Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

I think Duck's argument is more along the lines that you can't make the fluff yours in the same way you can in 40k, and that's perfectly fair. It's certainly more of a stretch to say that your warcaster is something you developed, because it's so clearly something engineered by PP. GW really does encourage the whole 'make your own chapter/craftworld/whatever' aspect. He's not talking about the quality of the fluff so much, or how it ties with the game, etc etc.

I will say this though- for every 'game-y' rule someone doesn't like in WM, there's one in 40k. I personally have the opposite opinion, where 40k feels more 'game-y' than WM, and I think it all depends on what kinds of things you see as more important to the experience.

I am not going to get into a point to point analysis with people, cause Internet arguing is... well, internet arguing, but I will point out that my point was that 40k is all about the models and the feel rather than the rules. As in, it does not encourage you to paint your Cygnar flaming flamingo pink, with rainbow mohawks, cause that is not really fluffy. Granted, people might not care, but that says something about the philosophy of the product. Similarly, I cannot really make up my own characters in Warmachine, cause, you know, who the hell is this guy? You need to play their own preset cast. In fact, even with these conversions you linked you'd be cut off a tournament setting, and even some causual players would be confused, because which Stryker is this? Is it pStryker or E Striker? Hell, I would not be able to say for certain if it's striker at all, or some funky version of a solo. Not sure where you guys got the extra versatility of 40k lists bit from.

I had problems with a player cause I converted my pCaine to be shooting cross armed.... because the only thing seperating pCaine and eCaine is the fact that one has arms forward, and one has arms 180. I sure as hell can't add armor plates to my Ironclad, cause then he'd be Old Rowdy.... or would he be?

Now, as I mentioned, you can, if you want, convert, but the system is not doing you any favors for it, and you are much more likely to take gruff for it.

I also am sure that people do get immersed in the D20 game etc, but the percentage of people even remotely interested in the fluff that I've run into, is pretty miniscule, in London atleast. Compared to 40k, not even close. And even if this is some sort of freak experience, you gotta admit, the fact that you have to use preset characters severely limits your options for creativity, if you wanna stay user friendly to your opponents. 40k explicitly gives you hooks to make your own fluff with, which is a good thing.

What's more, yes, casters are much more detailed than psykers.... ofcourse they are, they are the focus of the game, and the abstraction level is much lower. That still does not make WM feel any less gamey though, partly because of scale. 40k IS all about two fairly big armies clashing together, with big ass models and hordes of orks etc. This is why it gets away with a higher level of abstraction, like your dreadnought example. WM does not have that luxury, since it's more like a duel of two sorcerers. However, due to the fact that everything dies in a single charge, it rarely ends in epic firefights or melees, but rather a chess like pace of committing a unit, losing it, counter-charging to kill the offender, etc. It never feels like an epic battle, it feels like a chess game. Pitting a horde of 120 orks against 20 paladins and winning feels epic.

Finally, there is no reason to get defensive, I am not arguing that 40k is the superior game here, just that it's far more focused on the experience than the challenge. Playing 40k tournament is never an expirience I would recommend to people for example, cause it misses the point, 40k is all about fun games with friends, particularly apocalypse. On the other hand, I would always recommend people to go for tournament play in WM to get the most out of the game. It's just a different focus. I personally play Warmachine, 40k, Infinity, Malifaux, Kings of War and Dystopain Wars, and I enjoy them all for different reasons. They have all survived because they have a niche(except perhaps DW and KW, we'll see about those). Only WM fans consistantly assume that I am some sort of PP hating GW fanboy when I assert that WM is not, actually, the end all be all of wargaming in every front. It does it's thing the best, competitive traditional wargaming, but other games do other things better. Infinity is more skill based, Malifaux has more depth, and yeah, 40k has more modelling/fluff/causal fun potential. Nothing wrong with that.

EDIT: Woops, ment WM, not KoW

DrDuckman wrote:
I am not going to get into a point to point analysis with people, cause Internet arguing is... well, internet arguing, but I will point out that my point was that 40k is all about the models and the feel rather than the rules. As in, it does not encourage you to paint your Cygnar flaming flamingo pink, with rainbow mohawks, cause that is not really fluffy.

This is actually a fairly poor example. Also this. And this.

