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'm curious to see what everyone deems acceptable for a 3rd party company producing models and bits.

The biggest case of this right now is GW vs CHS, but lets generalize. When other miniature companies get as big as GW, they are bound to run into the same problem of another company 'leaching' from them.

here are a couple steps I see.
step 1: 3rd party bits and upgrade kits that enhance a model from another company. (head swaps, extension kits, . . )
step 2: 3rd party models, but only for units with rules, but no models (Mycetic spore, belial, . . . )
step 3: 3rd party models that replace the original company's modes (CHS kroxigor, farseer . . . )

I draw the line between step 2 and 3. and here is why:
at step 1, upgrade kits and extra bits do not take any customers away from the original company, as the customer still has to buy the original model in order to modify it. In fact this should be encouraged. I know of a few who refused to accept the stupid looking Storm Raven until they saw the extension kit for it.
at step 2, buying a model for a unit with rules but no model does not take away any revenue away from the original company. They have no product out there to sell, so they can't claim rights over it.
at step 3, buying a replacement model takes sales away from the original company and hurts them. The original company invested time and money to make rules and the model for the game, so other companies should not be able to sell a model as a replacement.

Step 2 gets murky when a model is later released by the original company. I am unsure of what to say in this gray area (TWC and Tervigon).

Step 3 has some exceptions. If a model is designed for use in one game, but customers want to use it in another game (good exampler: zombies are very common in many games). I think that is ok. The model is not built with the purpose of replacing another model, but is used as a replacement. That is something that goes with customer preference to use one model over another. It does not show a 3rd party company's intent to undermine the original company.

So I'm curious to see what you think is ethically correct.
this is a heated topic, so please try to keep the debate civil and polite.

If you are playing in a company's store, like GW, you should honor their rules about 75% having to be GW. Your playing is a form of advertisement for them, and that's your 'charge' to play in the store. In any FLGS, your game, your models, your choice. You can use any models you want, third party or otherwise. If I played in GW, I would honor their requests so they can sell models. If I play in any FLGS, I'll use third party minis because I don't need to advertise for GW and there is no line between right and wrong.

Moronic Nonsense wrote:
I'm curious to see what everyone deems acceptable for a 3rd party company producing models and bits.

step 3: 3rd party models that replace the original company's modes (CHS kroxigor, farseer . . . )

Let's have a hypothetical example. I license Isaac Asimov's Foundation series to make a wargame and produce Foundation miniatures in 28mm scale. People start using every Foundation miniature for 40k... not because I produced miniatures as replacements for 40k, but because 40k's Imperium is lifted whole cloth from Foundation, so there's a lot of crossover.

Let me put it this way. You, as a person, are freely playing a game. You may use whatever you want to play that game. If you and I are going to play a game of Warhammer, and I have a whole army of Thunderbolt Mountain Miniatures elves, would you really complain? I hate the Catachan models, but I love the Copplestone Jungle Troopers... would you really complain if I used them as a 1:1 replacement? Would you refuse to fight me? Would you refuse to take a ride in my Camaro if I had a non-Chevrolet aftermarket spoiler or carbon-fiber hood on it?

I can certainly understand the manufacturer wanting only their figures at officially sanctioned games/tournaments, but does it really matter in non-official games if a player uses another manufacturer that makes a space elf or alien monster beastie? Especially if I, as a consumer, find it more aesthetically pleasing than the "official" one?

PS Specifically referencing the CHS Kroxigor - what if I liked the old-style 5th edition Lizardmen and had an army of those, but I couldn't get an old-style Kroxigor for cheap, or I liked the CHS one better? It fits the OOP models better.

I think the main line GW drew over Chapterhouse was the use of GW's trademarks in their sales literature. Maxmini, Scibor, Kromlech all have pretty simple ways around directly referencing Space Marines, Tyranids and the like.

