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.

My only 2 issues with the OPs are that
A: They should be painted, undercoating the entire thing will seal it properly, and it'll look a lot classier painted (assuming you actually made the details with 2-3 layers of card and it's not just printed on.)
B: Some of the guns need a bit more work / some things need aligning better.

It's good so far though.

Highland_Piper wrote:

 Enzephalon wrote:
Depends on the look. If it's valid like yours, I'd play a game with you.
I have to ask you though, since you are spending much time and effort. Why don't you use plasticcard?
It's easy to work with, far more resilient than paper and it can be painted with acrylics.

Plasticard is too expensive. At £0.40 to £1.50 per A4 sheet then I might as well purchase the GW model. I can get 500 sheets of 200 gsm paper for £5.00, cereal box for essentially free, and 2mm A1 mat board 2 for £2.50. I purchase my ink through a secondary ink company rather than the brand name so I can get three of each cartridge for only £20.00 that will last months.

At this moment I'd rather spend my hobby budget on figures and then replace my scratch built when I have the figures I want.

You say you might as well buy the GW model, but for £5-10 worth of plasticard you'd be able to make the Land Raider, and a lil more resilient than the card.

That said, these are made from Cardboard:

(I do intend to go back and go over some edges with milliput now though)

So, what's the toaster on the right supposed to be?

And what's the air filter on the left?

Forbino wrote: I will grudgingly play against them, but I'd rather play against real models

The OP is showing real models?

Or are you redefining what 'model' means?

All miniatures are just glorified counters or tokens at the end of the day.

No need to get bent out of shape over card models or scracthbuilds, unless they are of course! ;-)

Being an OAP (33, ancient in GW terms!) I remember when Games Workshop actually published the templates to make your own Gobsmashas, Baneblades et al in White Dwarf and encouraged you to make your own card vehicles. Most of my Ork vehicles and models were scratchbuilds or mashups or half card constructions. Great days, lots of fun modelling to be done.

 kronk wrote:
So, what's the toaster on the right supposed to be?

And what's the air filter on the left?

The Toaster is a Talos, the Kettle is Talos / Cronos.
It was born of a conversation about Haemonculi and I just ran with it.

They're ultimately Cardboard on a wire frame, with greenstuff, sprue and bits.

So those are meant to be these:

 kronk wrote:
So those are meant to be these:

Yup. Though at the time I built them, that model hadn't been released yet. (It was some months after they were finished it was released) and the only thing available was this:

(The horrific metal model where everything falls off repeatedly)

The conversation was, that you can convert effectively anything for a DE army (and to some degree, any army) and say 'Haemonculi did it'. Someone said 'how about a toaster', and then the Toastalos was born. People then bugged me to do a kettle.

They're actually pretty much the same size as the new model too

 kronk wrote:
So those are meant to be these:

And 'those' don't match WYSIWYG as we can't tell what they are, and don't pass rule of cool. I can paint a paintpot silver and glue toothpicks legs and a powerklaw to it, it doesn't make it a Killer Kan. Now I can take a Paintpot, Do extensive detail work and sculpting out of cheap materials, add rivets to it everywhere and give it a best effort paintjob and then it may be cool enough to be a Killer Kan.

Those are not cool and not WYSIWYG.

And if they were made during the old talos days, they don't match that model at all. 'Haemonculi did it'. is insulting excuse to make models look like trash. That is what Tzzentch and ork players and even nurgle players can say too, it doesn't make it valid to put a dogturd down for a nurgle model or a pile of garbage for an ork model.

I'm easy, when it comes to models.

It comes of having been in this game from the beginning, when there were only about three (fugly!) vehicles, and you had to convert (or kill) your own if you wanted more.

GW used to actively encourage conversion and scratchbuilds. The now-infamous deodorant bottle skimmer is a case in point. The old vehicle charts allowed you to come up with vehicles from lists, and then follow the rules based on those.

Good times.

Even more recently scratchbuilding is a neccessity. Wasn't so long ago that SM didn't have a drop-pod model, for example.

Nids STILL don't. They went years before T-Fex and Tervigon models were available, so a lot of scratchbuilds and conversions there. Several other models are still missing from that range. Orks went forever without a Battlewagon model (unless you count the Armorcast? one), so most were converted. The Talos and Cronos waited a bit for the models too, so many of those were kitbashed or scratchbuilt before the new kits hit the shelves.


I would happily play against the OP's vehicles, if they were to the appropriate scale. As long as i know what a model's supposed to be, and it's not glaringly abusive i'm good.

