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.

 Grimtuff wrote:

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.

So again it revolves around you paying more. To me If they look the part, they can play the part, the OP ones certainly do, the other black toster ones certainly dont and i dont imagine they he is going for an alternative look (like Rackham wolves instead of circle ouboros).

You can certainly do what you want, but come clean with why, you feel you dropping more money on it entitles you to a win, so be it, on those basis you will judge wether or not engage another player and be judged as well.

I do lots of homebrew, some for economic reasons (i will not pay GWs prices for a rinho, being a mold is fairly simple to make and it would cost a few cents of resin to get a carbon copy of the tank), some for practical reasons (i simply dont want to be bother with painting all the crap over the fantasy state troop minis, so i filed a few and made molds) and some for esthetic reasons the new fantasy demigriph riders are plain ugly.

xxvaderxx wrote:

 Grimtuff wrote:

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.

So again it revolves around you paying more. To me If they look the part, they can play the part, the OP ones certainly do, the other black toster ones certainly dont and i dont imagine they he is going for an alternative look (like Rackham wolves instead of circle ouboros).

Not at all.

I scratchbuild all the time. I make my own terrain. However I set certain standards for their appearance to mask their origins. Paper models are line line that is crossed IMO as in my experience there is a certain type of gamer that makes them (usually of the TFG variety). Although this is not always the case, in a venn diagram the crossover will be pretty large for people who use paper models and TFG.

It's all art. And this is an artform I dislike with a passion. Nothing more.

I'm so tired of the elitism seeping out of this thread.


New Scenery Rule:

Scratch-built scenery must be made from the list of approved "professional grade" modelling materials, or it's considered garbage, no matter what it looks like or how much time you spent making it. Terrain made from materials not on the list, (or not bought directly from GW if the option is available) cannot be used on the tabletop, and you hereby accept the fact that "real" 40K gamers will savagely insult you - with good reason, because you didn't do it like them.

(You can also no longer use the Aegis Defense line or Bastion that you scratch-built to fit the racial theme your army, because there are already models for those that you can buy directly from GW. Get a job so you have money, you.....modeller.)

Old player rule:

You can't use stories from the "old days" to justify the fact that you didn't buy the available off the shelf model, you...old person. Only the here and now counts, not experiences from like, a whole decade ago.

For all seriousness, the stock photo for the papercraft model I use for my Imperial Bunker (notice the lack of piles of dead Cadians):

I used to be cool with scrtachbuilt and papercraft armies until meeting one of TFGs who basically used his printer to always have the cheesiest army possible.

GKs are on top? AoBR termis proxying as Paladins, lots of paper chimeras.

IG are looking sweet? Plenty of paper Vendettas, more chimeras and LRBTs, the work. Last I heard he was also working on some paper Night Scythes just to be safe.

So yeah, call me bitter, but after spending a fair bit of $$ and time to have my army all assembled and fully painted on the table, I do avoid players if I feel they are taking too much of a shortcut to get their geek victory rush.

Well, yeah, but that can"t be used to paint that entire facet of the hobby with a bad light. A rich guy with a disposable income could do the same thing with actual GW models that he could pay someone else to paint, if they are painted at all. In fact, half of the posts on this thread seem to be claiming that if the rich guy wins, his victory is "more legitimate" because he spent "good money" and bought the actual models!

A jerk move is a jerk move.

I can't believe the amount of people basically claiming that if their opponent's stuff isn't up to their personal standards, they will loudly and firmly use that as a reason not to "waste their time" playing them, to the point of calling player's stuff crap right to their face like they are some sort of higher class toy soldier gamer. That just might be taking this hobby too seriously.

There is a big difference between scratch-build models, whatever the material, that are well built and realized, and soda-can drop pods with 2-D paper troops made from images printed off the GW site. I have papercraft models that took more time and effort to get to the tabletop than some gamer's actual models, and I made them merely because I liked the challenge of making them.

From what I have gathered on this thread the rules for 40k should now be:
1. Everything must be bought from gw and not made at all
2. If it is not from gw you can't play
3. It has to be the current model as older players have many counts as and such

I find the elitism in 40k is getting to be too much just like the price of models every time i look at them and they seem to go up in price.

I am going to sell all my 40k crap as I am just sick of all the 40k BS

I just stopped PLAYING 40k as the elitism amongst the local clowns here clogged my BS filters.