That being said, I really don't care about seeing them on the table as long as they are the same size as the GW models. There really aren't that many companies producing models significantly cheaper, especially considiring the time and costs to convert a lot of them to a relative standard.

Just play!

 judgedoug wrote:

Moronic Nonsense wrote:
I'm curious to see what everyone deems acceptable for a 3rd party company producing models and bits.

step 3: 3rd party models that replace the original company's modes (CHS kroxigor, farseer . . . )

Let's have a hypothetical example. I license Isaac Asimov's Foundation series to make a wargame and produce Foundation miniatures in 28mm scale. People start using every Foundation miniature for 40k... not because I produced miniatures as replacements for 40k, but because 40k's Imperium is lifted whole cloth from Foundation, so there's a lot of crossover.

Let me put it this way. You, as a person, are freely playing a game. You may use whatever you want to play that game. If you and I are going to play a game of Warhammer, and I have a whole army of Thunderbolt Mountain Miniatures elves, would you really complain? I hate the Catachan models, but I love the Copplestone Jungle Troopers... would you really complain if I used them as a 1:1 replacement? Would you refuse to fight me? Would you refuse to take a ride in my Camaro if I had a non-Chevrolet aftermarket spoiler or carbon-fiber hood on it?

I can certainly understand the manufacturer wanting only their figures at officially sanctioned games/tournaments, but does it really matter in non-official games if a player uses another manufacturer that makes a space elf or alien monster beastie? Especially if I, as a consumer, find it more aesthetically pleasing than the "official" one?

In your hypothetical example, I'd be ok with that. As foundation minis were created for their own game, not as a replacement for GW models. It is up to the customer how they use them. I see the problem arise when models are made for no game in particular. Which takes away from the original company who invested time and money to create rules for a game, and make money by selling models for that game.

If the company copies the models or parts there is a problem

ie if company A's heads are near straight copies of company B's there is an issue unless they are both based on the same real thing (ie british WWII helmets)

I don't care if company A come up with an alternative model for something company B does as long as it looks reasonably different (and they dont abuse the name ie call them space knights, power armour troopers etc not space marines)

And if a company A is making conversion kits/bits they may not be able promote them with a big picture of company Bs model, and the name of company Bs line all over the box

(this plays into patent parts for cars, yes other companies make them, but they dont advertise a pattern part exhaust with a shot of a mercedes and only a tiny bit of the exhaust poking out)

as to playing with stuff, if it looks good and is mostly the right size I'm happy

(and it needs to be consistant, the same random grunt model cant sub for a space knight, engineer & cavalry man all at the same time.... in different games maybe, but one at a time only)

if you want to play in a shop/tournament whatever they say goes

Moronic Nonsense wrote:
I see the problem arise when models are made for no game in particular. Which takes away from the original company who invested time and money to create rules for a game, and make money by selling models for that game.

So you would disagree with me using Thunderbolt Mountain Elves or Copplestone Jungle Troopers? They are both made for no game in particular.

Why should this be an ethical question? This subject is regulated by copyright laws and GW store and tournament policies. As long as you aren't violating any of them, do whatever you want.

Why is it unethical to create an original model which happens to be a good replacement for a certain Warhammer piece? I agree it is unethical to advertise it as such, but otherwise it's a work of art which (unless proven otherwise) has any right to exist and sell. Otherwise, let's prohibit any creativity at all, because any new book, movie or picture is based on already existing ones and can somehow hurt the profits of their owners.