Ovion wrote:My only 2 issues with the OPs are that
A: They should be painted, undercoating the entire thing will seal it properly, and it'll look a lot classier painted (assuming you actually made the details with 2-3 layers of card and it's not just printed on.)
B: Some of the guns need a bit more work / some things need aligning better.

It's good so far though. ,,,

,,,,You say you might as well buy the GW model, but for £5-10 worth of plasticard you'd be able to make the Land Raider, and a lil more resilient than the card.

That said, these are made from Cardboard:

(I do intend to go back and go over some edges with milliput now though)

It's hard to find a way to say this nicely, but the OP models are far better than the creations you show above. Despite the tank being made of card and having printed details, they have the same size, design and lines as a kit Land Raider and it is immediately apparent what the model is. Unfortunately, the same can not be said for your scratchbuilds.

kronk wrote:So those are meant to be these:

I'm not seeing it either. If you hadn't told me what they were, I wouldn't have known.

One of the most common tests for most folks acceptance of a scracthbuild, proxy or counts-as is usually some variation of
"Can I tell right away what it is supposed to represent?"
I'm afraid that looking at the pictures of the models you provided they just aren't there yet and most folks wouldn't be able to tell what they are when put on the board.

All that said, I encourage you to keep honing your scratchbuilding and converting skills as it can be a very fulfilling part of the hobby.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ovion wrote:

 kronk wrote:
So those are meant to be these:

Spoiler:

Yup....
....The conversation was, that you can convert effectively anything for a DE army (and to some degree, any army) and say 'Haemonculi did it'. Someone said 'how about a toaster', and then the Toastalos was born. People then bugged me to do a kettle.

So it's a joke!
I can appreciate the humor and it's something funny to show your gaming group.

I just don't think most folks (myself included) will take it seriously as a gaming model. Outside of your own circle of friends, it becomes one of the object lessons that folks will use as what not to do for a scratchbuild.

Possibly not the best photos ever - for the record, they are WYSIWIG (as best as could be when they were made, for Cronos and Talos), and most people have said they're well made, assuming them to be plasticard and that I put a lot more effort in to them than I did (It was still a few days work, but not as much as people guessed). (That. and/or photos are generally harsher than the naked eye).
They've also withstood a LOT of punishment (treated them no differently to the regular plastics and they've held up with not 1 break, apart from the 'tail' getting knocked off the base once.)

And the staff at my local GW + the guy that was taking photos for white dwarf in our store thought they were good.

Though yes, it's primarily for humour, it's also enough GW product to be allowed in any place GW stuff is sold.

Obviously, it's not going to be to everyones taste, but I've had people ask me to make them one (for Daemons primarily).

As long as some clear effort was made to convert the vehicles to 40k use, I'm fine with scratch builds that closely match the dimensions of the official current model. Want to use a nice papercraft rhino made from a dozen templates and printed out in color to simulate a paint model? Sure, go ahead. You want to use that Kleenex Tissue box over there as a necron monolith? I hope it's not empty because you may cry when I tell you no. If it looks cool and you put some time into it, no worries.

nkelsch wrote:
And 'those' don't match WYSIWYG as we can't tell what they are, and don't pass rule of cool.

No, they do not match WYSIWYG, but as long as I'm informed beforehand what they're geared out with I'm fine with it. It's not like you can tell the difference between the Talos weapon options anyway.

But yes, they do follow the rule of cool. They're not built to look like an actual Talos/Cronos. They're built to be cool and funny. And they are.

So good work!

Back to your mudhut and come back when you can afford the real deal is my stand at this question. Such things as this is what me makes me loath some players. So yes, label me hostile towards things like this

 Ovion wrote:

(I do intend to go back and go over some edges with milliput now though)

I would have no problem playing against the OP and his paper models but these above are exactly what I don't like about scratch built models. They don't look good and don't really look like what they are supposed to be.

brettz123 wrote:

 Ovion wrote:

Spoiler:

I would have no problem playing against the OP and his paper models but these above are exactly what I don't like about scratch built models. They don't look good and don't really look like what they are supposed to be.

100% agreement.

 angel of ecstasy wrote:

 Forbino wrote:
its a luxury and if you can't afford it you shouldn't do it.

Elitist much? It's a hobby, and if you're inventive and crafty enough to pull something like this off you most certainly should do it.

Hey now, thats gonna be GWs next ad campaign.

"Sure you can get games with better rules, and games with better miniatures, and games with both...but ours are the most expensive, and that makes ours better."

brettz123 wrote:

 Ovion wrote:

(I do intend to go back and go over some edges with milliput now though)

I would have no problem playing against the OP and his paper models but these above are exactly what I don't like about scratch built models. They don't look good and don't really look like what they are supposed to be.