The figures can be used for other games (I loudly proclaim that I have used my 40k to play Stargrunt, and I will use them to play Tomorrow's War, or any other set of rules I choose that fits them), so I will keep them.

Most scratchbuilds look like crap. Some are great.

There's no reason to buoy people's emotions by telling them their crap, looks great. The sense of entitlement of some of the scratch-build is at least as off-putting as the elitism in this thread. "I built it, so it's just as good as a real model, and you're not allowed to think otherwise!"

The only one i built was the baneblade papercraft featured in the white dwarf a long,long,long time ago!
Now living in Japan , i just look out for strange stuff to use for my army.

for example Sakura taisen robot used as retro dreadnought

Y'know, that actually looks pretty cool.

Papercraft is fine for me as long as it's not done to a huge extent. Scratch-built is also fine for me.

After all, this is a game!

Kaldor wrote:Most scratchbuilds look like crap. Some are great.

There's no reason to buoy people's emotions by telling them their crap, looks great. The sense of entitlement of some of the scratch-build is at least as off-putting as the elitism in this thread. "I built it, so it's just as good as a real model, and you're not allowed to think otherwise!"

Well said. Some folks might get their feelings hurt a bit, but in a scale modelers club no one is going to say something looks great unless it does, so why should be different here?

Now clearly the standards for wargaming models are less than in scale modeling (our standards and uses are different), and I think we can be a bit more sensitive than simply calling it "crap", but we should refuse to say something looks good if we don't think it does.

Jehan-reznor wrote:The only one i built was the baneblade papercraft featured in the white dwarf a long,long,long time ago!
Now living in Japan , i just look out for strange stuff to use for my army.

for example Sakura taisen robot used as retro dreadnought

Spoiler:

Looks very nice, but I think that's an "alternate model" and different thing than the papercraft models the OP is talking about. One of the problems with a thread like this is that it can mix up what are a few different issues regarding people's feelings about...

-Papercraft models. Models made entirely -or nearly entirely- out of paper. All but the very best of these are immediately recognizable as papercraft.

-Traditional scratchbuild. In modeler circles "Scratchbuild" usually refers to models made of materials other than -or in addition to- paper and card to the point where it's not immidiately aparent what materials were used.

-Proxy models. A unit used to represent something it is not.

-Alternate models. A subset of Proxy where an alternate model of similar dimensions and armament is used in place of the existing GW kit.

Given the examples the OP presented, (which I happen to like) a much better title for this topic would have been
"How do you feel about Papercraft vehicles"

Let me put it another way, let say he makes resin molds of say baneblades or what ever other broken FW model you can imagine and he brings say 4, 5 or what ever is too cheasy to your taste and they cost him about $15 of resin to produce being them a carbon copy of the original, would you still have an issue with that?.

If your answer is yes, then you are not offended by his models but by the fact that you did not win even thou you payed more for it. Its up to every one in particular, but the wallet argument does not pull much weight where i come from.

 Florintine Mallorean wrote:
From what I have gathered on this thread the rules for 40k should now be:
1. Everything must be bought from gw and not made at all
2. If it is not from gw you can't play
3. It has to be the current model as older players have many counts as and such

I find the elitism in 40k is getting to be too much just like the price of models every time i look at them and they seem to go up in price.

I am going to sell all my 40k crap as I am just sick of all the 40k BS

I agree, I miss the old days of scratch built terrain and gaming boards at my local Games-workshop; they sold all the scratch made boards (such as a lava one and nid one) and replaced them with those awful GW gaming boards.

Also quite a chunk of the 40k players have this stuck up elitism about paper models, scratch-builds and miniatures from other companies.

xxvaderxx wrote:
Let me put it another way, let say he makes resin molds of say baneblades or what ever other broken FW model you can imagine and he brings say 4, 5 or what ever is too cheasy to your taste and they cost him about $15 of resin to produce being them a carbon copy of the original, would you still have an issue with that?.

If your answer is yes, then you are not offended by his models but by the fact that you did not win even thou you payed more for it. Its up to every one in particular, but the wallet argument does not pull much weight where i come from.

If someone takes offense to this, the issue is probably not the cost, but rather with.. blatant Recasting!

I realize this is a whole other can-o-worms regarding personal casting-but-not-selling, IP, cost etc, (subjects for another thread) but my point is if you're trying to show definitive bias toward "paid-for-models" this is a really bad example.

