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.

timd wrote:

 DarknessEternal wrote:

timd wrote:
GW "loyalists" are the only people that have this big issue with third party models, nobody else gives a carp. The rest of the gaming world are happy to use third party models if they fit within their chosen game.

Hahahah, hah, haha, no.

Try to use GW models in a Warmahordes game in your non-regular store. They're just as looney about it.

Are you talking about a tournament? If its a tournament sponsored by Privateer Press, then I don't see a problem with the Press Ganger enforcing the PP only rule. But that is not what we are talking about here. We are talking about general use of third party minis. There has been no discussion of using third party minis in sanctioned tounament play in this thread.

So then who specifically is loony about it? The store owner? Unlikely... Another player in a pickup game? If he's that anal you are probably better of not playing with him. Random secret agent Privateer Press enforcers? I've never seen the kind of anti-third party invective seen on Dakka from anyone but GW gamers. Its simply not an issue in the rest of the miniatures gaming community.

Sure. It's "not an issue" because there is no substantial third party market for other games. WH/40k players aren't crazed loons, they just happen to be playing the games that third party manufacturers are producing product for.
No one is making a successful business producing not-war jacks because there's no interest. Tournament play is enormously important to WM/H and most players adhere to PPs conversion rules in store play. PP has also only just started producing the multi part kits that make bits manufacture feasible.
Claiming that only GW games players are the ones commenting on this is pretty disingenuous. It's only a significant issue in GW games.

(this is in the context of sci-fi/fantasy TTGs)

 Pacific wrote:
Battlefront miniatures have done the same thing with Galeforce 9, and the 'Battlefield in a box range'.

Those are actually the same company...sort of like the difference between GW and Forge World...but the general sentiment is good.

The majority of companies are ran by fans of miniatures and gaming and they tend to shop from all sorts of companies for their own purposes. Quite often you will see one or more companies come together on a project or three - even while they are otherwise competing with each other directly in other areas.

Primarily one company doesn't though - they used to...for nearly half their history they worked with a whole variety of companies who made rules or miniatures or both. A change happened though, and now they don't.

Actually, it will be interesting to see if any of the new 28mm Dystopian Wars miniatures find their way onto the tables of Warmachine players - they are the first major miniature line (with a couple of less well known exceptions) that really have models which might be considered a comparable aesthetic.

I think with some of the issues with GW miniatures, and specifically the ones which are most proxied/counts-as, is their more generic nature. 'human with laser gun' or 'evil walking skeleton' is as basic as you can get with the sci-fi/fantasy field. When you bring in the fact that some of those GW miniatures are much more expensive, and pretty old sculpts (thinking of the Cadians for instance) it's no surprise that customers are looking elsewhere, and there are a long line of Guarsmen 'counts as' options you can go for.

Although of course I agree the popularity of 40k (and Space Marines in particular) makes them a natural choice for anyone making 3rd party parts - especially again when some of the official miniatures fail to cut the mustard (Storm Raven) or else aren't even released for some time, and there is a demand for the miniature (some of the Nid and SW range previously)

 Kanluwen wrote:
[
Flames of War has a "Only Battlefront models" rule for their official events as well from my understanding.

They tried this both here and in NZ first. The player base laughed at them.
How exactly are they going to tell that you aren't using "their"models?
Given the large number of guys doing WW2 15mm in metal and resin models out there? Not to mention the relatively recent plastic 15mm stuff.
You can't.

Lets keep in mind that before GW became the great and powerful company that is is today, it started out as a 3rd party model company that specialized in creating miniatures that you can use in other companies game systems.

 d-usa wrote:
Lets keep in mind that before GW became the great and powerful company that is is today, it started out as a 3rd party model company that specialized in creating miniatures that you can use in other companies game systems.

Difference being GW/Citadel licensed the rights for that....

 Kanluwen wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
Lets keep in mind that before GW became the great and powerful company that is is today, it started out as a 3rd party model company that specialized in creating miniatures that you can use in other companies game systems.

Difference being GW/Citadel licensed the rights for that....

Not always. Lots of Citadels earliest models were clearly intended for the D&D crowd and as I pointed out earlier, it was Ral Partha who had the license to create official models.