 OrlandotheTechnicoloured wrote:
And if a company A is making conversion kits/bits they may not be able promote them with a big picture of company Bs model, and the name of company Bs line all over the box

(this plays into patent parts for cars, yes other companies make them, but they dont advertise a pattern part exhaust with a shot of a mercedes and only a tiny bit of the exhaust poking out)

Actually, yes they do - here's a nice site showing a lot of 3rd party manufactured upgrades and parts for the Chevy Camaro - http://www.phastekperformance.com/
It is, usually, the only good way to see that an expensive conversion or upgrade part fits aesthetically with your expensive car before spending a ton of money on purchasing, shipping, then possibly even painting and color matching.
Here's a $500 carbon-fiber inlay... how would you know what it looked like or how it fit without first seeing it installed on an official Chevrolet Camaro? http://www.phastekperformance.com/2010-Camaro-RK-Sport-Rear-Trunk-Spoiler-Carbon-p/rksport-camaro-rear-spoiler.htm

and here's some upgrade kits from 3rd party manufacturers for companies who also make toy soldiers and model kits, like Citadel:

For example,
Aber - http://aber.net.pl/
Eduard - http://www.eduard.com/
Finemolds - http://www.finemolds.co.jp/
Voyager - http://www.voyagermodel.com/

well i think that as long as you dont walk into a GW with an army case full of 28mm napoleonic armies and start to play a game and tell people that their cheaper to buy in bulk than at GW it should be fine.

Moronic Nonsense wrote:
In your hypothetical example, I'd be ok with that. As foundation minis were created for their own game, not as a replacement for GW models. It is up to the customer how they use them. I see the problem arise when models are made for no game in particular. Which takes away from the original company who invested time and money to create rules for a game, and make money by selling models for that game.

So - miniature companies have to have rules?

Many companies only make miniatures - many companies only make rules. Some companies make rules and miniatures for those rules (in all reality - these companies are the minority in terms of numbers). Some of the companies who only make miniatures do target one game system or another - sometimes you will even have a rules company mention the miniatures from a miniature company or two in their rules.

Like everything else, competition is good - as is variety and choices. As long as your models don't break the rules (significantly larger or smaller than the model you are proxying for for example) I don't care what you use.

If you are playing in a GW store though, that is their store to sell their products. If you manage to find a GW tournament (as opposed to a WFB or 40K tournament held by an independent group) that is a tournament they are paying for in order to promote their products. In those cases, you should provide the respect to the company to use their products. It would be like picking up a pizza from Dominoes and then going to Pizza Hut to eat it because they have more comfortable booths.

Moronic Nonsense wrote:
I'm curious to see what everyone deems acceptable for a 3rd party company producing models and bits.

The biggest case of this right now is GW vs CHS, but lets generalize. When other miniature companies get as big as GW, they are bound to run into the same problem of another company 'leaching' from them.

here are a couple steps I see.
step 1: 3rd party bits and upgrade kits that enhance a model from another company. (head swaps, extension kits, . . )
step 2: 3rd party models, but only for units with rules, but no models (Mycetic spore, belial, . . . )
step 3: 3rd party models that replace the original company's modes (CHS kroxigor, farseer . . . )

I draw the line between step 2 and 3. and here is why:
at step 1, upgrade kits and extra bits do not take any customers away from the original company, as the customer still has to buy the original model in order to modify it. In fact this should be encouraged. I know of a few who refused to accept the stupid looking Storm Raven until they saw the extension kit for it.
at step 2, buying a model for a unit with rules but no model does not take away any revenue away from the original company. They have no product out there to sell, so they can't claim rights over it.
at step 3, buying a replacement model takes sales away from the original company and hurts them. The original company invested time and money to make rules and the model for the game, so other companies should not be able to sell a model as a replacement.

Step 2 gets murky when a model is later released by the original company. I am unsure of what to say in this gray area (TWC and Tervigon).

Step 3 has some exceptions. If a model is designed for use in one game, but customers want to use it in another game (good exampler: zombies are very common in many games). I think that is ok. The model is not built with the purpose of replacing another model, but is used as a replacement. That is something that goes with customer preference to use one model over another. It does not show a 3rd party company's intent to undermine the original company.

So I'm curious to see what you think is ethically correct.
this is a heated topic, so please try to keep the debate civil and polite.

Why does it matter what models you use to play a game? Only GW insist you use their models with their games, and that's because they are a business. What you do outside their shops doesn't matter.

