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.

My entire army is made of conversions and a significant part of it is scratchbuilt (including resin sculpts by myself). It's part budget, but mostly artistic fun (I play chaos and orks). For example, five of my "bikers" are actually riders build using chaos marines, chaos marauders and monsters from the Doom boardgame (q.v. minis on the right of this image : http://www.dakkadakka.com/gallery/367042-Deathguard%207th%20Company%20exiles%20%28tainted%20loyalists%29%3A%20Church%20of%20the%20Emperor%20Revenant%20%28Terminators%29.html)

However, since I take pains to have everything look very original and paint it to a high standard (as much as I'm able, including pupils), I've never received anything but very positive comments and curiosity from other players. So I suppose it's a question of approach and attitude mostly to scratchbuilding and not just using chess pieces for infantry and shoe boxes for tanks...

I do paper craft modular terrain to wargaming and rpg. Nothing more.

Does kitbashing count as scratch build?

I really like making them, and so far not one person has objected to it.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

nkelsch wrote:
I see a distinct difference between your Crassus and the OP's models. Your model is complete, painted and passes rule of cool.

See this doesn't make any damned sense.

The two pics the OP posted have wonderful representations of the actual 40K models. The Crassus doesn't really look like a Crassus (same basic shape) and has a few plastic weapons stuck on. Yet you see the Crassus as 'complete', whereas the others are not?

Paper models with inkjet printed details is not a complete model. It fails rule of cool.

The Crassus is way more complete, detailed, made out of real materials and actually painted and showed effort. An unpainted paper craft model is an incomplete model. It passes rule of cool. It is heads above the papercraft model in all aspects even if it lacks extreme detail. It is still a good scratch build.

The paper craft models would not be allowed in any events, and would be barley tolerated at any FLGS if not outright banned. They are not complete models and someone using them is not a a customer unless the FLGS sells reams of paper and printer ink. Last time I checked, you can't play war hammer at Staples.

Live and die by rule of cool. As long as the people and places you play at accept your 'standard' for models, what's the problem? Paper craft is not welcome at any store or event I have played at for about a decade now.



Automatically Appended Next Post:
And that chaos kitbashes rhino passes rule of cool to me. May not fly at a GW store but should fly at most FLGS. Perfectly legal for events as well. Looks cool too so that helps.

For me, it needs to be at least similar in size, and actually have some effort put into it. as was said by OP, a cardboard cutout with some guns drawn on is not acceptable.

Gosh, we take our hobby quite seriously don't we!

If you ever play against me, I'm fine with most things. Use Assault Marines as Khador Kommandos if you like, I don't really care. Hell, use a base for an Empire Swordman!

After all, we're all playing games. We've all put effort into this little hobby of ours. So what if someone has printed a Rhino out from the internet? It takes effort to glue all the bits together. And what if he's planning to upgrade the model in the not too distant future? This hobby is all about fun, and taking the fun out of some else's hobby is just cruel.

 ExNoctemNacimur wrote:
That goes without saying really. What he means is that if I'm playing an army of Vikings for SAGA, I may not just use Gripping Beast - I may use Wargames Factory models, Warlord Games etc. So why can't 40k be the same if you use appropriate models?

Go for it! A bit hard to find someone else who manufactures Tyranids or Space Marines though.

 DX3 wrote:
Your papercraft looks better than most of the unpainted, half put together, proxy-laden armies I play outside of tournaments.

I'd have no problem with it.

This. Well put, highly detailed scratch vehicles (and troops for the matter) are leaps and bounds better than shoddily assembled and painted and hordes of "counts as" proxies. These look like what they're supposed to represent, and I can easily identify them for game purposes. Granted, I will not put up with shoeboxes or lumps of putty parading as vehicle, but nothing irks me more than trying to remember that among official models "these" are actually "these with - -", that's a bigger offender to me. So props to those papercraft and game on!

 Kaldor wrote:
So no one would mind me using barbie dolls in a WWII game?

How about using my Spartan Hoplites in a Naval game?

Red herring x2.

You knew what he meant Kaldor. Don't be obtuse.

And that chaos kitbashes rhino passes rule of cool to me

Thanks, but its a vindicator. I was hoping people would be able to tell it was by the huge cannon. I might have failed.

I wouldn't mind Kaldor using barbie dolls in a 40k game. It would fit with the mickey mouse rules.

I don't play it anymore - so the likelihood of us ever meeting across a 40k table is soooo slim to be as close to 'never gonna happen' as it is possible to be.

Aslong as it's the same size, and looks like it had a good amount of effort put into it, sure!

If it's crappy card and looks absolutely awful, I'd still probably play against you, but I'd probably not be very polite about it.

 Kaldor wrote:

 ExNoctemNacimur wrote:
That goes without saying really. What he means is that if I'm playing an army of Vikings for SAGA, I may not just use Gripping Beast - I may use Wargames Factory models, Warlord Games etc. So why can't 40k be the same if you use appropriate models?

