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.

Tank crew on foot are nice models for dioramas but they don't have a role in the game, so players will not be interested.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

KamikazeCanuck wrote:But why are we getting mad at GW for having a hole in their model range? It's like we're getting mad at them for having too expansive a background or rules set. Would we rather just not have them at all? Seems like the solution to me is for GW to just ditch all rules they don't intend to make models for then.

Alternatively they could put a bit more effort into making the required models. They are supposed to be a model company that issues rules to promote models.

A lot of people would rather there were fewer SM releases and codexes, and more Xenos love instead.

Kilkrazy wrote:Tank crew on foot are nice models for dioramas but they don't have a role in the game, so players will not be interested.

They're nice concepts for dioramas, but the models themselves by the standards that I, personally, hold GW to are terrible. The same thing goes for Pask, to be honest.

They're terrible sculpts and clearly were done for some unknown reason. Pask is three fingered and looks like someone really wanted to make a Tau Tank Commander wearing a Cadian uniform.

I don't know how I missed this thread.

Legally, I don't believe CH has done anything that isn't allowed by law. It is a physically unique creation, made by CH. It is not derrivative of any particular GW product, just of a facet of the eldar concept. I do not believe the court would have issue with what CH has done, but IF they were to, they would weigh the inherently derrivative nature of elves in space and reduce GW's damages proportionately.

As a matter of ethics we have to weigh the motives of CH; since ethics are a self imposed set of values. CH by its ethics has been relatively consistent, putting its customers wants over that GW's. It has attempted to avoid doing anything illegal, following it ethical imperitive. CH has a unique model, which they are in the business of selling. Let me pose a hypothetical... if this model came from an artist, in a black box, who never knew GW and never knew there was 40k... would people be right in saying its "wrong?"-I don't think so. Next we have an artist, fully aware of GW, its art and concepts, just because of that knowledge do they have an imperative to avoid any degree of influence on their future works?-I don't think so. So for us to impose our ethical system, we need to establish what degree of influence or inspiration is acceptable. CH is in the business of compatible miniatures, by that it has to maintain some higher level of similarity, or it is a failure. Thus it has to be heavily influenced and heavily inspired. Our society has nothing against compatibility and only really protects numerically based encrypted systems from outside compatibility. Morality pertains, to the socially accepted sense of right and wrong... I think at the heart of this post is the communal indecision on this issue. The fact is it comes down whether "we" believe CH has acted improperly? -I don't think "we" do. Based on many places where similar degrees of commonality exist and are accepted, I think its a large about-face that makes an exception here for what I feel are because of people's proximity to the issue. This is a hobby, people are passionate about this... but so are many other things that aren't held to such esteem.

KamikazeCanuck wrote:But why are we getting mad at GW for having a hole in their model range? It's like we're getting mad at them for having too expansive a background or rules set. Would we rather just not have them at all? Seems like the solution to me is for GW to just ditch all rules they don't intend to make models for then.

I don't mind them leaving gaps as such. I think it's unfair to leave obvious gaps in your range, show no intention to ever fill them, and then stamp on other companies producing models that do fit them. Either fill the gaps or let it slide. Not everyone is into kitbashing and converting everything from GW only parts, they want to pick something off the shelf. If they can't do that from GW they will do it from someone else.

And some stuff would be easy to fix, like jetseers and jetlocks.

Why they couldn't muster even a FW tervigon kit is perplexing.

According to FW, it's because they were told to not do it since the studio was gonna handle it.

I think the Vendetta was a "special case" as there was no plans to do something so simple, but the Elysians were getting IA8 anyways.

Polonius wrote:

KamikazeCanuck wrote:But why are we getting mad at GW for having a hole in their model range? It's like we're getting mad at them for having too expansive a background or rules set. Would we rather just not have them at all? Seems like the solution to me is for GW to just ditch all rules they don't intend to make models for then.

It depends on how you approach GW games. If you're looking for a way to use the models you have, than the rules generally work perfectly. Unless you have something that's no longer supported.

If you look for models with which to play the game, than having holes in the range creates a demand. Nobody is angry at GW, at least not too much, but there are some really strong tactical options that dont' have models. Filling those holes has a lot of value to the community.

Those "holes" exist to be filled by conversions and encourage modelling. If a third party simply comes in and makes the models I think GW would simply eliminate those units from the game as a business decision.

KamikazeCanuck wrote:Those "holes" exist to be filled by conversions and encourage modelling. If a third party simply comes in and makes the models I think GW would simply eliminate those units from the game as a business decision.

