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.

Jeeze, who voted 'no'?

What, even in your own house? I find this purism baffling, it's just models, don't let it go like designer clothing.

I think it's more or less the idea of the 'GW HHHobby' taken to an extreme.

Shepherd23 wrote:I agree completely. Now tell that to the event organizers at the various tournaments around the world.

To be fair to event organisers, that really depends on the event they're running.

I don't know if it still applies, but once upon a day, requiring GW models was one of the conditions of receiving prize support from GW. Not a problem here in Oz any more, since GW don't actually support local events, but may still be an issue elsewhere. And by this point, even for those events running completely independantly of GW, the habit has become ingrained for a lot of players.

Shepherd23 wrote:This, I believe, is one of the biggest problems with GW. They do not produce all of the models that are in a codex, unless you play marines. And even then you do not even get all the options (conversion Beamer, librarian on a bike, etc.) The third party guys are filling a void that GW has left for whatever reason and I am very happy for that.

The thing is, a situation in which GW had a policy of making EVERY unit in the codex would make decrease variation in the game. There's only so much capital to make plastic kits. A policy of 'always making the model' would only result in GW only publishing rules for models they were planning to make, which would decrease the number of options in the codex.

Their current policy, which seems to be to put lots of options in the codex, even if they don't actually make the models, is certainly better for the game.

Ensis Ferrae wrote:LOL, I am literally in the same boat. My transports and tanks, and a couple of HQ options are GW minis. Everything is Wargames Factory's Greatcoat troopers, which I have recently expanded in the form of the Heavy Weapons teams.

I have no problems AT ALL with non-GW minis, even in tournaments, though I understand that I wouldn't try and play in a GW-official tournament or at a GW store with my Penal Legion army of Void troopers.

However, WYSIWYG still applies. I think using Wargames Factory troopers is a great idea, but I assume you've converted all their weapons over to GW-standard weapons?

The biggest coup GW managed to pull off was getting an entire generation of gamers to believe that you could ONLY use THEIR products to play THEIR games.

I don't know when it happened (it certainly wasn't there in the 1st and 2nd editions, and I don't recall it in early 3rd ed - at least in my area.).

So maybe around the turn of the century, a shift happened and I found myself in an alternate dimension where up was down, GW was THE hobby (not just a small part of a wider, pre-existing one) and gaming kids couldn't think outside the box.

Wasn't this part of 'Half-life'? Can I quit the game now?

One of the things I have never understood is that I have seen tourneys with scarecrows as the army and other weird fun stuff like that. WYSIWYG was obviously in question, but because it was cool it was ok. The whole per percentage rule was in question as well, but still, because it was cool all was good.

So I want to start seeing the coolness rule enforced again. As long as you can tell what's what then go for it as long as it is cool. Hello kitty marines do not count though as that is more creepy than cool. Actually that is really creepy.

My theory, Chromedog, is something like this:

There was a stretch there when GW was pretty much the only game in town as regards Sci-fi or Fantasy gaming. The old competition had withered off (like Warzone or Battletech), new competitors didn't really catch on (Confrontation and Vor, for instance) and the ones that are actually making a dent these days (largely Warmachine/Hordes) hadn't come out yet. GW was largely able to take advantage of this; pretty much every store I visited had a wall full of GW, and maybe a small section with Reaper minis on it for their D&D players.

I think a large part of the problem came out of the attitude that was engendered in the Magic: The Gathering community at the same time. There was a huge number of players that refused to play anything but "tournament legal" decks, and gods help you if you wanted to play a *multiplayer* game (the looks that I got for suggesting to a group of tournament players that we tried a six-person game). To that particular subset of players, if you weren't playing by the rules of the highest tournament levels, you weren't really playing the game. (This really peaked for me around the Mirage block, for reference.)

About the same time, the GW GT's were very much the driving force among 40K players: people were tuning their lists to fit GT games, and pretty much every tournament I played in (this was mid-3rd edition) was following those exact same rules (for comp and sportsmanship). Because there was such a strong emphasis on "Official Games Workshop Rules" and because the GT rules practically mentioned "official Citadel minis only" on every other line, the attitude got rather ingrained that you had to play with GW minis at all times.

I really appreciated the Necromunda tournament at Adepticon. The guy who ran it was of the opinion that since GW no longer supports the game, any minis could be used as long as they remained in the spirit of the game.

If I play that tournament again this year I am going to bring all conversions or minis from other manufacturers.

I voted no problem at all with the caveat that a reasonable person can pretty much tell what it is.