Go for it! A bit hard to find someone else who manufactures Tyranids or Space Marines though.

This is not true. There are many, many alternate models for space marines and aliens.

Space Marines:
BTD "Starship marines"
RAFM "reaction marines"
Alternative "Armies Crusaders"
Spartan Games marines

Tyranids (aka geiger'esque insectoid aliens)
Kryomek aliens
SST bugs
Defiance games Bugs
Most anything from here: http://dawnofthelead.com/2010/10/19/alien-miniatures-a-review/

And that's just off the top of my head...



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Deathshead420 wrote:

And that chaos kitbashes rhino passes rule of cool to me

Thanks, but its a vindicator. I was hoping people would be able to tell it was by the huge cannon. I might have failed.

I think you succeeded. It's not entirely uncommon for folks to inadvernently use the term rhino when referring to a model based on something that uses the rhino chassis.

Out of curiosity which German tank did you use and was it 1/48 or 1/35 scale?

Got any in-progress or pre-paint shots?

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

nkelsch wrote:
I see a distinct difference between your Crassus and the OP's models. Your model is complete, painted and passes rule of cool.

See this doesn't make any damned sense.

The two pics the OP posted have wonderful representations of the actual 40K models. The Crassus doesn't really look like a Crassus (same basic shape) and has a few plastic weapons stuck on. Yet you see the Crassus as 'complete', whereas the others are not?

...That would be kind of subjective. See, I don't particularly like the crassus - but it looks okay to me. I wouldn't be wild about it but well, sure, go ahead
Those papercraft vehicles in the OP however - gah... I really can't stand the look of them. I mean, if OP likes them, and his opponents do too, have fun - sure! But for me, even an unpainted plastic model has more appeal than those things. (Perhaps I go more by shapes than by colours? I dislike any 2D terrain be it RPG maps or game boards or whatever as well - same reason: too flat for me. I believe that isn't exactly the case for you, as dakka's maps/game boards collector in chief - for what I've gathered - ? that might explain!)

The point being: this is going to be a subjective call. I probably wouldn't refuse playing against them if OP was a fun opponent which from his posts, he seems to be - but it'd be despite those models. Not such a great opponent? Hey, good reason to avoid having to play
Really, I think that IRL you're basically going to encounter perhaps 10% who would judge the actual model - 90% is going to be more interested in the quality of the game/opponent.

I personaly do not have a problem with papercraft, chipboard and glue, diy, or scratch built models. play with whatever you have or can afford. The whole point is to play the game and have fun. If someone beats you with one of these armies, then get off of your high horse and buy that man a rhino. He obviously has a future in the game and i would want him on my side. As for the guy that was bragging about having 2k worth of points, remind him he still only has $5.00 worth of cardboard.

Knight of Blood wrote:
As for the guy that was bragging about having 2k worth of points, remind him he still only has $5.00 worth of cardboard.

Really? Indulge my curiosity for a second. How would you do this without coming across as a complete donkey cave?

Out of curiosity which German tank did you use

looks very much like a hetzer to me.

 Tannhauser42 wrote:
I'd rather play against a well made and colored papercraft tank like the ones in the first post than play against a badly painted real model any day of the week. It's no different than the people who scratchbuild their own thunderhawks and titans with plasticard, cardboard, and extra bits. And for those who think it takes no time and effort to build a paper model, it took me nearly an hour just to cut, fold, glue, and tape together just the feet for a Warhound titan. I gave up after that point, too much work to finish the project.

^ This. I dont mind as long as there is effort put into making the model. I would rather play his paper craft vehicles that took time and effort to make than have someone just simply do a bad conversion or a lazily done proxy. But its all in the eye of the Beholder.


Now to the OP: I would accept any game you put down your TARDIS as a vehicle.

I have done some papercraft work, it's not as easy as everyone thinks. One tank can take as long or longer than a similar plastic model. Personally, I have no problem with scratch built models because I understand the necessities of life. Bills first, then other things. That being said, I don't appreciate crappy workmanship. I'm not talking about a kid and their first attempts at converting/scratch builds. I'm talking about the"tissue box with the paper towel tube" Baneblade. I really like the crafters who build the models and take the time to do their own paint jobs. I plan on doing some papercraft Hydras for my IG because I can't afford the FW ones. Some day maybe, if I find a good deal, but not right now.

aidangunn wrote:
I have done some papercraft work, it's not as easy as everyone thinks. One tank can take as long or longer than a similar plastic model.

Especially if you are designing your own.
Just counting the time I took to design this model, I could have easily earned the money for, assembled, and painted at least one of the plastic models.

...Okay, that one I'd actually not mind playing against at all - really well done!

 Deathshead420 wrote:
Does kitbashing count as scratch build?

I really like making them, and so far not one person has objected to it.

That looks like a Hetzer body and it looks pretty damned good to me. Kit Bashing is a form of a conversion piece Scratch Building is basic raw materials and/or basic components to make something with it.

Regardless great job on the piece.