That hasn't been explicity true since at least late 3rd edition, when the IG and Chaos books made it clear that a lot of stuff was conversion only. the current trend by far is for more coverage of units and options.

Some books have complete ranges fleshed out, completely. Look at Witchhunters, Tau, and even Chaos (cue HBMC's head exploding). Other ranges are stupidly close: Eldar, Orks, Space marines, Demons, Grey Knights, DA, BA, Wolves.

Nids are really the only 5th edition range to be underserved. IG miss a lot of units, but only a few can't be easily converted, and those are all available at FW.

Polonius wrote:

KamikazeCanuck wrote:Those "holes" exist to be filled by conversions and encourage modelling. If a third party simply comes in and makes the models I think GW would simply eliminate those units from the game as a business decision.

That hasn't been explicity true since at least late 3rd edition, when the IG and Chaos books made it clear that a lot of stuff was conversion only. the current trend by far is for more coverage of units and options.

Some books have complete ranges fleshed out, completely. Look at Witchhunters, Tau, and even Chaos (cue HBMC's head exploding). Other ranges are stupidly close: Eldar, Orks, Space marines, Demons, Grey Knights, DA, BA, Wolves.

Nids are really the only 5th edition range to be underserved. IG miss a lot of units, but only a few can't be easily converted, and those are all available at FW.

Yes, in the future I'm sure codices will be less like the 'nid one is what I'm saying. Why create a unit that may give business to a competitor? Make the model first then the rules.

KamikazeCanuck wrote:Those "holes" exist to be filled by conversions and encourage modelling. If a third party simply comes in and makes the models I think GW would simply eliminate those units from the game as a business decision.

Is it "moral" to create a vacuum, encourage your customers to fill it, and then try to stop a customer when he decides to start selling a product that you encouraged him to make? You might say that GW's encouragement only extended to personal use, but GW created an environment in which Chapterhouse Studios was an inevitable result. Now the company is yelling shenanigans. It's like saying, "Come on wimp, hit me!" and then being surprised when you get hit. Can you really blame the guy that threw the punch?

LunaHound wrote:

Neconilis wrote:So, the sky is falling?

The phrase The sky is falling! features prominently in the story, and has passed into the English language as a common idiom indicating a hysterical or mistaken belief that disaster is imminent.

Hmm nope?

Exactly as I thought.

I'm of the opinion that GW should just tell Chapterhouse if they want to keep making their models, they need to sign a Royalty Agreement (ie 25% of each sale is GW's) and GW should have a say in what is produced as the intent is for these parts are to be used in conjunction with their product. If it wasn't for GW, they would have no product. Both parties would be satisfied as Chapterhouse would remain in business and GW can not complain the bits made by Chapterhouse are inferior or they are losing sales because a sale by Chapterhouse would bring in revenue for GW).

Off-topic, can someone point me to the part of the Grey Knights codex or other source where I can find the Xenos inquisitor and Xenos henchmen?

aka_mythos wrote:
As a matter of ethics we have to weigh the motives of CH; since ethics are a self imposed set of values. CH by its ethics has been relatively consistent, putting its customers wants over that GW's. It has attempted to avoid doing anything illegal, following it ethical imperitive. CH has a unique model, which they are in the business of selling. Let me pose a hypothetical... if this model came from an artist, in a black box, who never knew GW and never knew there was 40k... would people be right in saying its "wrong?"-I don't think so. Next we have an artist, fully aware of GW, its art and concepts, just because of that knowledge do they have an imperative to avoid any degree of influence on their future works?

Well, no one with knowledge of GW would have a problem because the whole reason there is this controversy over the Doomseer is because of its similarities to 40k Eldar models. As an individual model it's fine, of low quality IMHO, but separate from 40k it would be ok. You have to take into consideration the reason the model exists. It isn't an individual separate from 40k, it was created to be used as a Farseer in GW's model line.

It would be great if it were only DERIVED from a Farseer and supposed to be used in CHs own game system. It clearly isn't a derivative model made to be its own thing. I agree that there should be a certain metaphorical line that separates when a model is too heavily influenced and when it's original. Scibor's Celtic Warriors are too similar to 40k Space Marines to be truly individual.

weeble1000 wrote:

KamikazeCanuck wrote:Those "holes" exist to be filled by conversions and encourage modelling. If a third party simply comes in and makes the models I think GW would simply eliminate those units from the game as a business decision.