BoardroomHero wrote:I think Duck's argument is more along the lines that you can't make the fluff yours in the same way you can in 40k, and that's perfectly fair. It's certainly more of a stretch to say that your warcaster is something you developed, because it's so clearly something engineered by PP. GW really does encourage the whole 'make your own chapter/craftworld/whatever' aspect. He's not talking about the quality of the fluff so much, or how it ties with the game, etc etc.

I disagree. Now, fine. I cant create my own warcaster. But why would I want to necessarily do such a thing? Firstly, I could argue that we are dealing with essentially a small number of “gifted” individuals in a setting that is, relatively, quite small. IMO, I feel there is very limited room for thousands of players’ “special snowflake” warcasters in this setting. Now, there is scope for your own customised warcaster – it just happens to be in the RPG, which lends itself better to customised “characters”.
Now beyond this, while the ability to personalise warcasters is extremely limited in terms of fluff, what’s stopping me creating my own regiments, brigades, and battallions? What’s stopping me having the 9th assault brigade of the Khadoran first army? What’s stopping me from calling them the “Wild Boars”? What’s stopping me having a list of their officer corps’, and a list of their battle honours. Heck I’ve got a winter guardsman with a banner on the board. Perfect scope to tell the story of the 9th. What’s stopping me going into detail as to their current disposition (awaiting reinforcements in the northern thornwood, currently engaged in routine patrol of recently occupied area) ,composition (Winter Guard infantry mainly, with attached companies of Iron Fangs, Iron Fang Uhlans, and listing their warjack compliment of 58 Warjacks)? Now, they’re not going to have their own warcasters – that’s not how the khadoran military operates – warcasters are moved fluidly between outfits depending on circumstances, but what’s stopping me exploring which casters have traditionally been associated with this fictional brigade (let’s say Sorscha, and Zoktavir have had the most contact), especially in their most recent engagements?
Nothing about the above process is any different from that of creating my own space marine chapter. It’s just as fulfilling, and just as rewarding, should I desire it. If I just want game pieces, I can do that too – just as with 40k. if I don’t want to have my own force, I can simply collect “models” or collect an outfit that is already done in the fluff (Irusk’s 4th, the unbreakable 111th etc) but then again, its just the same with 40k – I can do vanilla ultramarines and dark angels…

DrDuckman wrote:I am not going to get into a point to point analysis with people, cause Internet arguing is... well, internet arguing, but I will point out that my point was that 40k is all about the models and the feel rather than the rules. As in, it does not encourage you to paint your Cygnar flaming flamingo pink, with rainbow mohawks, cause that is not really fluffy. Granted, people might not care, but that says something about the philosophy of the product. Similarly, I cannot really make up my own characters in Warmachine, cause, you know, who the hell is this guy? You need to play their own preset cast. In fact, even with these conversions you linked you'd be cut off a tournament setting, and even some causual players would be confused, because which Stryker is this? Is it pStryker or E Striker? Hell, I would not be able to say for certain if it's striker at all, or some funky version of a solo. Not sure where you guys got the extra versatility of 40k lists bit from.

Again, I have to disagree. Warmachine is as equally about “feel” and “models”. Look at the general responses whenever PP release new models – it generates a huge amount of excitement as a general rule. People want new models, and they like good new models within this game too – the other game doesn’t have exclusive rights to this.
Your points, frankly, were wrong. It tells nothing about the “philosophy” of the product, especially as its own makers encourage alternative schemes just as readily as the playerbase. You can paint up your cygnar any which way you want – there are a huge amount of alternative schemes (both official, and fanmade out there) that are all equally fine. Just as I can have space wolves with black shoulder pads, or green shoulder pads. Your scope to create characters admittedly is more difficult (unless you play the IKRPG – then the world’s your oyster!) but there is nothing stopping you doing as I’ve done above – and creating your own battalion with its own history.
Regarding those conversions, go back, have a look, and read the comments. Everyone is both awed by them, impressed by them, and encouraging them, even in tournaments. You speak of PPs own conversion rules and the mentality of the PP playerbase as some set in stone monolith, unable and unwilling to face creativity in modelling, when nothing is further from the truth. As above. The proof is in the attitudes of the playerbase. Frankly, PPs own stance, whilst limiting in one breath, denies itself by the next. Read their conversion rules. It smacks of Galileos “the earth does not orbit the sun” to the court, and then whispering under his breath “but it damn well does”. PP has on one hand a very limited approach to modelling, and then says that frankly, even if you flaunt it all, the TO has the final say. And most TOs in my experience are extremely accommodating about this sort of thing – they’re gamers too – not faceless automatons spreading the dictates of PP.

