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.

Hey Dakka community,

Perhaps kind of a strange question, but I was wondering what people's thoughts were on the uses of 3D printers in 40k.

Are people ok with 3D printed terrain, models, objectives, etc in 40k?
Are accurate proxies ok?
Does anything go so long as it's clear what it is?
Is there a point where people draw the line?
Is terrain ok, but models aren't for competitive play?
Should people be penalized for printing stand in models over using GW products?

What are your thoughts?

My own opinion is:

If you don't open your trap about it being 3D printed in the first place, and the quality is high enough, it's fine for whatever you want to do. If someone balks, why is it any different than using papercraft, scratch-built or proxied models from other companies? It's simply the method of manufacture that's different in the end.

-----

Realistically though for 3D print, it's a godsend for casual play, but I'd probably not use figures in a tournament (I suspect most terrain is supplied by the TO's). It's no different though, than scratch-built or proxied models, as that is what they essentially are - just done by computer, so you have to play by the tournament's rules.

Though, I've seen a couple local tournaments with papercraft and practically from-scratch models in the game. The former being good enough I had to touch/lift the model to know it was paper; the later varying in quality to better than the GW version to "why did you put that on the table and what is it?"

I love 3d printing. Build a model, scan it, print it. Download model files from the web, print it. Awesome. But the quality for price hasnt reached a level which is acceptable for me. There is one 3D printer which fulfills my requirements, but it works with toxic, smelly, liquid resin, thats a no go for me. Its the anycubic photon DLP.

Anecdotally, GW uses 3d-printers themselves when they're producing models beforehand for promotinal purposes. Check some of the early Kill Team pictures. You can clearly see the telltale layers of 3d-printing.

That said, as long as the layers remain, I don't see 3d-printing as a viable means to produce actual miniatures outside of very casually proxying something. For terrain it's probably fine and there are ways to erode some of the lines away I believe.

Whether printing GW IP protected models for personal use is "fair use" or not is another discussion.

 Stormonu wrote:
If you don't open your trap about it being 3D printed in the first place, and the quality is high enough, it's fine for whatever you want to do. If someone balks, why is it any different than using papercraft, scratch-built or proxied models from other companies? It's simply the method of manufacture that's different in the end.

It's different because the quality is inevitably garbage. The kind of 3d printer that people are thinking of when they talk about cheap substitutes for the real model can't come anywhere near the quality of the real thing, and nobody is going to spend more (likely much more) than the cost of the GW kit to get it done on a high-end printer. Same thing applies with most papercraft, scratchbuilds, etc. If it looks like I don't want it on my table. But at least with scratchbuilds you can get the rare few that match (and sometimes exceed) the quality of the GW kit, 3d prints are almost inevitably trash.

I've seen exceptional 3D prints of minis where it was very hard to tell the difference from an authentic model. You had to look really closely for surface-level imperfections that couldn't be explained by cutting it off a sprue.

There's not really a difference between 3D printing and scratch-building your own model. In the end, you are just creating something for your own use, it doesn't make a difference how.

That said, I don't like the idea of downloading a finished model and just hitting print. 3D modelling can be a great means of self-expression, but just copying someone else's work doesn't involve any creativity at all.

Q: Are people ok with 3D printed terrain, models, objectives, etc in 40k?

In general, yes.

Q: Are accurate proxies ok? Does anything go so long as it's clear what it is?

Yes. I don't care if you buy GW, buy company xyz, scratch build/convert your own, etc.

Q: Is there a point where people draw the line?

Well, we booted one kid {17-20ish yr old range} off the tables at the shop when he tried to run an army made out of tokens (with tiny pictures of the real models) & cardboard tents depicting the tanks & such.
It looked pretty bad.
But mostly because if we allowed this type of crap then we'd be directly undermining the shops sale of models. One could make a similar argument against 3d printed stuff, but people seeing us play would still be seeing models being used. And since there's an entire wall of models & kits about 15' away from the tables..... Most people make the connection regardless of what brand/vintage/authenticity of models are actually in use.