Looking at your steps 2-3 in particular... the idea that as a customer if you buy a ruleset you are somehow duty bound to buy only their models to use with it, is the most bizarre of thoughts. You're not 'taking revenue away' from them and 'hurting them', you've just bought their rules. What you do with them is your own business, you don't owe them some ongoing contract. Hell, by buying someone else's models you're spreading the wealth around and supporting the wider industry. Maybe you'll pay GW back some day by using their models with someone else's ruleset if it makes you feel better. It doesn't matter one jot if you use different models in your army to those supplied by GW, whether they're released specific figures or not to match their rules.

I didn't worry about playing with all my toys together when I was a kid. I imagine that Barbie has teamed up with Action Man many times in homes everywhere without any issues about them being made separately by Mattel and Hasbro. Why should people care because they're adults? Don't turn GW into a fashion label, it doesn't matter if you mix and match their models with others and play with any old set of rules. Do you think military modellers think twice about kitbashing models from two different companies together? Of course not.

This 'GW purity' thing is something most strongly expressed among GW players I find, and it makes very little sense unless you specifically want to play in their shops. Divorce the idea of choosing a preferred wargames rule set from your preferred choice of wargames figures, the two need not be linked. You don't owe GW loyalty for buying their ruleset and you're not hurting them by buying someone else's toys.

My only rule is it has to look cool, and since GWS has closed all of their stores in my area I really don't care how much of the army is composed of GWS models.

If I can tell what its supposed to be from across the table, its good enough for me.

Moronic Nonsense wrote:
at step 3, buying a replacement model takes sales away from the original company and hurts them.

Does it?

Taking a recent case in point, I absolutely detest GW's current Kroxigor models. If I ever get around to finishing off my Lizardmen army, I would not be buying them, because I refuse to use models that I don't like. So for me, that would have meant tracking down more of the original Krox on eBay. GW wouldn't have seen a cent from me... and if eBay hadn't been an option, I simply wouldn't have used Krox.

Chapterhouse have now provided an option that saves me from going to eBay. But buying the Chapterhouse model doesn't cost GW a sale, because I wouldn't have bought GW's version if Chapterhouse's wasn't available.


All that having the other company making alternative models does is give people more options. And more options mean more chance that someone will start an army.

While I don't agree with some of CHS's early naming conventions, and I don't care about the court case for the most part, but look at it this way:

I bought an undead army from Mantic, and bought several of the bigger kits for the Vampire Counts and several of the single sprue characters.

If it weren't for the undead army deal from Mantic I wouldn't have started a Vampire Counts army, also which means I would have stuck with my Warriors of Chaos army which I bought second hand anyways...

So GW made money off of me based on third party models.

Not sure if a thread started by a poster who named himself "Moronic Nonsense" is serious.

Anyway. If a product is a direct copy of an existing product, it is illegal and I wouldn't buy it.
If it is not a direct copy but features a minimum amount of originality (in this case: is a new sculpt), then it is legal and fine for me.

Copyright is to protect creativity of all sides. 3rd market products are certainly legal, even if GW doesn't believe that. Copyright is not to give one company a monopoly on sculpting skulls or arrows (even if GW doesn't believe that). GW thinks it is a monopolist and has a right to destroy everyone challenging that monopoly. But other companies don't "steal" customer oney from GW, they get money from an independent customer in a competition with GW. Competition is not illegal and not a bad thing.

In the case of Chapterhouse: With only a few exceptions, every Chapterhouse product requires you to buy GW products worth 2-3 times as much, so promoting sales of GW products. And if GW neglects customer demand for a female Farseer or a Farseer on jetbike for 15-20 years, their fault if someone else covers that demand.

Creativity is fed by inspiration taken from movies, literature, collegues and other things. GW creative staff knows that as they work that way since the beginning. Necrons, genestealers, Space marines and all Tolkien stuff is a proof for that. Only legal types try to claim that inspiration is illegal, making the creative process more difficult for everyone.