 Florintine Mallorean wrote:

1. Everything must be bought from gw and not made at all
2. If it is not from gw you can't play
3. It has to be the current model as older players have many counts as and such

Don't forget:
4. Must be painted to a minimum 3 color standard, preferably well above that.
5. Can't use dips - that'd be a cheating shortcut.

Eilif wrote:

xxvaderxx wrote:
Let me put it another way, let say he makes resin molds of say baneblades or what ever other broken FW model you can imagine and he brings say 4, 5 or what ever is too cheasy to your taste and they cost him about $15 of resin to produce being them a carbon copy of the original, would you still have an issue with that?.

If your answer is yes, then you are not offended by his models but by the fact that you did not win even thou you payed more for it. Its up to every one in particular, but the wallet argument does not pull much weight where i come from.

If someone takes offense to this, the issue is probably not the cost, but rather with.. blatant Recasting!

I realize this is a whole other can-o-worms regarding personal casting-but-not-selling, IP, cost etc, (subjects for another thread) but my point is if you're trying to show definitive bias toward "paid-for-models" this is a really bad example.

No it is not, recasting for personal use is perfectly legal, i said nothing about selling the models. But your comment does show where you lean towards in regard to my question.

I am playing for the fun of playing.

Obviously, I like a well painted army and visually pleasing vehicles more than a bunch of black-primed infantry and some poor paper-glue-mess of vehicles. The more the better. That's an extra pleasure, and is important to me.

But the personality of my gaming partner is much more important than that!

Whether someone can paint or not, whether he has all the right weapons/shoulder pads/other frikking details right on his SM (with lots of Pre-Heresy gak just made up for you to pump more money into overpriced and gakky-cast resin parts), or whether his Rhino is made from plastics or paper, is really only a question of aesthetics to me.

I'd rather support non-paid items now, to ensure that the right people stay in the hobby (and eventually will cash out more, once they have some money), then kick some nice guys (or girls) out of the hobby and be stuck with the sociopathic, rule and/or details nazis who can pump out money galore but are essentially poor donkey-caves with no life to speak of.

I know, it's an unfair simplification, there are lots of nice players with money. But I want to make a point about what to chose when in doubt or stuck between two "evils".

xxvaderxx wrote:

Eilif wrote:

xxvaderxx wrote:
Let me put it another way, let say he makes resin molds of say baneblades or what ever other broken FW model you can imagine and he brings say 4, 5 or what ever is too cheasy to your taste and they cost him about $15 of resin to produce being them a carbon copy of the original, would you still have an issue with that?.

If your answer is yes, then you are not offended by his models but by the fact that you did not win even thou you payed more for it. Its up to every one in particular, but the wallet argument does not pull much weight where i come from.

If someone takes offense to this, the issue is probably not the cost, but rather with.. blatant Recasting!

I realize this is a whole other can-o-worms regarding personal casting-but-not-selling, IP, cost etc, (subjects for another thread) but my point is if you're trying to show definitive bias toward "paid-for-models" this is a really bad example.

No it is not, recasting for personal use is perfectly legal, i said nothing about selling the models. But your comment does show where you lean towards in regard to my question.

Yes it is a bad example. You posited that if someone doesn't like personal recasts of a model than it proves that they are more concerned with how much somethign costs than how much it looks like a unit.

It's a bad example because there is another reason -in this case objections to recasts- that have nothing to do with cost and have to do with the legality of recasting.

I see what you're trying to do, but you need a better "test". A better question would have been.

"Do you object to a plasticard-built model that has the same dimensions and level of detail as a baneblade, and is nearly identical but costs 1/4 of a kit banelbade"

That's an question that by eliminating objections regarding appearance and legality does a better job of limiting the possible objections to cost alone.

Also, recasting for personal use is not always legal, but where illegal is rarely enforced.

xxvaderxx wrote:
. But your comment does show where you lean towards in regard to my question.

Incorrect deduction again my friend, I didn't address your question because I didn't agree with the premise or the example.

Rather than making an assumption based on my disagreement with your flawed example, to see where I stand in regards to the question of offense regarding cheap models, please refer to my previous posts where I say:

"...the examples the OP presented, (which I happen to like)..."

"Nice job on the tanks! The don't look as nice IMHO, as the "real thing" but are nicely executed, well colored, clearly represent alot of effort and talent and more than meet what I would consider standards for a gaming model.