Didn't stop GW, or Grenadier, or Metal Magic or ....

..and it shouldn't. Because as long as you don't trample on copyright or trademark there is nothing wrong with making minis for someone else's game.

timd wrote:

 DarknessEternal wrote:

timd wrote:
GW "loyalists" are the only people that have this big issue with third party models, nobody else gives a carp. The rest of the gaming world are happy to use third party models if they fit within their chosen game.

Hahahah, hah, haha, no.

Try to use GW models in a Warmahordes game in your non-regular store. They're just as looney about it.

Are you talking about a tournament? If its a tournament sponsored by Privateer Press, then I don't see a problem with the Press Ganger enforcing the PP only rule. But that is not what we are talking about here. We are talking about general use of third party minis. There has been no discussion of using third party minis in sanctioned tounament play in this thread.

So then who specifically is loony about it? The store owner? Unlikely... Another player in a pickup game? If he's that anal you are probably better of not playing with him. Random secret agent Privateer Press enforcers? I've never seen the kind of anti-third party invective seen on Dakka from anyone but GW gamers. Its simply not an issue in the rest of the miniatures gaming community.

Where did I mention tournaments? It looks like nowhere. So clearly I didn't mean tournaments.

Moronic Nonsense wrote:
Ok, I think I've figured out a better way to explain my position. I look at the intent of the model. If somebody makes a cool looking giant lizard thing because it is a cool idea, great! but when I see somebody bringing up a new product, that is meant just as a replacement, I'm less inclined to accept it.

Do you own a blu-ray player? Is it a Sony? If it's not, it's a player produced by another company that hopes you will buy it instead of a Sony player.

Is that also an unacceptable practice?


Not having a go here, genuinely curious as to whether or not this is a hard line for you, or if it purely applies to miniatures.

GW have an absolute right to ban other full models from their shops.

I have an absolute right to buy something else and use it at home or at my club.

It is for GW to make 'the best model soldiers in the world' and other companies to keep them to that. If they produce stinkers like the recent 'melee obliterators' or the 'spikey pig' and these models are not well received, then that's their problem. Other companies can produce 'spikey pigs' or 'scifi megaknights with melee weapons' and if I prefer their efforts to GW's, then I'll buy from them.

The market will decided.

To be fair though: "stinkers", like most things taste related, is a bit subjective.

Look at the Infinity News & Rumours thread right now. There are individuals who do not like Corvus Belli's "Ajax the Great" miniature which is coming out this month.

Which is exactly why people should be free to use the miniatures that they do like instead.

To be fair though: "stinkers", like most things taste related, is a bit subjective.

Look at the Infinity News & Rumours thread right now. There are individuals who do not like Corvus Belli's "Ajax the Great" miniature which is coming out this month.

Yes but there is a difference there between saying something is a crappy sculpt, or just looks poor, and it not being to your particular taste. Absolutely no-one has said that Ajax is a crappy sculpt - some have said 'it's not my thing', or 'i wish it had a different aesthetic' (I said I wished it had a beard for instance ) but that's different.

On the other hand the Mutilators have had a fair bit of flak for being.. well, just not very good. Of course art is subjective to an extent, but that still doesn't stop the vast majority of people agreeing that a Rodin is technically more impressive, or better 'art' generally, than something made by Damien Hurst. I'm not comparing the CB sculpts to some kind of classic masterpiece, but just to illustrate a point.. don't force me to post pics to prove it mate

Someone mentioned the GW minotaurs a while back in the thread. Most agree that they are not as good as some produced by another manufacturer (Avatars of War in this case) - with something as archetypal as a minotaur, players should be free to sub in that AoW mini into a game (outside of a GW store - that goes without saying) and feel absolutely no prejudice whatsoever for doing so. In fact, contrary to that I think it's something that should be encouraged just to get a bit more variety into peoples forces and so they can widen their horizons a bit - something which I think is generally healthy for whichever hobby/pastime you are talking about, although I realise that's just my own opinion on the matter.

I don't use GW paints, should I not be able to field my models? (well, I have a couple, but the vast majority of my paint collection is from another company).