Is it "moral" to create a vacuum, encourage your customers to fill it, and then try to stop a customer when he decides to start selling a product that you encouraged him to make? You might say that GW's encouragement only extended to personal use, but GW created an environment in which Chapterhouse Studios was an inevitable result. Now the company is yelling shenanigans. It's like saying, "Come on wimp, hit me!" and then being surprised when you get hit. Can you really blame the guy that threw the punch?

I said GW shouldn't put units without models in their codices. Smaller codices with less unit diversity = win for everyone.

weeble1000 wrote:Is it "moral" to create a vacuum, encourage your customers to fill it, and then try to stop a customer when he decides to start selling a product that you encouraged him to make? You might say that GW's encouragement only extended to personal use, but GW created an environment in which Chapterhouse Studios was an inevitable result. Now the company is yelling shenanigans. It's like saying, "Come on wimp, hit me!" and then being surprised when you get hit. Can you really blame the guy that threw the punch?

I never really thought of it that way. When GW encourages players to modify or alter their models, they're really just saying "hey, you should violate our copyright just a bit". They can't really complain when someone violates their copyright and makes money off of it.

If someone makes a custom shoulderpad for their Mary Sue Marines, GW says "hey cool, look what this guy did." If you start selling it, they sue.

There's a difference (both legally and ethically) when GW creates the design and refused to produce it, as opposed to a solely fan-created work.

boyd wrote:I'm of the opinion that GW should just tell Chapterhouse if they want to keep making their models, they need to sign a Royalty Agreement (ie 25% of each sale is GW's) and GW should have a say in what is produced as the intent is for these parts are to be used in conjunction with their product. If it wasn't for GW, they would have no product. Both parties would be satisfied as Chapterhouse would remain in business and GW can not complain the bits made by Chapterhouse are inferior or they are losing sales because a sale by Chapterhouse would bring in revenue for GW).

Except:
1) Chapterhouse probably couldn't survive by losing 25% of each sale to Games Workshop.

2) Certain GW-fanboys who don't like CH's quality might interpret these miniatures as "GW Made" and stop buying GW since they're releasing poorly-made products. Then again, those same GW fanboys might excluse the poor sculpts because "they're GW, and therefore awesome"

3) Chapterhouse shouldn't have to pay a royalty fee for something that they're legally entitled to do. If CH isn't violating GW's IP, then GW has no right to demand a license.

4) Absent strict controls on model production, this would dilute GW's brand.

GW should approach the thing like WotC did with D20. Yes, anyone can make a mini for it, but if you want ot use our logo (not brand name) then we'll charge for that and it has to meet criteria. Would give them some control back over their IP, but at the same time allow a broader market to emerge. They stay profitable AND allows more variety in bits.

KamikazeCanuck wrote:Those "holes" exist to be filled by conversions and encourage modelling. If a third party simply comes in and makes the models I think GW would simply eliminate those units from the game as a business decision.

I don't think they do. I think gaps exist because things that don't get released around the time of the codex are swept under the carpet because shortly after they are pushing the next big release. GW seem very good now at single mindedly concentrating on one army at a time and things from even a couple of months prior get very little attention, they are old news. This is why some armies go years and years and hardly get a bone thrown their way.

People want to see new miniature for their armies. Again if there's little prospect of new releases being in the pipeline then people will start buying 3rd party just to get some variety and have something that's a bit new and different to the same old stuff that's been on the GW website for several years.

Does anyone seriously think that Space Wolf players will get their thunderwolves? Space Wolf codex was a while back now, I'm guessing GW realised they look a bit silly and haven't produced figures, did they even make scuplts? Don't know because they are so secretive. Will they go back and do them now? Doesn't look like it. They'll probably get written out of the next codex in a few years time because without models they are a bit redundant and will never be used. Good on those companies making thunderwolves, there are players who do want them and there are several companies offering such things so there's a bit of choice in different styles.

iproxtaco wrote:Off-topic, can someone point me to the part of the Grey Knights codex or other source where I can find the Xenos inquisitor and Xenos henchmen?

I'm not sure if I understand this question (sarcasm?). There is a standard Ordo Xenos Inquisitor and an Ordo Xenos special character in the new GK HQ options. Inquisitorial henchmen are not ordo-specific and bands of them fill an elites slot unless you take Coteaz as your HQ, in which case they are troops.

Howard A Treesong wrote:

KamikazeCanuck wrote:Those "holes" exist to be filled by conversions and encourage modelling. If a third party simply comes in and makes the models I think GW would simply eliminate those units from the game as a business decision.