Sidstyler wrote:I think it's hard to come up with a black-and-white answer about this issue. Personally I think using third party bits/models is okay as long as your unit represents what it's supposed to and the third party models you're using to represent them aren't significantly larger/smaller than the official model, both in tournaments and pick-up games. If there isn't any obvious modeling for advantage and I can tell what's equipped with what I'm okay with it.

Because of that it's hard to say you support third party stuff in any and every circumstance, and likewise it's hard to say the opposite because GW leaves gaps in the line and it's impossible to have "official" bits for every upgrade, or even official models for some units.

I think Sidstyler pretty much summed up my opinion as well.

ArbitorIan wrote:

The thing is, a situation in which GW had a policy of making EVERY unit in the codex would make decrease variation in the game. There's only so much capital to make plastic kits. A policy of 'always making the model' would only result in GW only publishing rules for models they were planning to make, which would decrease the number of options in the codex.

Their current policy, which seems to be to put lots of options in the codex, even if they don't actually make the models, is certainly better for the game.

If this is in fact the case the an easy solution that would actually make the gamers happy would be to put out a list of models they never intend to make so that the 3rd party companies could get to work and not cross the lines by making something that GW actually does intend to make. This will never happen, but it still would make more sense than upsetting the universe threatening every company that is trying to actually help the community grow. GW needs to realize that for every bit sold one of their products has been purchased and for every every army played one of their books has been acquired as well. And I have yet to see an entire army made up of 3rd party pieces, not even close actually, so more of their models are purchased there as well.

I personally reckon for standard play anything goes as far as non GW bits are concerned as long as the miniatures are on the correct GW bases, resemble/the same size as what they’re proxying, armywide consistency (i.e. no having two identical models proxy different rules/weapons) and are not lazy hap hazard conversions (often done by a WAAC gamer who switches codices).

For tournament play, I reckon it’s imperative that the model more accurately resembles the rules than standard play therefore I personally reckon the PP tournament rules are appropriate here with the model having to be at least 50% of the original GW kit. The only exception in this case is I personally reckon IG as a human solider with a generic rifle is always a human solider with a generic rifle and a tank with a generic cannon is always a tank with a generic cannon (regardless if it is GW or not).

chromedog wrote:The biggest coup GW managed to pull off was getting an entire generation of gamers to believe that you could ONLY use THEIR products to play THEIR games.

I don't know when it happened (it certainly wasn't there in the 1st and 2nd editions, and I don't recall it in early 3rd ed - at least in my area.).

So maybe around the turn of the century, a shift happened and I found myself in an alternate dimension where up was down, GW was THE hobby (not just a small part of a wider, pre-existing one) and gaming kids couldn't think outside the box.

Wasn't this part of 'Half-life'? Can I quit the game now?

You're completely right. One of my most disheartening experiences in a GW was with my Pre-Heresy World Eaters, and all of which are converted to some degree. A kid looked at them and just said, shook his head, and said "why can't you just use the ones from the box?"

In terms of the wider picture I don't think a monopoly was good for the industry. However, there are many other popular games now, and a slew of successful 3rd party companies built on the back of new CAD technology and casting techniques, which have meant higher quality and lower prices than ever before. As hobbyists, I think wargaming is in a great place right now in terms of the number of options available.

ArbitorIan wrote:
However, WYSIWYG still applies. I think using Wargames Factory troopers is a great idea, but I assume you've converted all their weapons over to GW-standard weapons?

No, I have used GW weapons, such as the meltagun appropriately, however the size difference makes things a tad difficult to look 'natural' on the mini. Instead, I have opted for using the WGF mini's actual weapons, but by being consistent across the squad it should be real easy to figure out what is a lasgun.


As for the making a model for every option in the codex thing, I don't think every unit needs a unique 'kit' however, in most situations a simple sprue upgrade or something would be nice. For instance, it would be nice if GW would make a "barrel" kit for the basilisk chassis, so that if we aren't running Bassies in the list, we can make the 'official' model, without having to get FW minis, and possibly run into flak for using "non-GW" minis

Shepherd23 wrote: And I have yet to see an entire army made up of 3rd party pieces, not even close actually, so more of their models are purchased there as well.

Mantic is making big moves in that direction. My new Dwarf army is almost entierly Mantic, with a dozen old Heartbreaker minis and a half-dozen GW dwarves supplementing the undersized Mantic warmachine crews.

I think GW has gotten too big for it's britches lately and needs to be taken down a peg, and now some competitors have arrived to do it. Privateer has weaned many a GW customer off their rules, and Mantic is making a run on their miniature customers. If GW doesn't watch it, WFB may end at 8E, and 40K at the upcoming 6E in favor of these young guns.