I still have to buy GW's rulebooks, because that *is* the game.

 DarknessEternal wrote:

timd wrote:

 DarknessEternal wrote:

timd wrote:
GW "loyalists" are the only people that have this big issue with third party models, nobody else gives a carp. The rest of the gaming world are happy to use third party models if they fit within their chosen game.

Hahahah, hah, haha, no.

Try to use GW models in a Warmahordes game in your non-regular store. They're just as looney about it.

Are you talking about a tournament? If its a tournament sponsored by Privateer Press, then I don't see a problem with the Press Ganger enforcing the PP only rule. But that is not what we are talking about here. We are talking about general use of third party minis. There has been no discussion of using third party minis in sanctioned tounament play in this thread.

So then who specifically is loony about it? The store owner? Unlikely... Another player in a pickup game? If he's that anal you are probably better of not playing with him. Random secret agent Privateer Press enforcers? I've never seen the kind of anti-third party invective seen on Dakka from anyone but GW gamers. Its simply not an issue in the rest of the miniatures gaming community.

Where did I mention tournaments? It looks like nowhere. So clearly I didn't mean tournaments.

So answer the question then: Who specifically is loony about it?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 plastictrees wrote:


Sure. It's "not an issue" because there is no substantial third party market for other games. WH/40k players aren't crazed loons, they just happen to be playing the games that third party manufacturers are producing product for.
No one is making a successful business producing not-war jacks because there's no interest. Tournament play is enormously important to WM/H and most players adhere to PPs conversion rules in store play. PP has also only just started producing the multi part kits that make bits manufacture feasible.
Claiming that only GW games players are the ones commenting on this is pretty disingenuous. It's only a significant issue in GW games.

(this is in the context of sci-fi/fantasy TTGs)

Disingenuous? No, its simple fact. Its only an issue with a certain kind of GW fan. These fans are ONLY ones who complain about third party products. Have never seen fans of ANY other game complain about third party products and you know what, there are third party products out there for any kind of TT wargame you can name.

The issue is no more significant now than it has been throughout the history of TT wargaming. The bigger manufacturers make a line of miniatures and the smaller manufacturers fill in the gaps that the big guys don't cover. It has always been this way. There may be more money at stake now because TT wargaming has grown tremendously since the 1980s, but the issue is exactly the same - a non-issue.

I specified ALL tabletop miniatures gaming, not just sci-fi and fantasy. Looking at the broader picture gives a lot more perspective on the issue. People have been using third party products all through the history of TT wargaming because one minis manufacturer could never cover the complete range of miniatures that people want. When people can't find the mini they want they start looking for other sources.

When I started doing WWII in 1/72 scale in the early '80s, there were basically three manufacturers: AMT/ESCI/ERTL which made many types of infantry in 1/72, Airfix which made a few vehiles and infantry in 1/76 scale and Fujimi which made a few vehicles in 1/72. If you wanted say a German 50mm anti-tank gun or any other obscure vehicle or gun, you needed to start looking at the few small guys making metal kits of the obscurer stuff, yes, from the third party manufacturers. This same kind of thing applied to any historical time period: one company could not make everything so the smaller guys were needed to fill in the gaps. Sci-fi and fantasy games are no different.

The same thing was true when 40K first started up (played my first game of 40K in February of 1988); if you wanted a large vehicle (bigger than a land speeder or a dreadnought), you had to make it yourself or have someone make it for you because GW did not sell anything bigger than a land speeder or a dreadnought. There were cool pics of a Rhino and a Land Raider in Rogue Trader but you could not initially buy one from GW, so if you wanted one you had to go to a third party, either yourself or someone who could build one for you.

The third party "issue" is not an issue and has never even been an issue. There have always been third party manufacturers and there will always be third party manufacturers.

T

I actually think this thread is predicated on a flawed concept ie. that a line needs to be drawn at all in regards to third party miniatures. If we reject that premise and ask “Why does a line need to be drawn in the first place?” then what are we left with?

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
I actually think this thread is predicated on a flawed concept ie. that a line needs to be drawn at all in regards to third party miniatures. If we reject that premise and ask “Why does a line need to be drawn in the first place?” then what are we left with?