DrDuckman wrote:
I had problems with a player cause I converted my pCaine to be shooting cross armed.... because the only thing seperating pCaine and eCaine is the fact that one has arms forward, and one has arms 180. I sure as hell can't add armor plates to my Ironclad, cause then he'd be Old Rowdy.... or would he be?

Your conversion was legal, the problem was his. Im guessing would he have problems with a huge rock being a “counts as” thunderhammer? Rules lawyers exist in both games.
Regarding your ironclad – so long as its based on the ironclad chassis, its an ironclad. Ol Rowdy has a completely different pose and signature “look”.

DrDuckman wrote:
Now, as I mentioned, you can, if you want, convert, but the system is not doing you any favors for it, and you are much more likely to take gruff for it.

Not necessarily. YMMV, but in my experience folks are quite OK with, and encouraging towards conversions. Ive yet to face issues with my axe wielding doom reavers or my converted models.

DrDuckman wrote:
I also am sure that people do get immersed in the D20 game etc, but the percentage of people even remotely interested in the fluff that I've run into, is pretty miniscule, in London atleast. Compared to 40k, not even close. And even if this is some sort of freak experience, you gotta admit, the fact that you have to use preset characters severely limits your options for creativity, if you wanna stay user friendly to your opponents. 40k explicitly gives you hooks to make your own fluff with, which is a good thing.

Not necessarily. Your area, maybe. But other player groups are just as happy to discuss the background. Heck, unlike 40k, if you have a genuine query about the background, post it on the forums, light the “seacat beacon” and the main writer may be summoned from the ether to answer your query. I’ve seen quite a lot of discussion about the background material.
As to no present characters – so what? It’s a small world. There is only so much space, and too many players with too many “special snowflake” warcasters wont fit. But there are other avenues for creativity. See above.
I’ll reiterate – ive never felt limited by the fact that I “have” to use official characters. To be honest, home brewed “names” mean nothing to me. I don’t know your space marine chapter, I don’t know your commander, or his history, and frankly, I really don’t care. Writing a book on him isn’t necessarily going to increase my enjoyment of the game. But orsus zoktavir? Now there is a character to fascinates me, and terrifies me in equal measure. I can get behind that much easier than “this is space marine captain duGalle of the Emperor’s Knives”.

DrDuckman wrote:
What's more, yes, casters are much more detailed than psykers.... ofcourse they are, they are the focus of the game, and the abstraction level is much lower. That still does not make WM feel any less gamey though, partly because of scale. 40k IS all about two fairly big armies clashing together, with big ass models and hordes of orks etc. This is why it gets away with a higher level of abstraction, like your dreadnought example. WM does not have that luxury, since it's more like a duel of two sorcerers. However, due to the fact that everything dies in a single charge, it rarely ends in epic firefights or melees, but rather a chess like pace of committing a unit, losing it, counter-charging to kill the offender, etc. It never feels like an epic battle, it feels like a chess game. Pitting a horde of 120 orks against 20 paladins and winning feels epic.

Again, I’ll disagree. All 40k offers is a bigger “scale”, and even there, other games do it better in my opinion-flames of war springs to mind. 120 orks against paladins? Yeah, I’ll grab a bucket of dice and roll to hit… and roll to wound… and now you get armour saves… Yeah, im not sold. Warmachine though – ive seen whole games turn on a single duel – that trooper who passes 4 tough rolls, the guy who rolls box cars and takes out a caster. You don’t need a hundred models a side to have an epic feel. I’ve had epic Butcher slaughter his way through a whole army on his own. Epic, in every sense. I’ve had a duel between a juggernaut and a hammersmith go on for 5 turns once, and has another jack brought down to 1hp in his right arm, try to drag himself across the battlefield, mangled bits of himself dragging behind him drying to get Harlan versh in axe to face rance. “epic” is in both games my good man.
40k only gets away with abstraction because it’s the biggest game in town. Folks who tend to try other games find it hard to go back to 40k and take it seriously. 40k has too many dinky and silly mechanics that really suck the feel out of it for me.