Q: Is terrain ok, but models aren't for competitive play?

Terrain?
Yes. Every piece of it though - GW or otherwise - needs to be explicitly spelled out what it is.
Models?
Let's leave that up to the tournament organizers. But if I were a company running or sponsoring an event I would insist that only my products - past or present - be allowed on the tables.
So what about 3d printed copies of stuff? ..... How about this? As long as the quality is good enough to pass as the original & it's at least primed (you know, so we can't see what it's made of), Don't ask & Don't tell.


Q: Should people be penalized for printing stand in models over using GW products?

In general? No.
If they run afoul of a model rule in a tournament, or whatever the accepted conventions are in the groups they want to play with (see above about the kid with his tokens) , then yes.

Touchy subject for some people.
Ice recently got a 3d printer and been playing around with things. I say terrain is okay (so long as its not a GW ripoff) as you can use any terrain fir games.

As far as models go, id say support GW as much as possible but there are some things that okay to print in my books.
Entire models? No.
Parts for models (swords etc)? Thats fine. Theres some cool things out there and look great on models and make some great personalised forces.
Discontinued upgrades? Absolutely. If i wanted a repressor, i wouldn't have a problem finding a file and printing the upgrade bits as long as i buy the rhino chassis from GW. This imo is no different to scratch building the parts to make my own repressor. Not our fault FW discontinued making the model.

 techsoldaten wrote:
I've seen exceptional 3D prints of minis where it was very hard to tell the difference from an authentic model. You had to look really closely for surface-level imperfections that couldn't be explained by cutting it off a sprue.

Sure, but how much did that print cost, whether buying from a service or as a share of the cost of buying and using a high-end printer? What about once you add in the labor cost of working with a high-end printer of your own? I bet it doesn't compare very favorably to the GW plastic kit. Those high-end printers are great for prototypes (anyone remember when 3d printed was called "rapid prototyping"?) or masters for conventional casting but they're useless if your goal is to get the costs of the hobby down.

Proxies? Sure. As long as it's a temp thing.
Bit's for conversions? Go right ahead.
Terrain? As long as it's not one that's normally for sale, go right ahead.

Whole armies of mostly identical to the real things models? Hell no.

Terrain, yes, as long as it's not a direct rip off of anything available commercially. I'm not sure how robust prints are, but I can see an advantage to complete, solid structures over a fragile kit

Complete models, no if it's a direct copy of something available. Yes if it's own design.

Parts. Yes, especially if it's to repair OOP pieces or to get just the right pose. For example, I have loads of pistols in right hands, but want some left handed. I've found some online, but will need to modify them. (wouldn't look right with SW and DA plasma pistols). If I had access to a printer, I'd do a couple of plain ones.

With more and more becoming ETB and monopose, the Idea of 3D printing becomes more appealing to get variation.

Give it a few more years 3D printing is going to be indistinguishable and with a pick of paint you won't be able to tell much like recasts.

If it's the better option for you use it.

Its up to your local, if your local is being supported and dont mind, who cares. If they arent? then follow their rules.

Anything for home play is 100% w/e you want it to be, remember Rules are sold separately from models, you can play GW rules without GW models.

And finally respect other players, if they dont like it, dont play with those 3D models/recasts

You know how the entire retail sector of the economy is gradually being replaced by Amazon? That's what 3D printing is going to do to our hobby.

Sure there will be a transition period, and yes someone is sure to do the RIAA thing and make themselves look terrible suing grandmas and ten-year-olds (looking at you GW), but anyone who isn't already trying to figure out how to survive selling rulebooks and printer file downloads is in for a bad time.

I've used a variety of 3D printing methods making prototypes for my Titanomachina game. Even for prototyping there's all sorts of issues. The same file will print differently in different media (PLA, vinyl, resin), generally with the cost going up to ridiculous extremes as you decrease the tolerances. It's also crazy expensive, so it's a terrible idea for mass production.