While I prefer the overall feel of WFB to Kings of War and other games, it would be nice if GW would get their **** together and actually proofreed the darn rules and make official judgements on rules collisions IN THE BOOKS rather than in endless FAQ.

Although I'll note that their handling of these rules collisions in the FAQs is far better that their past policy of just ignoring them, showing that there is some hope for GW to get a real clue soon.

I have a bunch of old AT-43 Therians collecting dust and I was thinking about sticking them on some 40k bases and using them as Necrons...We'll see if the project ever gets done, not really in a 40k mood at the moment but I'll probably get excited whenever the next edition hits.

insaniak wrote:To be fair to event organisers, that really depends on the event they're running.

I don't know if it still applies, but once upon a day, requiring GW models was one of the conditions of receiving prize support from GW.

When we ran the Origins RTT and 40k Pairs this year at Origins 2011, we got GW support (online gift certificates) and 2 tickets to the Throne of Skulls event in May 2012.

One of the requirements to get the prize support was to require GW figs. Pretty definite language was used in there by GW.

So, yeah.. that rule is alive and kicking here in the US.

-Porkuslime

Pacific wrote:

chromedog wrote:One of my most disheartening experiences in a GW was with my Pre-Heresy World Eaters, and all of which are converted to some degree. A kid looked at them and just said, shook his head, and said "why can't you just use the ones from the box?"

I had a similar experience when I was posting some stuff for my DIY chapter on DeviantArt.

Some random guy started commenting on the posts and questioning the choice of colour scheme.

If he'd been simply commenting that he didn't like it he could have gone forth and multiplied for all I care.

But what really depressed me was the fact that he was inisiting that I should have painted them as Blood Ravens from the DOW games, ranting about how they were the only marines that people wanted to see and making it pretty clear that he was clueless as to the 40k universe beyond those games.

So it does seem that as GW have expanded into new territories they have managed to create a subculture of fans who are not only unaware of the fact that they aren't the only horse in the race, but that they have products beyond RT strategy games as well!

augustus5 wrote:As long as models are WYSIWYG, I don't have a problem with them. There will always be some tourneys that won't allow that sort of thing though, so that is something to keep in mind.

This is how I feel about it. If I can look at it and recognize what it's supposed to be, then I'm fine with it. Heck, I think it's nice to see something unique across the table.

I'll even go so far as to say I'll play a "counts-as" army if it is modeled properly and consistently.
i.e. all the autoguns on these troopers are lasguns, and all the heat guns are meltas, etc.

As soon as I have to start guessing/remembering which cannon is a lascannon and which is an autocannon, or which grey alien is a zoanthrope and which is a warrior, that's when I walk away.

Carmine the Wolf wrote:

chromedog wrote:One of my most disheartening experiences in a GW was with my Pre-Heresy World Eaters, and all of which are converted to some degree. A kid looked at them and just said, shook his head, and said "why can't you just use the ones from the box?"

Erm, misquote there, I think.
I do however, agree with him. I get kids using the "but it's like that in DoW" line on me when the game (TTG) plays differently.
DoW might have brought in a new generation, but by and large, is it a generation we really need? With all of their "Pwned, Lolzor, etc," lamespeak and inability to think for themselves.

That was Pacific's quote.

This was mine.

chromedog wrote:The biggest coup GW managed to pull off was getting an entire generation of gamers to believe that you could ONLY use THEIR products to play THEIR games.

I don't know when it happened (it certainly wasn't there in the 1st and 2nd editions, and I don't recall it in early 3rd ed - at least in my area.).

So maybe around the turn of the century, a shift happened and I found myself in an alternate dimension where up was down, GW was THE hobby (not just a small part of a wider, pre-existing one) and gaming kids couldn't think outside the box.

Wasn't this part of 'Half-life'? Can I quit the game now?

I didn't vote because I don't think it's that simple, between those 3 options.

Bits and full model substitutions are to different to lump together.

Generally, as said before I'm ok with anything as long as it looks like and is the same size as what it represents...

BITS:

There are whole lines of bits meant to go with GW models and themes! I think all these are great! Heads, weapon and arm swaps, extra gear, and more, even though they are not GW, they are extra pieces to ad in that are in character for the armies. Often things GW doesn't make in miniature but may have in fiction or flat art.



This can also cover weapons also, and some tank kit bashes.


Bases covered here as well as a good example of a NON GW product that is obviously a welcome addition.