I don't think they do. I think gaps exist because things that don't get released around the time of the codex are swept under the carpet because shortly after they are pushing the next big release. GW seem very good now at single mindedly concentrating on one army at a time and things from even a couple of months prior get very little attention, they are old news. This is why some armies go years and years and hardly get a bone thrown their way.

Uh...huh.
So the whole recent implementation of 'waves' is a mass hysterical illusion?

People want to see new miniature for their armies. Again if there's little prospect of new releases being in the pipeline then people will start buying 3rd party just to get some variety and have something that's a bit new and different to the same old stuff that's been on the GW website for several years.

Of course people want to see new miniatures for their armies.

Wait, what? Look at the whining that happens when "new miniatures" are released by Forge World but they have nothing to do with the Codex itself.
The Eldar Corsairs are being done as a 'fun' thing for IA11--people are complaining.
The Imperial Guard get the Crassus APC--people are complaining.

People don't want to "see new miniatures for their armies". They want a new book every time another race has their book released.

Does anyone seriously think that Space Wolf players will get their thunderwolves? Space Wolf codex was a while back now, I'm guessing GW realised they look a bit silly and haven't produced figures, did they even make sculpts? Don't know because they are so secretive. Will they go back and do them now? Doesn't look like it. They'll probably get written out of the next codex in a few years time because without models they are a bit redundant and will never be used. Good on those companies making thunderwolves, there are players who do want them and there are several companies offering such things so there's a bit of choice in different styles.

Yes, actually I've got a pretty good inkling of Thunderwolves being released and kept.

Forge World has said that they were prevented from making Thunderwolves to go with IA11.
IA11 releases in June/July, and the reason they were told is because a Thunderwolf kit is releasing sometime this fall.

It may sound silly, but they're finessing the waves thing.

What sculpts?

Manchu wrote:

iproxtaco wrote:Off-topic, can someone point me to the part of the Grey Knights codex or other source where I can find the Xenos inquisitor and Xenos henchmen?

I'm not sure if I understand this question (sarcasm?). There is a standard Ordo Xenos Inquisitor and an Ordo Xenos special character in the new GK HQ options. Inquisitorial henchmen are not ordo-specific and bands of them fill an elites slot unless you take Coteaz as your HQ, in which case they are troops.

Not sure really, a lot of talk went on about 'Xenos inquisitor and Xenos henchmen', I wondered what they were. It seems they were just specific un-modeled henchmen and an Ordo-Xenos Inquisitor which I found in the book, but thanks for a reply anyway.

biccat wrote:
I never really thought of it that way. When GW encourages players to modify or alter their models, they're really just saying "hey, you should violate our copyright just a bit". They can't really complain when someone violates their copyright and makes money off of it.

Sure they can... Almost every fandom on the net has this. It is called 'fanart' and 'fanfiction'. Companies let you infringe and look the other way as long as you don't sell your art. So yes, they can complain when someone violates their copyright and makes money off it. Technically they can complain even when you don't make money off it... Pretty much you are playing in their sandbox and can be thrown out at any time.

Morally I think a few items of CH were a bit near the mark/over it, however the doomseer was definantly a step too far, it's not filling a gap really (gw makes farseers already) nor is it original, just a knockoff IMO. If someone is selling 'nike' sports gear (read printed at home copies or similar to originals) from a suitcase in a pub that is illegal and wrong, and I cannot see how this seeris any different.

As an aside, gw could 'win' by just getting forgeworld to make everything CH does as it comes out but at higher quality and a little cheaper, run them out of business, not saying it's right but it's an option for them if they lose the case.

nkelsch wrote:
Sure they can... Almost every fandom on the net has this. It is called 'fanart' and 'fanfiction'. Companies let you infringe and look the other way as long as you don't sell your art. So yes, they can complain when someone violates their copyright and makes money off it. Technically they can complain even when you don't make money off it... Pretty much you are playing in their sandbox and can be thrown out at any time.

Except as far as I know, no other company claims that, if you draw a character you created chugging a cold one with Leman Russ, that they own that character as well. Here's a dirty little secret of getting your minis in White Dwarf: even if it's total greenstuff, they print it, they claim it's theirs. Read the fine print on a GW contract some time with anything to do with 40k, because GW will go after your first born child if they can. They can make Marvel's 'we own everything you draw the whole time you work for us even on your day off work on a cocktail napkin' policies from the late 90's after the Jim Lee debacle look downright reasonable.