DrDuckman wrote:
Finally, there is no reason to get defensive, I am not arguing that 40k is the superior game here, just that it's far more focused on the experience than the challenge. Playing 40k tournament is never an expirience I would recommend to people for example, cause it misses the point, 40k is all about fun games with friends, particularly apocalypse. On the other hand, I would always recommend people to go for tournament play in WM to get the most out of the game. It's just a different focus. I personally play Warmachine, 40k, Infinity, Malifaux, Kings of War and Dystopain Wars, and I enjoy them all for different reasons. They have all survived because they have a niche(except perhaps DW and KW, we'll see about those). Only WM fans consistantly assume that I am some sort of PP hating GW fanboy when I assert that WM is not, actually, the end all be all of wargaming in every front. It does it's thing the best, competitive traditional wargaming, but other games do other things better. Infinity is more skill based, Malifaux has more depth, and yeah, 40k has more modelling/fluff/causal fun potential. Nothing wrong with that.

To an extent, here I’ll agree with you. For me, I play 40k, warmachine hordes, infinity, dystopian wars and a bit of flames of war, while being interested in other games too. All have their niche-totally in agreement. I agree that 40k is a “for fun” game, and shouldn’t be played at a tournament. But for me, it stops at using 40k rules. The rules aren’t balanced, and therefore, are not playable in my book. So to me, I use my 40k models as an excuse to try my hand at rules/game design.
I have no trouble saying that warmachine isn’t the end all and be all of gaming – it has issues, and other games scratch other itches that warmachine simply doesn’t do. But I’ll be honest with you – Warmachine fans are not getting their backs up at you because you’re saying this – they’re getting their backs up because youre coming at this with some seriously negative assertions with a very skewed perspecitive both of us and of the game (using the “tfg” moniker for those who use the placement rules smartly, for example), and are quite unbending about them. These colour us in a really bad light - one i, and many others are quite undeserving of, and frankly, they’re more than a bit insulting and narrow minded. A lot of folks have shown to you that you are quite wrong in your assertions. Maybe it is just due to genuine shoddy experience in your area, but the PP community, and hobby both genuinely offer so much more than you seem to give it credit for. I genuinely hope you can take these comments of mine on board, and get a better sense of PPs gaming culture. it will only benefit you.

cheers.

 Laughing Man wrote:

DrDuckman wrote:
I am not going to get into a point to point analysis with people, cause Internet arguing is... well, internet arguing, but I will point out that my point was that 40k is all about the models and the feel rather than the rules. As in, it does not encourage you to paint your Cygnar flaming flamingo pink, with rainbow mohawks, cause that is not really fluffy.

This is actually a fairly poor example. Also this. And this.

That last link doesn't count... those guys are French and therefore automatically disqualified from all painting related discussions!

PhantomViper wrote:

 Laughing Man wrote:

DrDuckman wrote:
I am not going to get into a point to point analysis with people, cause Internet arguing is... well, internet arguing, but I will point out that my point was that 40k is all about the models and the feel rather than the rules. As in, it does not encourage you to paint your Cygnar flaming flamingo pink, with rainbow mohawks, cause that is not really fluffy.

This is actually a fairly poor example. Also this. And this.

That last link doesn't count... those guys are French and therefore automatically disqualified from all painting related discussions!

So it looks like I can get away with my black/guild/red "Elec Man" Cygnar...

I may or may not hum this while modeling
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yjnnxsWIA_0

I made my own Khador army (battalion? ) with it's own fluff, I view the warcasters as being rotated where needed, so some warcasters (depending on their personalities) will be painted in army colours (p sorscha) and some will not (Irusk).Any mercs will have their own colour schemes ( like my spiffy Harlen versh model- in all his technicolour glory- anyone calling himself the illuminated one has to be a little limp wristed and colour loving ) so all round my army will probably be more varied than a lot of 40k armies. There are as many colour schemes as you want in war machine.

My two eliminators will be freebooters fate miniatures, and I'm sure down the line when i find a hilarious penguin model, my war dog will become a war penguin , granted in tournaments I'll probably have to have stock miniatures but i reckon tournaments are less than 20% of my playtime (probably much less) so it really isn't that important.