A bit harsh. Not everyone is going to have top painting/modelling skills. The hobby is about creativity, if you don't like it then that's tough. Personally I'd have no problem playing against a toaster-monster

 MetalOxide wrote:

brettz123 wrote:

I would have no problem playing against the OP and his paper models but these above are exactly what I don't like about scratch built models. They don't look good and don't really look like what they are supposed to be.

A bit harsh. Not everyone is going to have top painting/modelling skills. The hobby is about creativity, if you don't like it then that's tough. Personally I'd have no problem playing against a toaster-monster

Personally I do not consider my comments harsh at all. I see them as honest compared to other people pretending this looks like some kind of good work. Certainly opinions can differ but the toastlos above is not a good conversion job / scratch build. Why should we pretend it is?

I refuse to pretend that a midget toaster and 3 minutes rolling green stuff sausage qualifies as something anyone really wants to see on the tabletop . Of course I have been wrong before

brettz123 wrote:
Personally I do not consider my comments harsh at all. I see them as honest compared to other people pretending this looks like some kind of good work. Certainly opinions can differ but the toastlos above is not a good conversion job / scratch build. Why should we pretend it is?

I refuse to pretend that a midget toaster and 3 minutes rolling green stuff sausage qualifies as something anyone really wants to see on the tabletop . Of course I have been wrong before

No one is asking anyone to pretend anything. But since we're onto making definite statements about subjective things I'll join in. People who don't like the toaster and the jug have no sense of humour.

 angel of ecstasy wrote:

brettz123 wrote:
Personally I do not consider my comments harsh at all. I see them as honest compared to other people pretending this looks like some kind of good work. Certainly opinions can differ but the toastlos above is not a good conversion job / scratch build. Why should we pretend it is?

I refuse to pretend that a midget toaster and 3 minutes rolling green stuff sausage qualifies as something anyone really wants to see on the tabletop . Of course I have been wrong before

No one is asking anyone to pretend anything. But since we're onto making definite statements about subjective things I'll join in. People who don't like the toaster and the jug have no sense of humour.

Funny and good quality are two different things. I find it funny but I still wouldn't want to play against it.

 angel of ecstasy wrote:

 skycapt44 wrote:
I'm all for the custom works but am often puzzled as to why people go to such great lengths to build out of paper and the like. I mean yes it can look great but takes hours upon hours to model. A previous poster mentioned a tank taking 16 hours to create. Even working at a minimum wage job say McDicks you would easily pull in $100+ in 16 hours of work. Maybe it's just me and I guess there are those who don't have jobs so this wouldn't apply. But to those folks who have jobs I don't see the point (unless you absolutely love doing it and you get a joy from paper building) of building models out of paper when you can easily buy second hand chimeras/rhinos for about $20...and they are durable, official and simple to strip if needed.

Am I missing something?

No, you aren't missing something. It's right there in your post.

(unless you absolutely love doing it and you get a joy from paper building)

For some people (not for everyone, but for some) this is a hobby and not just "The Games Workshop Hobby".

That was my point. Doing as a hobby great doing it thinking you are saving money...hardly.

If you like scratch-built stuff, you should check out scratchbuilt40k.blogspot.com. It's done by a guy that posts on a forum I'm a member of and that listens to our podcast. I'm pretty sure he goes by Krisken here on this site. He has guides for making a Rhino, older Land Raider, and a Chaos Dreadclaw, which all look excellent!

I, for one, would play against most scratch built 40k models. I'm iffy on the Forge World stuff, as I'm against playing against proxied FW models, simply due to the advantage they grant (dreadnought drop pod, for one).

The OP stuff is clear as to what it is supposed to be. The toaster and kettle builds above? No thank you. It took time to make, but calling it "made from mostly GW stuff" is, at best, a stretch.

They might be ugly, but I'd also gladly play a friendly game against the Sprucrons I've seem floating around because that's just funny.

 kcwm wrote:
The toaster and kettle builds above? No thank you. It took time to make, but calling it "made from mostly GW stuff" is, at best, a stretch.

It is at least 60% Games Workshop product, between the base, internal framework, bits and GS. Infact the only part on each that [i]isn't[i] sold in GW, is the card and the wire connecting the tail to the weapons plug. (Helps that they're hollow)
The specification to use it in GW was over 50% GW product, and that's what it is.

That said, I have been debating rebuilding them in plasticard and milliput, with the 'proper' weapons now I'm older and wiser (these are quite old now at least 2 years I think), and retiring these ones to the shelf (apart from apoc games where more Talos is good.)
Maybe in the new year.

As long as it looks nice, I am fine with it.