I'm firmly in the if it looks good then I'll play it, and I also play with second party figures. "

" I'd much rather play against the vehicles pictured in this thread than any kit, conversion, or plastic scratchbuild that shows up on the table unpainted or unfinished. "

In refference to the toaster DE card models and a following comment:

"Now clearly the standards for wargaming models are less than in scale modeling (our standards and uses are different), and I think we can be a bit more sensitive than simply calling it "crap", but we should refuse to say something looks good if we don't think it does. "

My acceptance of scratchbuilds, proxies, alternate models and card models is entirely about execution (and possibly legality of recasting), not the amount of cash spent.

My acceptance of scratchbuilds, proxies, alternate models and card models is entirely about execution (and possibly legality of recasting), not the amount of cash spent.

My stance completely. I am in this hobby to share what I think is cool with others, not snub them from my moral high ground. In my opinion, a well-built papercraft Landraider that the owner is proud of is light years ahead of a assembled and bare plastic one, but I'll bet I can guess which hits the table a hundred times more often and is seen as much more legitimate, which is a sad state of the hobby.

Most scratchbuilds look like crap. Some are great.

There's no reason to buoy people's emotions by telling them their crap, looks great. The sense of entitlement of some of the scratch-build is at least as off-putting as the elitism in this thread. "I built it, so it's just as good as a real model, and you're not allowed to think otherwise!"

Really? I usually see such situations more as "I built it, and I am proud of it because it's my best effort so I'd like to use it, but for some reason some guy i don;t even know is taking it upon himself to call my stuff "crap" simply because they think they can do better/are a more elite class of player and feel entitled to speak up."

Usually calling out a person on all the faults of something, especially when being blatant and possibly insulting, falls within the realm of "say something constructive or not at all".

It's far easier to be laid back and just have fun being creative.

 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.

I know I do it (make paper models) for the same reason anybody does modeling. Because I enjoy it. It is a hobby after all!

Attached 2 finished dreadnought and one in progress. Also papercraft can be painted with acrylics the last 2 dreads attached are painted that way.
Finally if you can be bothered to follow the 3 links bellow they point to some 360 views of stormtalon and stormraven made in a similar way.

http://arqspin.com/s/369t3u0m992qt
http://www.bcerrina.com/stormtalon_spin2/config-storm2.html
http://arqspin.com/s/ymumyi80hgnt

For now I haven't played with them but I am definitely hoping that they'll be accepted if when I bring them to my club. The reason I haven't used them is that right now I don't have an army just a few models in different chapter colours and also that I mostly play warmachine.

xxvaderxx wrote:

No it is not, recasting for personal use is perfectly legal, i said nothing about selling the models. But your comment does show where you lean towards in regard to my question.

No it is not. People have wrong ideas on what 'personal use' actualy means. Casting an item to 'have more of it' is not personal/fair use in US, UK, Europe or Aus.

Hmm. It's a tricky one. I kinda think papercraft models are cool, but I wouldn't play against them. It's a bit of a "Dude, I'm legitimately buying and building the official models using my own hard earned cash, and you're showing up with 5 Land Raider Redeemers because you printed off templates from a website? That isn't fair!".

Plasticard scratch builds of things like Thunderhawk variants or Titans are always awesome (although if they're using it as a means to cheaply field absurd amounts of very expensive powerful units then it isn't so cool) and scratch built terrain is great too. However, I do think it is unfair if I show up to an Apocalypse game with my modest collection of Tyranids, including 2 Hierodules and a Hierophant (for the record, I do not have anywhere near a large enough collection to play Apocalypse, barely any models are even finished) that I bought, assembled and painted myself, and my opponent comes with 3 Thunderhawks, 6 Baneblades and 9 Land Raider Achilles that he printed off some website, hastily folded and glued together into the rough semblance of the original models and then proceeds to table me with £0.50 worth of poorly folded inked paper, especially if he then accuses me of being a "snob" and "discriminating against people with less money" because he's too tight to buy the real thing and too lazy to make decent stand ins.

Also, let's face it, for every incredible plasticard construction or wonderful papercraft approximation there will be at least 15 toys with random vehicle parts, shards of plactic sheet and Lego bricks, or poorly folded paper cubes with the word "Baneblade" doodled on the side.