In the end, competition and greater diversity of products only helps and enhances the hobby. This is a good thing and I support that.

 Kroothawk wrote:
Not sure if a thread started by a poster who named himself "Moronic Nonsense" is serious.

I am serious. I really want to see differing opionions on 3rd party models. I have my own, but I'm not stubborn and I wanted to see some other point of views.

and about the name, online I use the name 'Moron' because it is just a silly mis-spelling of my last name that I've grown to accept.

In all fairness, if a lot of people bought 3rd party minis instead of GW minis to play WHFB/WH40k, then GW would just do what they've been doing for years and raise their prices miles over inflation to compensate.

Send in the white knights.

 WaaaaghLord wrote:
In all fairness, if a lot of people bought 3rd party minis instead of GW minis to play WHFB/WH40k, then GW would just do what they've been doing for years and raise their prices miles over inflation to compensate.

Send in the white knights.

But a lot of people WON'T buy 3rd party models because GW is all they know. Can't fault those that buy 3rd party because they like the rules, but dislike something else about the game. Maybe I like the zombie sculpts from Mantic better (I do, but they're cheaper).

I, personally, don't see a problem with companies producing things that upgrade current kits (shoulder pads etc) or for kits that are in rules but not actually produced by said company. I won't buy copies of space marines even if they are cheaper though. If someone wanted to use an army composed of models that aren't GW then more power to them. I don't see anything as being unethical here since it isn't like they stole them or anything. I would ride around in a honda civic built to look like a camero, so long as i knew it wasnt a camero.

Where do I draw the line?

I don't.

If company A has models for units that I don't like the look of and company B has models that will do the job, and I prefer their look, then company B's stuff gets the job.

Only playing company A's rules with company A's miniatures?
What kind of daft straightjacketed nonsense is this?

Do historical gamers care who made their figures to go with their rules? Apart from normal preferences for a given unified look, not generally.

I've played 40k with Stargrunt, Warzone and Void figures.
I've played Stargrunt with 40k figures.
I've played Tomorrow's War (which does have an official line of minis, but they're 15mm) with my GW stuff.

I have mates who use Wargods of Aegyptus stuff by Crocodile games in their Lizardmen armies (Sebeki, specifically) or other human forces in their Tomb Kings armies (Living Tomb Kings - no skellies to be seen, just rank upon rank of still living servants).

I feel no guilt about this.
There are no gaming commandments.
There is no "Thou shalt have no other games before X".
There is no "Thou shalt only play game X with game X's models".

(Unless you must play in a store run by the company that makes game X, in which case you have my deepest sympathies. Playing games in a GW store is like going to gaol for sex. It'll happen, but it's not going to be pleasant.)

personally, i, as a seller of painted minis, hesitate to put any 3rd party products on one of my GW minis simply because i want my customers to be able to walk show off their minis at a GW store or event without worrying about getting hassled...

i don't feel like there is really an ethical issue with 3rd party products...
i do think that CHS's cheeky behavior has left a bad taste in some people's mouths...
they are more than welcome to try and sell their sculpts, but GW also has the right to try and defend their IP...
there are arguments for both sides...

i vote with my wallet, and don't buy third party stuff...
i feel it is my responsibilty to be able to produce a customer's vision with just GW and FW parts, plus a helping of Greenstuff...
that doesn't mean i don't drool over the great pieces by Kromleck and Maxmini...

cheers
jah

I have absolutely no problem with third party models as long as it isn't difficult to keep track of what is what; same attitude I have towards other people using proxies or counts-as armies. I'm going to have a hard time accepting a scrawny human with a rifle as a Space Marine regardless of if it's a GW model or not, but if you want to pull out some Kingdom Death minis to use in your Chaos army? By all means go for it as long as the scale stays reasonable. If you want to use GW models to play Infinity? Same thing... go right the heck ahead, but try to match the correct aesthetic.