I would also accept a humorously themed Ork army where the vehicles were cardboard cutouts on rollers with Orks pushing them and pointing guns out the holes where the cannons are so they look like the real ones.

 -Loki- wrote:
I hate papercraft vehicles for the most part. I understand gaming on a budget - I did it extensively during 3rd edition. In fact, all of 3rd edition. My army stayed pretty much the same for the whole edition, due to me being a student.

I never resorted to papercrafting stuff. It rarely ends up looking like it should. Reasonably close, sure, but you can still tell, simply at a glance, that you're playing against a cardboard land raider.

My brother does it extensively, and it annoys the crap out of me. I've seen him turn up to an Apocalypse game with 4 papercraft Baneblades, then brag about how easily he won. It's just not something I'll ever support.

Glad to know the principle you stand on is that you had to win because you paid more, and not because you played better.

xxvaderxx wrote:

 -Loki- wrote:
I hate papercraft vehicles for the most part. I understand gaming on a budget - I did it extensively during 3rd edition. In fact, all of 3rd edition. My army stayed pretty much the same for the whole edition, due to me being a student.

I never resorted to papercrafting stuff. It rarely ends up looking like it should. Reasonably close, sure, but you can still tell, simply at a glance, that you're playing against a cardboard land raider.

My brother does it extensively, and it annoys the crap out of me. I've seen him turn up to an Apocalypse game with 4 papercraft Baneblades, then brag about how easily he won. It's just not something I'll ever support.

Glad to know the principle you stand on is that you had to win because you paid more, and not because you played better.

Obvious point missed was obvious.

 Grimtuff wrote:

xxvaderxx wrote:

 -Loki- wrote:
I hate papercraft vehicles for the most part. I understand gaming on a budget - I did it extensively during 3rd edition. In fact, all of 3rd edition. My army stayed pretty much the same for the whole edition, due to me being a student.

I never resorted to papercrafting stuff. It rarely ends up looking like it should. Reasonably close, sure, but you can still tell, simply at a glance, that you're playing against a cardboard land raider.

My brother does it extensively, and it annoys the crap out of me. I've seen him turn up to an Apocalypse game with 4 papercraft Baneblades, then brag about how easily he won. It's just not something I'll ever support.

Glad to know the principle you stand on is that you had to win because you paid more, and not because you played better.

Obvious point missed was obvious.

Excuse me, i you are telling me that the OP land raider does not look the part or is not close enough, we have to dissagree, the quoted party is bottom line complaining because he got beat by paper tanks, if he got beat by something like the OP, and complains about it, then he is actually complaining about loosing even though he put more money on it. We are not talking cocke cans dropp pods here, those tanks are fairly well executed.

xxvaderxx wrote:

 Grimtuff wrote:

xxvaderxx wrote:

 -Loki- wrote:
I hate papercraft vehicles for the most part. I understand gaming on a budget - I did it extensively during 3rd edition. In fact, all of 3rd edition. My army stayed pretty much the same for the whole edition, due to me being a student.

I never resorted to papercrafting stuff. It rarely ends up looking like it should. Reasonably close, sure, but you can still tell, simply at a glance, that you're playing against a cardboard land raider.

My brother does it extensively, and it annoys the crap out of me. I've seen him turn up to an Apocalypse game with 4 papercraft Baneblades, then brag about how easily he won. It's just not something I'll ever support.

Glad to know the principle you stand on is that you had to win because you paid more, and not because you played better.

Obvious point missed was obvious.

Excuse me, i you are telling me that the OP land raider does not look the part or is not close enough, we have to dissagree, the quoted party is bottom line complaining because he got beat by paper tanks, if he got beat by something like the OP, and complains about it, then he is actually complaining about loosing even though he put more money on it. We are not talking cocke cans dropp pods here, those tanks are fairly well executed.

Yes, I think paper models look crap. There I said it. They're not my cup of tea. Whilst I won't berate anyone for using them, I personally think every single one looks terrible.

As for the Apoc thing. For a lot of people Apocalypse is all about the grandeur of seeing two humungously massive fully painted armies go at it. To turn up with 4 Baneblades made from Cornflake boxes just cheapens the whole experience for some people. Add in the fact 4 Baneblades are somewhat powerful, so having someone knock up 4 of them to get a cheap win just feels... cheap to some people.

Kill me... this discussion again?

Your papercraft look awesome, you should be proud of it.

Scratchbuild is not the problem, the problem is lazy scratchbuild for cheap alternatives.

I could just search the internet for examples on booth cases, but we all know the diferences. That is the same for "count as", and such things. There is no rule but the "cool" one.