Excellent job of skipping the intermediate issues and getting right to the crux of the issue.

I agree. I don't think that this is an area where a "moral" line should be drawn. As long as laws aren't being broken then no line needs to to be drawn.

Evidently, however the OP disagrees.

Agree: a line should never be drawn in the first place.

It'll be sad world if I can only use DnD minis for DnD. 8 years ago I thought that they're the best miniatures ever. Now I know they're crap.

Eilif wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
I actually think this thread is predicated on a flawed concept ie. that a line needs to be drawn at all in regards to third party miniatures. If we reject that premise and ask “Why does a line need to be drawn in the first place?” then what are we left with?

Excellent job of skipping the intermediate issues and getting right to the crux of the issue.

I agree. I don't think that this is an area where a "moral" line should be drawn. As long as laws aren't being broken then no line needs to to be drawn.

Evidently, however the OP disagrees.

Lol, I thought that most of us were arguing that already

Eilif wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
I actually think this thread is predicated on a flawed concept ie. that a line needs to be drawn at all in regards to third party miniatures. If we reject that premise and ask “Why does a line need to be drawn in the first place?” then what are we left with?

Excellent job of skipping the intermediate issues and getting right to the crux of the issue.

I agree. I don't think that this is an area where a "moral" line should be drawn. As long as laws aren't being broken then no line needs to to be drawn.

Evidently, however the OP disagrees.

Well, when GW ran very good events, there was a line for those who wished to participate, the same way there is a line now for PP. When there was a line, there was a much smaller market for 3rd party parts as people were de-incentivized to use non-GW parts. This was the reality of people who gamed 10 years ago and attended the frequent and local GW supported RTTs and well-run GTs.

Since GW stopped official event support and the organized play went 'indy' that is when the 3rd market for GW models really exploded. 10 Years ago, I had to convert simply to keep my models legal. I had a valid reason to sculpt 20 pirate hats opposed to buying some 3rd party heads. Now with an open indy circuit, I don't have to worry about having models which I can't use at events like before.

But there are lines, some that people are rabid to cross, like illegal recasts and lines people choose not to cross like the PP requirement for official models for organized play. If your goal is to participate in official PP events, you have a reason to not replace models with stand-ins. if anything, PP has really kept the 3rd party market at bay by learning from GW's mistakes by having visible event support, not making 'rules' without models, writing rules with limited models so there are not a lot of options which require models or conversions. PP has basically made an environment that starves the need or want for third party models.

I think that this is an issue for gaming systems with corporate sponsored organized play. GW left that arena long ago and doesn't look like it is going back towards to being the central source in tourneys anytime soon.

Someone brought up the new 28mm Dystopian Wars models as stand ins for Warmachine... They don't fit in at all with the aesthetic of the game.. I haven't seen prices, but I'd be curious to see/bet they would be similar.

Though some of the human based models, might be interesting in a Cygnar army.

Moronic Nonsense wrote:I undestand your postion on gw orcs, and I would be happy to play with you, even if you use the mantic orcs. but here we fall into one of my exception case. mantic made these orcs for their own game, not to replace gw models. It is up to the customer on how they are used.

If it is up to the customer how they are used, why is it no longer up to the customer if the manufacturer happens to not have a rules set? Why does it then become wrong? If they put out rules, it's up to the customer, but if they just make miniatures, then suddenly it's wrong?

Later you mentioned intent, as if the intent of someone who makes something has anything at all to do with the intent of the people who buy and use it. And what if they're fooling you with their intent? What if a company makes a set of rules just as a clever scheme to fool you into thinking their miniatures are intended for those rules when their true target audience is the player base of another game by another company? How can you ever know?

H.B.M.C. wrote:I actually think this thread is predicated on a flawed concept ie. that a line needs to be drawn at all in regards to third party miniatures. If we reject that premise and ask “Why does a line need to be drawn in the first place?” then what are we left with?

Great post.

OP: I'm sorry, I'm too distracted by your username to comment correctly

nkelsch wrote:
Well, when GW ran very good events, there was a line for those who wished to participate...