As someone who collects and plays both Warmachine and Warhammer, I do think that WMH has less of a focus on painting/converting.
However, I think a large part of this is to do with the models themselves. WMH models are mostly metal, with a small number of plastics becoming available of the last few years. The plastic infantry tend to be 1-3 parts at most, the Jacks/Beasts are sometimes a bit more pose-able.

It is simply easier to convert plastic models. Many people in the hobby lack the skills to do anything beyond filling gaps with greenstuff, or lack the tools to saw through a thick piece of metal like a warbeast's arm. But they can pick up a Hairy Head sprue and add those to their Chaos Warriors for a very easy Norse conversion. The interchangeability of all the space marine kits is amazing, as is the versatility of the Cadian guardsman kit. Players can see very easily (and GW is happy to show you) what different effects you can get using even the same body but raising/lowering the weapon and turning the head. PP models don't give players that versatility and I think it pervades the approach to the PP hobby.


Maybe I'm just older and more cynical than I once was, but when I started WHFB I had a backstory to my High Elves; I still have a backstory and conversions done to my Tau (and a lot of tournaments here give bonus hobby points if you bring some story along); but when I started Hordes my decision revolved around whether to paint my Trolls red or purple (red).

I also see it in the tournaments that I go to: 40k tournaments generally ask for fully painted forces, give bonuses for themes and conversions, and always have at least one best painted prize; grey armies are really frowned at at tournaments when they are even allowed. Warmachine tournaments say 'arcs need to be painted' and occasionally there will be a small item given to one of the 3 people who show up with a fully painted force.

You know PP's No Quarter has conversion contests in every issue, right? And lots of articles on converting/sculpting techniques as well as scratch building terrain. Insiders on the website that showcase staff memebers converted and painted in non-standard paint shemes. They have just as much focus on the hobby as Warhammer does.

Trasvi wrote:

I also see it in the tournaments that I go to: 40k tournaments generally ask for fully painted forces, give bonuses for themes and conversions, and always have at least one best painted prize; grey armies are really frowned at at tournaments when they are even allowed. Warmachine tournaments say 'arcs need to be painted' and occasionally there will be a small item given to one of the 3 people who show up with a fully painted force.

I'm surprised by that, at my local store tournaments usually require fully painted models (3 colours).

I missed that comment. Warmachine's more prestigious events tend to be Hardcore events, that require fully painted armies and award a prize to the best painted which is equal in worth to the prize of undefeated. Even outside of those I can't remember a tournament that did not give out painting awards.

BoardroomHero wrote:
I think Duck's argument is more along the lines that you can't make the fluff yours in the same way you can in 40k, and that's perfectly fair. It's certainly more of a stretch to say that your warcaster is something you developed, because it's so clearly something engineered by PP. GW really does encourage the whole 'make your own chapter/craftworld/whatever' aspect. He's not talking about the quality of the fluff so much, or how it ties with the game, etc etc.

That is one aspect of WM I dont like...there is nothing beyond whats given in the books. There have got to be more warcasters in Cygnar (and the other factions) than just the ones we are given.

Id love to see PP give a few generic warcaster templates. Even if they had to be declared "not tournament legal". I think they would be quite popular. I guess if one really wanted to they could just use an alternative model with an existing warcasters rules...but thats not quite the same thing.

 Mad4Minis wrote:

BoardroomHero wrote:
I think Duck's argument is more along the lines that you can't make the fluff yours in the same way you can in 40k, and that's perfectly fair. It's certainly more of a stretch to say that your warcaster is something you developed, because it's so clearly something engineered by PP. GW really does encourage the whole 'make your own chapter/craftworld/whatever' aspect. He's not talking about the quality of the fluff so much, or how it ties with the game, etc etc.

That is one aspect of WM I dont like...there is nothing beyond whats given in the books. There have got to be more warcasters in Cygnar (and the other factions) than just the ones we are given.

Id love to see PP give a few generic warcaster templates. Even if they had to be declared "not tournament legal". I think they would be quite popular. I guess if one really wanted to they could just use an alternative model with an existing warcasters rules...but thats not quite the same thing.

They say that that's what the RPG is for.