There's still the advantage of only paying hundreds of dollars for a handful of models, as opposed to paying tens of thousands for several pallets full of models, but it's not something I'd want to use to make a 40k-style army. It's still considerably cheaper to buy plastic from GW.

For models no. The quality just isn't there in a non-industrial level printer that you can get off Amazon. For terrain heck yeah. There are dozens of people selling 3d files that fit perfectly. There are free ones and you of course can make your own. It is just time invested rather than money. So for me it is set up, print, and let it run.

The only problem is I recently read an article about 3d printing and the microdust it kicks out which is worrying.

The price of a reasonable quality printer is still way too high. And by reasonable quality I mean something that can produce beautiful models with finicky details without traces of printing layers. Also I don't actually know anyone personally who owns even an entry level 3D-printer so they are still not very common.

Store bought miniatures are going to be a thing for a while yet.

 Peregrine wrote:

 techsoldaten wrote:
I've seen exceptional 3D prints of minis where it was very hard to tell the difference from an authentic model. You had to look really closely for surface-level imperfections that couldn't be explained by cutting it off a sprue.

Sure, but how much did that print cost, whether buying from a service or as a share of the cost of buying and using a high-end printer? What about once you add in the labor cost of working with a high-end printer of your own? I bet it doesn't compare very favorably to the GW plastic kit. Those high-end printers are great for prototypes (anyone remember when 3d printed was called "rapid prototyping"?) or masters for conventional casting but they're useless if your goal is to get the costs of the hobby down.

You've got a good point. I don't think anyone's buying high quality 3D printers just for printing replicas of line-troop miniatures.

If there's a cost / labor comparison to be done, it would be between a conversion and a 3D printed sculpt. Some things can be done a lot faster in Maya / 3DS Max, and with more detail.

I always thought that people that print models are university students that illegaly use their schools materials and machines for free. Same as people printing whole exam books for their kids to learn etc.

I have seen some resin Russian and Polish models which after painting were impossible to distinguish from official GW models. China seems to produc high quality models too. If the tech in the future gets cheaper GW is going to be in some serious trouble, I think.

 walkiflalka wrote:
Hey Dakka community,

Perhaps kind of a strange question, but I was wondering what people's thoughts were on the uses of 3D printers in 40k.

Are people ok with 3D printed terrain, models, objectives, etc in 40k?
Are accurate proxies ok?
Does anything go so long as it's clear what it is?
Is there a point where people draw the line?
Is terrain ok, but models aren't for competitive play?
Should people be penalized for printing stand in models over using GW products?

What are your thoughts?

Q1: Are people ok with 3D printed terrain, models, objectives, etc in 40k?
A1: Terrain, objectives absolutely, models it depends if your doing it to test something out our to make a one of a kind character sure but if your just doing it to steal money from GW's pocket then no. If we want GW to continue producing not only cool models but also the game we love we need to support them financially. Even if it means saving up to buy a $50 box five models.

Q2: Are accurate proxies ok? & Does anything go so long as it's clear what it is?
A2: Yes proxies are ok so long as you are clear about what they are and the models are distinguishable from any other models.

Q3: Is there a point where people draw the line?
A: Yes, I draw the line at someone simply refusing to buy the models out of some misguided belief that GW is simply gauging its customers. If you're simply testing something out to see how well it works cool but if you haven't bought the proper GW models with a year it's just not cool.

Q4: Is terrain ok, but models aren't for competitive play?
A4: Terrain is fine if its not ripping off an already existing GW model or its only for a limited time.

Q5: Should people be penalized for printing stand in models over using GW products?
A5: This depends on the reason they are proxying the model. If it is for a stupid reason like them disliking capitalism and believing GW is just a money hungry corporation than no its not ok and they shouldn't be allowed into competitive play and noncompetitive players should shun them.

Q5: Should people be penalized for printing stand in models over using GW products?
A5: This depends on the reason they are proxying the model. If it is for a stupid reason like them disliking capitalism and believing GW is just a money hungry corporation than no its not ok and they shouldn't be allowed into competitive play and noncompetitive players should shun them.