With the OP models, I have no problems with it. If you put effort into it, and it is very close to the dimensions it is supposed to be, I am not only fine with it, I encourage it.

I would rather see that every day than a grey hull that is "modular" because they haven't finished assembling it. A good papercraft model looks good on the table and I have no problems with it.

Thanks a lot, it is a 1/35 hetzer . I do have some WIP shots somewhere. It was for my first army, then got stripped and spikeyed up repainted BL colors.

Sorry, but if i can look at a model and tell immediately what it is, it passes my test. I don't care if it's out of paper, metal or plastic. If i can look at a papercraft Landraider and say, "Yup, that player put some TLC into a construction and that's definitely a Landraider, with all the appropriate weapons and everything", than that's obviously what it is.

Saying I can't make a model out of paper because that's "crap", but saying I can do that same thing out of sheets of plastic is the stupidest thing I have ever heard.

And sorry to dissuade all the Red Herrings and Strawman arguments - a papercraft landraider being used as a Landraider is not the same as using a barbie as an Eldar Guardian. Try again with something that's not some obtuse overreaction that doesn't make sense.

(To no one in particular) Not allowing something like in the OP is nothing more than unadulterated elitism. You are trying to impose your personal values on somebody else's hobby. There is absolutely nothing in the least about the examples that would confuse a game in progress. Calling them "crap" because you don't like them is exactly the same as refusing to play someone because you think their paintjobs on their actual GW models aren't up to your "standard" of what should be on the table.


To Deathshead420 and MalikDraco: Those models are really cool! Good job!

 AegisGrimm wrote:
Sorry, but if i can look at a model and tell immediately what it is, it passes my test. I don't care if it's out of paper, metal or plastic. If i can look at a papercraft Landraider and say, "Yup, that player put some TLC into a construction and that's definitely a Landraider, with all the appropriate weapons and everything", than that's obviously what it is.

Saying I can't make a model out of paper because that's "crap", but saying I can do that same thing out of sheets of plastic is the stupidest thing I have ever heard.

And sorry to dissuade all the Red Herrings and Strawman arguments - a papercraft landraider being used as a Landraider is not the same as using a barbie as an Eldar Guardian. Try again with something that's not some obtuse overreaction that doesn't make sense.

(To no one in particular) Not allowing something like in the OP is nothing more than unadulterated elitism. You are trying to impose your personal values on somebody else's hobby. There is absolutely nothing in the least about the examples that would confuse a game in progress. Calling them "crap" because you don't like them is exactly the same as refusing to play someone because you think their paintjobs on their actual GW models aren't up to your "standard" of what should be on the table.


To Deathshead420 and MalikDraco: Those models are really cool! Good job!

agreed.

I would expect it to be up to the quality of the rest of the army. However good or bad that may be.

Eilif wrote:

 Kaldor wrote:

 ExNoctemNacimur wrote:
That goes without saying really. What he means is that if I'm playing an army of Vikings for SAGA, I may not just use Gripping Beast - I may use Wargames Factory models, Warlord Games etc. So why can't 40k be the same if you use appropriate models?

Go for it! A bit hard to find someone else who manufactures Tyranids or Space Marines though.

This is not true. There are many, many alternate models for space marines and aliens.

Space Marines:
BTD "Starship marines"
RAFM "reaction marines"
Alternative "Armies Crusaders"
Spartan Games marines

Tyranids (aka geiger'esque insectoid aliens)
Kryomek aliens
SST bugs
Defiance games Bugs
Most anything from here: http://dawnofthelead.com/2010/10/19/alien-miniatures-a-review/

And that's just off the top of my head...

Ah, but see, none of those are aesthetically appropriate for use in any given 40K faction. You could maybe stretch some of them as a counts-as, but GW have gone out of their way to create a unique aesthetic for each faction. You could sub in some generic sci-fi figures of the appropriate scale, but that would be the same as a historical gamer running Napoleonic French as WWII Germans. After all, it's only some different clothes and a similar looking gun, so what's the harm, right?

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
You knew what he meant Kaldor. Don't be obtuse.

Try to keep up, darling.

 Kaldor wrote:


Ah, but see, none of those are aesthetically appropriate for use in any given 40K faction. You could maybe stretch some of them as a counts-as, but GW have gone out of their way to steal a unique aesthetic for each faction. .

fixed it for you.

I love playing against odd stuff so the toaster would be awesome to play against as well as the papercraft stuff.

 warriorpriest wrote:

 Kaldor wrote:


Ah, but see, none of those are aesthetically appropriate for use in any given 40K faction. You could maybe stretch some of them as a counts-as, but GW have gone out of their way to steal a unique aesthetic for each faction. .

fixed it for you.



In some cases, certainly. My point was simply that GW are the only company that makes Tau or Eldar or Space Marines, while many companies make historical figures. So suggesting that historical gamers are somehow more laid back because they're happy to use miniatures from any manufacturer, while GW gamers are up tight because they only like using models from GW is a bit silly.