Trasvi wrote:
As someone who collects and plays both Warmachine and Warhammer, I do think that WMH has less of a focus on painting/converting.
However, I think a large part of this is to do with the models themselves. WMH models are mostly metal, with a small number of plastics becoming available of the last few years. The plastic infantry tend to be 1-3 parts at most, the Jacks/Beasts are sometimes a bit more pose-able.

It is simply easier to convert plastic models. Many people in the hobby lack the skills to do anything beyond filling gaps with greenstuff, or lack the tools to saw through a thick piece of metal like a warbeast's arm. But they can pick up a Hairy Head sprue and add those to their Chaos Warriors for a very easy Norse conversion. The interchangeability of all the space marine kits is amazing, as is the versatility of the Cadian guardsman kit. Players can see very easily (and GW is happy to show you) what different effects you can get using even the same body but raising/lowering the weapon and turning the head. PP models don't give players that versatility and I think it pervades the approach to the PP hobby.


Maybe I'm just older and more cynical than I once was, but when I started WHFB I had a backstory to my High Elves; I still have a backstory and conversions done to my Tau (and a lot of tournaments here give bonus hobby points if you bring some story along); but when I started Hordes my decision revolved around whether to paint my Trolls red or purple (red).

I also see it in the tournaments that I go to: 40k tournaments generally ask for fully painted forces, give bonuses for themes and conversions, and always have at least one best painted prize; grey armies are really frowned at at tournaments when they are even allowed. Warmachine tournaments say 'arcs need to be painted' and occasionally there will be a small item given to one of the 3 people who show up with a fully painted force.

One of my "must do" things for my Cygnar was to have them fully painted. Being less than 2 dozen models it wasnt a huge task, but I didnt let myself work on anything else until it was done. Im fairly sure it is the first army Ive actually finished painting.

I never quite understood the want to have one's own character be the thing on the table so badly. This is maybe because I come primarily from the WM/H side of things and so see it more as a game than a RPing experience. As malfred notes, PP sees the RPG as the place to express this (and there is actually as-is a good chunk of ways to do that and more coming down th eline).

Part of the reasoning I see behind the named character things is is that it creates a sense of true uniqueness at times. An example I reach for a lot is Circle's warlock Kromac the Ravenous. He exists as something that is a literal breaking of the rules. Rather than being just an example of a Tharn Ravager warlock, he is the only known Tharn to be a druid warlock, period. He exists as either something "you cna't have" if things were allowed to be customized, or he is diluted in his impact in the fluff PP presents in order to allow for genericness.

I think this is a big difference in the fiction and world presentation of the settings too. PP seems to want a character-driven story of its named cast. This cast allows for distinct motivations, play styles, and long term effects on the setting. This doesn't mean Warhammer doesn't have this, but it means there is a different mindset on how the fluff relates to the mechanics, and how much impact things should be.

I also think this view creates a more "shared" mindset with story. Folks can talk about the events with characters like Caine, the Butcher, or Krueger from a shared perpsective, much like any fiction piece. A custom character doesn't quite have this. It's your own story, sure, but often descriptions of such in a tabletop game feel superfluous to me. The special snowflake factor is actively uninteresting. It might be because in a way it's one person's experience of a story, not a more kind of shared thing within the gaming community. Something I can relate to or discuss with someone else without having setup is more enjoyable to me. I know who Caine is off the bat and can talk about him with others who read his stuff. Your unique character 1,001 is going to be just some footnote in the game I play against you a lot of the time.

Another factor in using named characters to me is how they're discussed. Folks can talk about just Caine, how he's used and hwo he's strategized around. This is a bit of just the PP's more fixed models at work I think though. Where the common ground is in any game varies. In Warhammer it is a bit more moving parts on what is on a thing. In PP, it bottems-out on what can go in a list with what else really. Different granularity and therefore preference of where that granularity stops. To me, PP is more streamlined there. But this is tangental at this point.

All that said, PP's strategy isn't bad per se. It's just different, and I think has its advantageous for some that it doesn't for others.

And stuff.

 AduroT wrote:
You know PP's No Quarter has conversion contests in every issue, right? And lots of articles on converting/sculpting techniques as well as scratch building terrain. Insiders on the website that showcase staff memebers converted and painted in non-standard paint shemes. They have just as much focus on the hobby as Warhammer does.