I'd be a little sad to see a company that I like go out of business because nobody was buying their models, but I think that's just the risk you have to accept with a relatively free culture.

That said I play a lot of my 40k games in a GW store (plenty of space, nice tables, mostly friendly staff... I enjoy the place.) When I go there I bring only GW/FW models. Similarly I would have never brought proxies to play a game of Magic to a WotC store (when they still existed) but happily used them when I was playing with friends. I also make a point of trying to at least buy *something* whenever I play at an independent store... it costs them money to provide the space to play, and I don't want to be a mooch. When I'm nerding out in my basement though? PDF codices and Coca-colafexes ahoy! Well, okay, no sodacans because they look like hell, but other than that...

This thread is timely, because I wanted to respond to something HBMC said in the last CHS thread but it was offtopic.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
I say just lock it. Every time CHS posts anything it's just a siren call to our resident White Knights to come a'charging.

Respectfully, I disagree. There is no reason to support a status quo where one manufacturer can't post new releases because people can't stop coming in and crapping in it; the answer is not shrugging and saying "ah well, guess they win again".

I'm not a huge fan of CHS simply because I'm not really into their sculpts generally (although I did get the Stormraven extension which is great) but the nonsense that happens in their threads every single damn time has got to stop.

 Ouze wrote:
This thread is timely, because I wanted to respond to something HBMC said in the last CHS thread but it was offtopic.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
I say just lock it. Every time CHS posts anything it's just a siren call to our resident White Knights to come a'charging.

Respectfully, I disagree. There is no reason to support a status quo where one manufacturer can't post new releases because people can't stop coming in and crapping in it; the answer is not shrugging and saying "ah well, guess they win again".

I'm not a huge fan of CHS simply because I'm not really into their sculpts generally (although I did get the Stormraven extension which is great) but the nonsense that happens in their threads every single damn time has got to stop.

I created this thread because I realized that I was one of those people getting that thread off topic. I am not trying to burn CHS down, but when I saw the 'lizard-ogres' I was just kinda shocked. I am fine with bits and upgrade sprues, but I'm stil unsure of how to proceed when it comes to selling a replacement model for another company's game.

Moronic Nonsense wrote:

I created this thread because I realized that I was one of those people getting that thread off topic. I am not trying to burn CHS down, but when I saw the 'lizard-ogres' I was just kinda shocked. I am fine with bits and upgrade sprues, but I'm stil unsure of how to proceed when it comes to selling a replacement model for another company's game.

What's wrong with giant lizard men? Lizard men are generic fantasy and have been since at least Conan in the 1920's and earlier mythology. It's entirely plausible that I'd like to make a Lizardman army for Kings of War and like those giant lizard men sculpts better than any other manufacturer's. Hell, that gives me an idea to use the KOW Orc army list, use piles of cheap 5th edition Lizardmen as normal Orcs and use 5th Skinks w/ bows as Sniffs, the CHS giant lizardmen as trolls, etc. Or as another poster pointed out earlier, wanting to use them as Kroxigors in his WHFB Lizardman army because he doesn't like the current sculpts and wouldn't buy them anyway. Consumer choice = best.

Because all things start and end with GW for some.

I'd also like to add that while I love GW's Beastman models, I really dislike their Minotaurs. I would much prefer to use, say, Heresy or Avatars of War Minotaurs in a WHFB Beastman army. Of course, in a GW store, I coudln't use them, but definitely use them with your fellow gamers in a less-restrictive setting. Isn't one of the visually appealing aspects of the hobby to have a really cool looking force?

 Ouze wrote:
Respectfully, I disagree. There is no reason to support a status quo where one manufacturer can't post new releases because people can't stop coming in and crapping in it; the answer is not shrugging and saying "ah well, guess they win again".

Well, also, releasing cheap alternatives doesn't shield you from criticism if your cheap alternatives are terrible.

The issues in their threads aren't on-topic criticism of their models, it's off-topic criticism of their business model and/or existence.