Yeah but those are tournament rules. As I said before, no one is disputing those and everyone understands their purpose. The OP is asking about drawing a moral line against 3rd party makers, and at what point that line should be drawn.

I reject that entire premise, as I don’t think a line needs to be drawn in the first place. It has nothing to do with tournament structure rules, which every tournament has, and everyone follows.

And this isn’t about recasts either, so don’t cast that light on what the OP is trying to say.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Yeah but those are tournament rules. As I said before, no one is disputing those and everyone understands their purpose. The OP is asking about drawing a moral line against 3rd party makers, and at what point that line should be drawn.

I think for some the line is a little blurred, though. There's been a perception that dates back to GW actually running events that even if you weren't playing in tournaments your army had to be 'tournament legal' to be valid. This is one of the things that put people off Forgeworld, or optional rules published in White Dwarf... Many tournaments (and most GW-run ones) didn't them, and so they were not 'proper' for use, even if the player had no intention of ever entering a tournament. The same would apply to using third party miniatures.

This wasn't a universal attitude, certainly... but it was quite common, and I wonder how many gamers have come out of it with a vague idea that using non-GW minis is wrong without ever actually stopping to consider just why that should be the case.

 RiTides wrote:
OP: I'm sorry, I'm too distracted by your username to comment correctly

Well then don't comment. I've already explained in here why my name is what it is, deal with it.

I am happy to see this debate roll out. I've seen a lot of slightly different views on where to place that line as well as some who want no line at all, and I respect all your opinions. I will admit, I favor GW stuff very heavily. (I would play other games, but no one near plays anything else). But after this conversation, some of you might be convincing me to slack off a little on my view of 3rd party companies. Those of you who took a very hostile stance, or posted rude sarcastic comments, you weren't helpful at all. Insulting somebody in a debate is a definitive way to make sure that won't listen or take into consideration anything you say. but anyways, Thank you all for your time. I'll keep on reading this thread here to see how the conversation goes.

I don't mind counts as models, especially if they're awesome. Ditto scratch builds. Do they represent the model they're standing in for well? Does their weapons load out at least vaguely resemble the same? If so, carry on by all means.

 Sean_OBrien wrote:

 Pacific wrote:
Battlefront miniatures have done the same thing with Galeforce 9, and the 'Battlefield in a box range'.

Those are actually the same company...sort of like the difference between GW and Forge World...but the general sentiment is good.

They were separate companies when GF9 started doing the 'Battlefield in a box' range though, only being bought over by Battlefront later and being further integrated, but the symbiotic relationship was already there.

Moronic Nonsense wrote:

 RiTides wrote:
OP: I'm sorry, I'm too distracted by your username to comment correctly

Well then don't comment. I've already explained in here why my name is what it is, deal with it.

I am happy to see this debate roll out. I've seen a lot of slightly different views on where to place that line as well as some who want no line at all, and I respect all your opinions. I will admit, I favor GW stuff very heavily. (I would play other games, but no one near plays anything else). But after this conversation, some of you might be convincing me to slack off a little on my view of 3rd party companies. Those of you who took a very hostile stance, or posted rude sarcastic comments, you weren't helpful at all. Insulting somebody in a debate is a definitive way to make sure that won't listen or take into consideration anything you say. but anyways, Thank you all for your time. I'll keep on reading this thread here to see how the conversation goes.

Actually I think that the view is this by most people:
In tournaments, you follow that company's rules. If they say only their models, then ONLY their models.
Outside of tournaments, who gives a feth?
On the issue of where the line could/should be drawn: 3rd party model makers are okay, unless they're taking the sprues and recasting it (some people are okay with this, which is why I said most people)

This is not an attack on you OP, but you seem to be the ONLY one that has an issue with 3rd party models being used. It's fine that you play mostly GW games, but to say that a company can't make a model that they think will sell is just ludicrous :-/ As it has been pointed out, the almighty giant of the HHHobby, GW, started out as a 3rd party model maker when they were created.

I guess I'm having a hard time understanding your views, and yes I realize part of your issue is with the intent of the model being made, but you don't know the intent of CHS, you can only infer.