Sirius42 wrote:
As an aside, gw could 'win' by just getting forgeworld to make everything CH does as it comes out but at higher quality and a little cheaper, run them out of business, not saying it's right but it's an option for them if they lose the case.

That would require FW to get it's act together on Quality Control. I don't care how good your sculpt is, if it's warped and got babbles, it's still crap.

I don't know what companies you're buying resin from that have completely unwarped products, but I'd like to invest.

Because from Hasegawa to AFV Club Taiwan(with resin conversion kits on par with most freaking FW infantry's prices) I've had warping.

Now, if your argument for quality control is "I don't like using warm water" there's a big issue.

Kanluwen wrote:I don't know what companies you're buying resin from that have completely unwarped products, but I'd like to invest.

Because from Hasegawa to AFV Club Taiwan(with resin conversion kits on par with most freaking FW infantry's prices) I've had warping.

Now, if your argument for quality control is "I don't like using warm water" there's a big issue.

Warm water doesn't solve the 'giant assed bubbles/incomplete pour' issue. Only 'return to FW' solves it. Or a lot of greenstuff.

So far, and I'm probably just lucky here, the CH stuff I've bought had no warping and no bubbles. Also, Verlinden hasn't, yet.

(And Verlinden can be every bit as expensive as AFV, unless they're on sale)

BaronIveagh wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:I don't know what companies you're buying resin from that have completely unwarped products, but I'd like to invest.

Because from Hasegawa to AFV Club Taiwan(with resin conversion kits on par with most freaking FW infantry's prices) I've had warping.

Now, if your argument for quality control is "I don't like using warm water" there's a big issue.

Warm water doesn't solve the 'giant assed bubbles/incomplete pour' issue. Only 'return to FW' solves it. Or a lot of greenstuff.

So far, and I'm probably just lucky here, the CH stuff I've bought had no warping and no bubbles. Also, Verlinden hasn't, yet.

(And Verlinden can be every bit as expensive as AFV, unless they're on sale)

You'll notice that I specifically said warping.

Warping is to be expected. Bubbles/incomplete pours happen with any manufacturer as well. I had a $96 kit from Hasegawa's Maschinen Krieger line that had incomplete pours and bubbles.

And they don't do replacements like FW does.

Morally / Ethically I'm ok with it. The whole problem could be solved if GW would just make all the bits required. As for the full model they have I'm a little iffy but it looks better than the GW models so its up to the player. Legally, I am not a lawyer so I have no opinion.

Sirius42 wrote:Morally I think a few items of CH were a bit near the mark/over it, however the doomseer was definantly a step too far, it's not filling a gap really (gw makes farseers already) nor is it original, just a knockoff IMO. If someone is selling 'nike' sports gear (read printed at home copies or similar to originals) from a suitcase in a pub that is illegal and wrong, and I cannot see how this seeris any different.

As an aside, gw could 'win' by just getting forgeworld to make everything CH does as it comes out but at higher quality and a little cheaper, run them out of business, not saying it's right but it's an option for them if they lose the case.

That's a point I'd not considered before. What is the point in them making this 'Doomseer'? There other stuff is marketed wrongly but at least it's filling holes in GW model range. 40k already has plenty of Farseer and Warlock models, why make this poorer quality one?

Kanluwen wrote:
You'll notice that I specifically said warping.

Warping is to be expected. Bubbles/incomplete pours happen with any manufacturer as well. I had a $96 kit from Hasegawa's Maschinen Krieger line that had incomplete pours and bubbles.

And they don't do replacements like FW does.

Can't say I've ever used Hasegawa.

I can say that I'm glad FW does take them back, because I've never gotten so many of them before. I once bought ten turrets ('Leman Russ Conversion kits' though at the time all they really were was a turret)from them. I ended up sending back 4 due to bubbles and incomplete pours. And since they sell them in clear bags, you'd think they'd notice things like it having half a gun, or a quarter of the turret missing, which were the two worst. One replacement also had serious bubbles, but I decided to just use that one for the zimmerit one and greestuffed over them

I've never ha the sort of trouble I did with FW from another company.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

iproxtaco wrote:
That's a point I'd not considered before. What is the point in them making this 'Doomseer'? There other stuff is marketed wrongly but at least it's filling holes in GW model range. 40k already has plenty of Farseer and Warlock models, why make this poorer quality one?

Because it's a jet bike rider, which GW doesn't produce.