What if they army is really bad or unsupported by GW, but they want to check if playing the army some different way is going to be a bit more fun, but don't want to invest money in to 1000-2000pts of stuff that does not work. Or people that want to try out a new ally before they buy the actual models. Or they hate how a model looks like, but the models they do look the likes of are OOP.

I will always buy the real deal, because without the company there is no hobby and no one to propagate the games to new players. People are foolish and selfish if they think 3D printing is a good idea for anything outside bits and prototypes, but I would expect little from those who opt to go through recasters already.

People who claim 3D printing is going to kill Gw misunderstand where their biggest costs are.

Sure the molds are expensive but compared to 3D printing they are cheap and fast. Injection moulding is several thousand (not overestimating) times faster once you have the mold /design.

The most expesive part is design. 3D will no more kill Gw than printers killed book publishers.

I've seen everything from terrain to hard to get weapons, to models printed.

I recommend you 3D print everything. Properly done with some work after you do the model people can't tell its 3d printed. And the ones you print to get to the spot where its a good print make fine terrain.

Also despite some "connoisseurs" being sure they can spot recasts and 3d prints at 1000 yards, I've seen models I'm know are 3D prints pass people who have played for decades at close range, and no words were said, and this was by people who are militant about calling that stuff out.

Outrage over something you can't see and can't prove is outrage you should save for the political threads!

For an individual hobbyist with the rescources, money skill ,and desire? Sure 3D print everything if you want. You're not gna end up cheaper ,faster , or with neccesarily bettter quality tough.

3D printing is amazing for Epic currently

And terrain for games is undergoing the third industrial revolution (the 2nd was coloured MDF...).

One of the more interesting uses for 3d-printing I know of is for things like Land Raider sponsons or Razorback turrets where the kit contains several different guns but only one internal section of the mounting. The extra components are usually plain geometric shapes that are mostly hidden from the exterior, so they're easy to fabricate, easy to print, and the striations are easy to hide, and they make swapping a tank's guns infinitely easier.

I have used a 3d printer for non-miniatures related things.

That said, I also tried to use it to print split trail artillery carriages for my heavy weapons teams, and the end result was hideous.

It's probably good for terrain, I've been thinking of making some dragons teeth.

It's also kind of expensive, especially buy/buying time on the machines that do have sufficient quality to print miniatures at an acceptable level.

 Peregrine wrote:

 techsoldaten wrote:
I've seen exceptional 3D prints of minis where it was very hard to tell the difference from an authentic model. You had to look really closely for surface-level imperfections that couldn't be explained by cutting it off a sprue.

Sure, but how much did that print cost, whether buying from a service or as a share of the cost of buying and using a high-end printer? What about once you add in the labor cost of working with a high-end printer of your own? I bet it doesn't compare very favorably to the GW plastic kit. Those high-end printers are great for prototypes (anyone remember when 3d printed was called "rapid prototyping"?) or masters for conventional casting but they're useless if your goal is to get the costs of the hobby down.

These questions are pretty relevant today buts certainly getting way better.



supposedly done with the anycubic SLA printer which goes for about $400-500 which is honestly relatively affordable for a hobbyist tool. obviously outside of ripping stock models from free sites you will still need to do a ton of work for anything custom but that is half the fun of the hobby anyway. but as a way to keep the cost of the hobby down yeah no way. even using the print as a master to resin cast will take even more equipment investments to even come close to an actual game companies quality.

A friend of mine has a fairly expensive 3D printer, and I’ve seen some interesting print-outs from it (mostly organizing components for board games, but I did get a test print of a Shadowsword).

Right now, the “average” quality of 3D printers strikes me as about the technological level of dot matrix printers for computers back in the 80’s. There’s still a long way to go before the output of a typical, cheap 3D printer will match professional injection molding - I’d say another 20-30 years before miniature manufacturers have something to really worry about. Right now the do-it-yourselfers are essentially hobbyists who have to put a good bit of work into getting something decent.