I haven't yet acquired a No Quarter, so I didn't know that.
The point isn't that conversions can't be done; they're just a lot less accessible to the beginner/average player. Even without conversions at all, GW models offer an astounding amount of posability straight out of the box due to the multi-part, way-more-bitz-than-you-need format. Some people might not see that as value, but comparing to PP's plastic boxes where they can't even make 5 unique sculpts for a 5 model kit, it does mean a lot to others. Base assembly gives GW models more 'conversion'/variation that PP models - then add in the ability to swap arms/heads/whatever from other kits without any work, the ability to easy shape GW plastics with a knife or file...

Yeah. Many WMH players may convert their models. But GW kits lend themselves to conversion more, and so more GW players do convert because it is far far easier.

I think another part of the alternate colour schemes argument is that (AFAIK) PP doesn't show off alternate colour schemes in their official rule books, whereas this is a very common feature in GW publications - the GW Tau army for example has 3 different full armies in brown, blue and red colour schemes, and example colours for 10 other septs. For those people who aren't heavily involved in PP and only see the pictures online or in rulebooks, this really affects their perception of the hobby even if many/most people do use alternate colours.

They did show off different color schemes in Legends. Or was
it Superiority?

They had alternate paint-schemes as early as escalation, I think, and also had them in superiority.

The only official alternate paint scheme I know of is Khador's 5th Border Legion with their greens. Otherwise those books are before my time.

Trasvi wrote:

I haven't yet acquired a No Quarter, so I didn't know that.

you should check out the magazine - its an excellent read, especially when compared to what GW offer. it offers background material (gavin kyle files) not in the books, conversions, painting and scenery guides, previews of upcoming models (including rules!), tacticas (guts n gears), and occassionally "puzzles". theyre fun! you get a picture displaying the positioning of whats available, and a list of what you have (down to what upkeeps are up, and how much focus you have) what the other guy has, and you're asked to "solve" the puzzle - ie kill the other caster from this position.

Trasvi wrote:
The point isn't that conversions can't be done; they're just a lot less accessible to the beginner/average player. Even without conversions at all, GW models offer an astounding amount of posability straight out of the box due to the multi-part, way-more-bitz-than-you-need format. Some people might not see that as value, but comparing to PP's plastic boxes where they can't even make 5 unique sculpts for a 5 model kit, it does mean a lot to others. Base assembly gives GW models more 'conversion'/variation that PP models - then add in the ability to swap arms/heads/whatever from other kits without any work, the ability to easy shape GW plastics with a knife or file...

Yeah. Many WMH players may convert their models. But GW kits lend themselves to conversion more, and so more GW players do convert because it is far far easier.

Indeed, i think this is an accurate assessment. things can be done if youre willing, but its a bit harder. heck, itend to use gw bitz for my PP conversions for those reasons above!

Trasvi wrote:
I think another part of the alternate colour schemes argument is that (AFAIK) PP doesn't show off alternate colour schemes in their official rule books, whereas this is a very common feature in GW publications - the GW Tau army for example has 3 different full armies in brown, blue and red colour schemes, and example colours for 10 other septs. For those people who aren't heavily involved in PP and only see the pictures online or in rulebooks, this really affects their perception of the hobby even if many/most people do use alternate colours.

Actually, you are incorrect. they have shown off the alternative schemes in previous rulebooks. and also frequently in No Quarter and via PP insiders on their website- thats where a huge amount of their content is.

Also, if im being strict, i could argue the official kodiak scheme is 5th border, Beast09 is the Unbreakable 111th, and Epic Magnus wears the old school cygnar colours (dark blue) instead of the official mercenary green. there are plenty alternative schemes out there, and google is one link away.

AduroT wrote:The only official alternate paint scheme I know of is Khador's 5th Border Legion with their greens. Otherwise those books are before my time.

theres plenty more. Khador for example have a few that immediately spring to mind- the unbreakable 111th, the 5th border legion, the 7th "blood ravens". theyve all been featured in the books.

 AduroT wrote:
The only official alternate paint scheme I know of is Khador's 5th Border Legion with their greens. Otherwise those books are before my time.

Umber Guard and the Armor of Mourning come to mind.