. Put a servo skull from your bits box on him and your gold. The same bits can also be used to convert siege breakers and others.

MkV kneepads are supposed to be relatively flat-bottomed rather than round but FW doesn't seem to bother with that distinction. Regarding cables the original fluff stated: "Once supplies of the new materials used in the Mark 4 armour dried up it became necessary to re-use older substances. In the illustration the lighter chest, arm and leg cabling of the Mark 4 has been replaced by the older and heavier style cabling made from more readily available materials. However the cables are now exposed because they are too bulky to fit under the new style chest plate." although it specifies the chest plate it presumably is the explanation for the Mk5's exposed leg cabling as well, so you can probably get away with using the Mk7 legs and calling it early-production Mk5 at any point. The original fluff also actually stated that the Mk7 kneepad had already been implemented on late-production Mk6 as well.

MK6 doesn't have knee pads. Just realy big boots.



MK4 has squared off knee pads.


MK5 and 7 have the rounded knee pad.


Just green stuff some cabling, or use guitar wire on MK7 legs, and you have MK5. If you want to add bonding studs, I prefer Tinchy Train Group's plastic rivets. But their are plenty of tutorials on making bounding studs. So use your perfered method. =)

Isnt MK5 inconsistent though. Isnt it possible that the exposed cabling and stud could not exist?

 Lockark wrote:
MK6 doesn't have knee pads. Just realy big boots.

"Improvents were made to the knee joint articulation, but this modification had already been incorporated into many of the later Mark 6 suits." (WD129/RT Compilation)


Later suits as in suits produced by the Imperium during the Horus Heresy, not later miniatures produced by Games Workshop.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
Isnt MK5 inconsistent though. Isnt it possible that the exposed cabling and stud could not exist?

Absolutely: "A distinguishing feature of the Mark 5 armor was the heavily studded armoured pates. This was an attempt to reinforce the Mark 4 pattern plates when inferior materials were used dur to lack of the proper supplies.. / ..Being something of an improvised stop-gap, it is common for Mark 5 suits to vary a great deal. Where Mark 4 helmets, armour plates and cabling were available these were often used." (WD129/RT Compilation)

So if the facility that fabricate that particular suit still had the superior alloys used in Mark 4 plate the reinforced studs would be unnecessary, whilst if they still had supplies of the Mark 4 cabling it would fit under the leg plates the same as it did on Mark 4.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
Isnt MK5 inconsistent though. Isnt it possible that the exposed cabling and stud could not exist?

True, and I was talking from the stand point that if you wanted to convert it to look the any all the GW depictions show it. But if you did just the cabling or just the studs for example I think that would more or less convey the idea that it is MK5. (Just cables means they had the materials for the armour, but not the cables. Just studs would mean the materials for the cables but not the armour.) So in away, coutning on how you convert your MK5 armour, tells a different narrative of the combat that your guys have been going threw.

Using straight MK7 legs are just MK7 legs, no matter how you want to spin it. But even putting alittle effort into converting them to convey the idea they they are MK5 armour will go a long way.

Generally plastic MK6 legs are so common, that for the most part you should be able to avoid using MK7 legs when useing 40k plastics to supplement your BaC and/or FW resin. So using unconverted MK7 legs is a pretty big Faux pas in regards to modelling 30k.

 TheCustomLime wrote:
People have different standards of what experience they want to have. Some people want full WYSIWYG, some want fully painted and others want fluffy armies. That doesn't make them "Anal" or have a "Superiority complex". If you don't appreciate their desire to stick to the lore then you are free to not play them. Just like they're free not to play you.

'The lore' is pretty clear that armour marks were mixed, field repairs undertaken, and that a given Legion force could be wearing practically anything depending on how long they've been active, when they've been resupplied, how much their armour is honoured, etc, etc. 'The lore' is constructed so that you can do almost anything.

People who insist on only a specific armour mark across an army, that the helmet matches the gauntlets and only has specific markings, certainly have the right to play that way, and to only play others who share their view. They can refuse a game for any reason, no big deal.

However, they are not just 'sticking to the lore'. They're picking out one bit of the lore, ignoring the rest of the lore, and then insisting that their bit is the only 'correct' bit.

But we're not really talking about mixing and matching marks, are we? We're talking about wholesale use of MkVII+ for very tenuous reasons.

And just as an aesthetic opinion, nothing should mix with MkIII except heads and maybe torsos because the limbs are way bigger than other marks. Every example I see that uses just the legs or just the arms looks awful, but I still rather see that than a bunch of Palatine Aquilas on every chest.

HandofMars wrote:
But we're not really talking about mixing and matching marks, are we? We're talking about wholesale use of MkVII+ for very tenuous reasons.

And just as an aesthetic opinion, nothing should mix with MkIII except heads and maybe torsos because the limbs are way bigger than other marks. Every example I see that uses just the legs or just the arms looks awful, but I still rather see that than a bunch of Palatine Aquilas on every chest.

Agreed to a point. Just using 40k marines is one thing - using 40k marines (which mostly have winged skulls on the chest) with different parts, heresy-style bits, heresy colour schemes is another. I think a lot of this thread agrees that, as long as it looks 'heresified' and is done well, it's good.

I was just responding to the claim that those people who insist on 100% complete identical resin armour are somehow more fluff-accurate than people who have mixed armour. I don't think that's true.

 ArbitorIan wrote:

HandofMars wrote:
But we're not really talking about mixing and matching marks, are we? We're talking about wholesale use of MkVII+ for very tenuous reasons.

And just as an aesthetic opinion, nothing should mix with MkIII except heads and maybe torsos because the limbs are way bigger than other marks. Every example I see that uses just the legs or just the arms looks awful, but I still rather see that than a bunch of Palatine Aquilas on every chest.

Agreed to a point. Just using 40k marines is one thing - using 40k marines (which mostly have winged skulls on the chest) with different parts, heresy-style bits, heresy colour schemes is another. I think a lot of this thread agrees that, as long as it looks 'heresified' and is done well, it's good.

So maybe can we boil this down to "make an effort"?

 gorgon wrote:

 ArbitorIan wrote:

HandofMars wrote:
But we're not really talking about mixing and matching marks, are we? We're talking about wholesale use of MkVII+ for very tenuous reasons.

And just as an aesthetic opinion, nothing should mix with MkIII except heads and maybe torsos because the limbs are way bigger than other marks. Every example I see that uses just the legs or just the arms looks awful, but I still rather see that than a bunch of Palatine Aquilas on every chest.

Agreed to a point. Just using 40k marines is one thing - using 40k marines (which mostly have winged skulls on the chest) with different parts, heresy-style bits, heresy colour schemes is another. I think a lot of this thread agrees that, as long as it looks 'heresified' and is done well, it's good.

So maybe can we boil this down to "make an effort"?

I'm pretty sure that has been the main point for the past 4 pages alone.

Make an effort. Even if only in the paintjob. A little goes a very long way.