For example, my mate InquisitorVaron once attended a game where someone had brought a Tzeentch Daemon army. What they had done was greenstuff loads of balls which were then badly painted to look like multicoloured eyes. These represented Horrors. He had also made "Tongues of Tzeentch" by rolling out strips of greenstuff and painting them badly. His Lord of Change? An enormous greenstuff ball, painted to look like a very big, gakky looking eye. That isn't "inventive" or "cool", it's just someone who can't be bothered to put time or money into his army trying to get a big force quickly with minimal work. I could make loads of milliput blobs and stick all my spare spinefists into them and call them Termagaunts, but I won't because I'm not that cheap or lazy.

And before people launch the "You're an elitist snob who discriminates against people who can't afford to play the game" argument, please grow up. I would love to collect master crafted swords, but I haven't got anywhere near the money, so I don't. If I showed up at a rifle club with a copper pipe filled with gunpowder and a lighter attached to the end, then the other members of the club, who had spent good money on official, decent rifles, would be more than entitled to tell me to get lost. I couldn't argue that "they shouldn't discriminate against me because I don't have the money for a real rifle", I should just either save up and get a rifle or give up. Same with Warhammer 40,000.

Also, a papercraft Reaver would be very very fragile.

What some people do is print the papercraft files and glue them on to plasticard.

nkelsch wrote:

xxvaderxx wrote:

No it is not, recasting for personal use is perfectly legal, i said nothing about selling the models. But your comment does show where you lean towards in regard to my question.

No it is not. People have wrong ideas on what 'personal use' actualy means. Casting an item to 'have more of it' is not personal/fair use in US, UK, Europe or Aus.

Speaking for the Netherlands at least well, it really is. Not sure for the rest of Europe (not my field of expertise to that extent) but I'd be surprised if it wasn't in a fair number of nations.
I'd provide applicable jurisprudence if I hadn't learned to take your for a blatant serial troll, by now

Let's keep it friendly, folks.

Rule of cool for me, I'd be more than happy playing against the vehicles you posted, because they look great.

Less happy against really sucky ones.

I'll play against anything that follows the rules as long as I can tell what it is at a glance.
If you get the inspiration to build something but it doesn't fit the game your playing just build it and build well. Making something cool needs no excuse. Let the creativity flow! it's good for you. If it just happens to fall reasonably close to something you want to play that is a bonus.

Conversely, if you make something for the purpose of being an alternate gaming piece make sure someone doesn't have to ask what it is and what weapons it has every turn. Modeling to gain a gaming or psychological advantage in an insult to every facet of the hobby.

I don't really care what materials are used, so long as the model looks good. For most games that is not a problem unless I am specifically going out of my way to have a themed, narrative game and not a pickup at the FLGS. You could make it out of wax or wood so long as it looks like what it's supposed to look like. How durable it is is not my problem.

There are certainly poorly built, poorly painted plastic models out there and in that case I might even prefer to play against some paper models if they come out of the printer looking better. I feel no need to insist that others pay the same amount of money as me for the hobby. Using paper to make large or powerful models like baneblades... why not? If they look gak then they look gak but if they look okay well then at least I have the opportunity to play against models that I wouldn't otherwise have the opportunity to play against, which means more variety and better games for me. Again don't see the problem with it... that seems like more of a problem with cheesy lists and TFG.

 AegisGrimm wrote:
In my opinion, a well-built papercraft Landraider that the owner is proud of is light years ahead of a assembled and bare plastic one, but I'll bet I can guess which hits the table a hundred times more often and is seen as much more legitimate, which is a sad state of the hobby.

I don't really see why we can't say that the papercraft model and the bare plastic model are BOTH awful. I don't want to play against either of those options. I probably will play in the end since insisting on nicely painted armies only would mean that I never have any opponents to play, but I'm not really going to enjoy having either of those on the table.

 Squigsquasher wrote:
Also, let's face it, for every incredible plasticard construction or wonderful papercraft approximation there will be at least 15 toys with random vehicle parts, shards of plactic sheet and Lego bricks, or poorly folded paper cubes with the word "Baneblade" doodled on the side.

This. It's depressing how often I've seen "scratchbuilds" that were really just people being too cheap to buy the real model and gluing some spare 40k parts on a $5 toy from walmart. And then bragging about how much money they saved over buying that expensive FW model.

what if my scratch builds cost waaaayymore than the actual models to make? Have fun. I would LOVE to play against these tanks.