Generally I think bits, as additions to GW models are always ok as long as they are the correct scale and reasonable representations, regardless of source.

MINIATURES

Substitutions of entire miniatures are a much more rigid standard, sometimes this is OK, but only in a limited scope.

Primarily, when, inexplicably, GW has rules, but does not make a kit:



and the like. The next grade would be substitution miniatures made as variants of models that do exist, but to an obviously high standard, this is clearly subjective, of course, and would include scibor terminators and the like:




This is a nebulous zone, clearly it has subjective criteria and not everyone will be ok with these approaches when actual figures are available. The best examples of this blend into regular armies so seamlessly though few would question them.

Finally, proxies and off brand direct substitutions, with no conversion etc are not ok. Egregious examples will not have the proper base size, similar scale, accurate representations of equipment and weapons and may be out right inappropriate, again another zone that requires an individual analysis by example and clearly has nebulous criteria.

These are general opinions of mine, and what I see as acceptable in the general community, rules at hosted events and venues may be another situation entirely, but generally I think these are the standards, even at most big events. If you must know ask owners, judges and organizers!

Chromedog's statement is dead on. And while I completely understand where you are coming from Augustus, I still only believe that GW only or their conversion percentage should only be enforced in events that are directly supported by them. Even "In store" events that that are not directly organized by GW (Ard Boyz) should not have to follow their rules as the support that GW gives stores for events is only allocated to certain stores based on a purchasing minimum. The store did what was needed to earn this support, further restrictions should not be placed on its usage.

The only restrictions that I see as logical are the ones said by you and others based on visual issues such as scale of model, WYSIWYG gear and weapons,etc. And even with this,I believe that just because the GW has a standard meltagun does not mean that all models in the game need to have that exact GW meltagun. Even GW has done enough variants of their weapons that prove that variants are out there. The basic bolter has historically changed a bit at least 3 times. The lasgun currently has at least 3 variants out there; standard, stockless and Vostroyan. All similar, but still different. So if I use the WF trenchcoats and keep the weapons that they come with, then as long as I am consistant throughout my army all should be well.

I totaly agree with Augustus.

Shepherd23 wrote:...GW meltagun. Even GW has done enough variants of their weapons that prove that variants are out there...

Yup, well said.

I don't care where the model came from, I just want it to fit into the universe. GW has a lore and a general aesthetic laid out for each of its games that I like. If I play a game, I want to play it in that universe. Facing my orks off against a mismatched group of Zvezda Napoleonics is taking things too far (as standard practice, at least - I'm sure a fun scenario could be devised, with proper stat-/cost-balancing), but good scratchbuilds, aftermarket bit conversions, and even whole 3rd party models are generally fine by me.

It's not a very direct comparison, but think of the issue in terms of historical/military modeling. Aftermarket resin/photoetch detail kits haven't undermined Tamiya or Revell, have they? No, they've helped expand that hobby without hurting the sales of the main kits. Do modeling competitions have a "one company only" rule? Hah! Good luck winning with a stock kit! What about scratchbuilds? Respect goes out to anyone who can pull a full build off convincingly. Most folks limit it to minor conversions and detailing because the retail kits look better than what they can make. Sure, this isn't a game system, but it's a hobby involving painting and modeling that is being constantly expanded and improved due, in no small part, to its openness and flexibility. Big production companies, small-time detail kit makers, and basement conversion part casters all seem to coexist just fine.

Good point!

Shepherd23 wrote:
I want peoples opinions on the use of NON GW minis/bitz being used to represent unit in GW games. Mainly 40K and Fantasy.

A long time ago, in a galaxy far far away, GW use to ECOURAGE conversions. I reacall a picture of a chaos dread they broudly showed that had 38 different non-GW parts, including car parts.

Those days at GW, unfortunately, are long dead. I personally have no issue with folks using anything they want to make their GW models converted or represented, as long as thei rmodels that properly represent the army(the old GT army that had a hockey team with bus as a chaos army while well converted, didnt well represent the army).

I tend to want to play the GW games pretty casually. I don't want to really get into a very competitive state with them. That being siad, I'll stick with rule of cool, personally. Heck, I'm getting one of the above shown Avatars of War for my Skaven army, because an excuse to get one of those is great!

don't see a problem with using other miniatures (like wargames factory stormtroopers) as long as it's clear what equipment they have.

so long as its WYSIWYG and more than 51% of the models/bits in the force are GW, most tourneys I frequent dont have a problem...

Afterall, its not like GW supports AUS tourneys