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.

The hetzer to vindicator kitbash is fantastic. Immediately obvious as well.

The poll results show that only a small minority take issue with scratch built models, but the issue is that they seem to be a vocal minority.

Nothing whatsoever to do with the leading nature of the poll option, of course

and even the leading option requires 'some effort be put into creating it'. Nice. I don't think anyone disagrees - we're arguing over how much effort.

But by all means, go build your strawman!

 Kaldor wrote:

 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.

I know years back in another forum/yahoo group was something someone posted about how space marines and eldar where very close to some SciFI book/books/movie or something of the sort. I cannot quote the source as it was years ago. The Tau models yes as far as I have been able to to tell are 100% their idea. I am glad you thought my little word change was funny. It was meant to lighten the mood after all.

Back on topic I saw plans for some of the papercraft tanks and man......they are extensive work.

 agustin wrote:


The poll results show that only a small minority take issue with scratch built models, but the issue is that they seem to be a vocal minority.

The poll is incredibly worthless simply because the OP was asking about Papercraft not Scratchbuilding.

Scratchbuilds and conversions are allowed in most tourneys and events and almost universally accepted.

Papercraft, a subset of that is almost universally NOT allowed at most tourneys and events and almost universally NOT accepted at FLGS.

And even Papercraft has levels... A detailed papercraft tank may be welcome but 2D paper printouts of figures may not be welcome by the same people.

So worthless poll is worthless... And trying to say that acceptance of the most detailed plasticard scratchbuild or well-executed conversion of a 3rd party tank means universal acceptance of a Papercraft tank is misleading because that is not reality and is a misleading conclusion to pull from the poll.

nkelsch wrote:

 agustin wrote:


The poll results show that only a small minority take issue with scratch built models, but the issue is that they seem to be a vocal minority.

The poll is incredibly worthless simply because the OP was asking about Papercraft not Scratchbuilding.

Scratchbuilds and conversions are allowed in most tourneys and events and almost universally accepted.

Papercraft, a subset of that is almost universally NOT allowed at most tourneys and events and almost universally NOT accepted at FLGS.

And even Papercraft has levels... A detailed papercraft tank may be welcome but 2D paper printouts of figures may not be welcome by the same people.

So worthless poll is worthless... And trying to say that acceptance of the most detailed plasticard scratchbuild or well-executed conversion of a 3rd party tank means universal acceptance of a Papercraft tank is misleading because that is not reality and is a misleading conclusion to pull from the poll.

Taken from Wikipedia:

Scratch building is the process of building a scale model "from scratch", i.e. from raw materials, rather than building it from a commercial kit, kitbashing or buying it pre-assembled.

Scratch building is easiest if original plans of the subject exist; however, many models have been built from photographs by measuring a known object in the photograph and extrapolating the rest of the dimensions. The necessary parts are then fashioned out of a suitable material, such as wood, plastic, plaster, clay, metal, polymer clay, or even paper, and then assembled.

So yes the poll does aplly to the case of the OP scratchbuilt papercraft tanks.

 Bolognesus wrote:
Nothing whatsoever to do with the leading nature of the poll option, of course

and even the leading option requires 'some effort be put into creating it'. Nice. I don't think anyone disagrees - we're arguing over how much effort.

But by all means, go build your strawman!

Umm. A strawman is an easily defeated argument you falsely represent as belonging to your opponent in a debate or argument.

The only objection you might reasonably have to my post was that I unfairly lumped together those who don't like non-standard models as members of a vocal minority. But at no time did I build an argument and pretend to falsely represent it as being held by others. Did I overgeneralize? Perhaps not as people are very vocal in this very thread.. But if you think I built a strawman, I'll direct you to your closest dictionary.

As for the "effort" question, I say effort is irrelevant. What people really want is results. If someone puts a ton of effort into a hobby project but it still doesn't look good or isn't appropriate in its dimensions as a representation of something in the game rules, the amount of effort is irrelevant. The rule of cool isn't the rule of effort. It's about how cool (and appropriate) the final result actually is.

And if people want better results among the non-standard models they face, they need to ask themselves if a community that is supportive of creativity or one that is critical of non-standard modelling attempts will get them there in the end.

The way to truly transcend this whole debate is to stop playing rules connected with a line of miniatures. Get the rules from one company and miniatures from another. This makes you think about actual representation and completely blows the idea of standard models out of the water. It also frees you from the conflict of interest of selling models as a game design goal.

 warriorpriest wrote:

nkelsch wrote:

 agustin wrote:


The poll results show that only a small minority take issue with scratch built models, but the issue is that they seem to be a vocal minority.

The poll is incredibly worthless simply because the OP was asking about Papercraft not Scratchbuilding.

Scratchbuilds and conversions are allowed in most tourneys and events and almost universally accepted.

Papercraft, a subset of that is almost universally NOT allowed at most tourneys and events and almost universally NOT accepted at FLGS.

And even Papercraft has levels... A detailed papercraft tank may be welcome but 2D paper printouts of figures may not be welcome by the same people.

So worthless poll is worthless... And trying to say that acceptance of the most detailed plasticard scratchbuild or well-executed conversion of a 3rd party tank means universal acceptance of a Papercraft tank is misleading because that is not reality and is a misleading conclusion to pull from the poll.

Taken from Wikipedia:

Scratch building is the process of building a scale model "from scratch", i.e. from raw materials, rather than building it from a commercial kit, kitbashing or buying it pre-assembled.

Scratch building is easiest if original plans of the subject exist; however, many models have been built from photographs by measuring a known object in the photograph and extrapolating the rest of the dimensions. The necessary parts are then fashioned out of a suitable material, such as wood, plastic, plaster, clay, metal, polymer clay, or even paper, and then assembled.

So yes the poll does aplly to the case of the OP scratchbuilt papercraft tanks.

No. Bullcrap. Just because wiki has a definition doesn't change reality on how this particular hobby functions.

A wiki definition won't get your paper craft models allowed at adepticon or convince the FLGS owner to allow you to use it considering it makes you a non customer. It won't make people ignore the distinct differences between kitbashes and other scratch builds.

It doesn't change "rule of cool".

The poll is flawed. You will see way more people accepting of scratch builds and kitbashes than you will of paper craft. Trying to say a Barbie is equal to a kitbash is trying to say a paper craft model is equal to a scratch built model, there are clear differences and some are welcome and some are unwelcome.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
There is also a difference between models made with paintable card stock and printing out a template off your inkjet. While both are paper, one becomes a scratchbuilt model and the other is a paper craft model.

One will be welcome everywhere, the other unwelcome at most events, tourneys and FLGS.

 agustin wrote:
Umm. A strawman is an easily defeated argument you falsely represent as belonging to your opponent in a debate or argument.

Such as failing to notice that about 80% of votes in that poll potentially rule out almost all scratchbuilds, depending on what is 'some level of work' put into them? Glad we agree.
Your next qualifies as consistent in that sense only that it forms a sentence or two.

As for the "effort" question, I say effort is irrelevant

shifting the goalposts again, are we? Try to at least be subtle about it - it helps

As to the rest of your post - I take it that wasn't even directed at me? I fail to see how it qualifies as more than an unrelated rant.

nkelsch wrote:

 warriorpriest wrote:

nkelsch wrote:

 agustin wrote:


The poll results show that only a small minority take issue with scratch built models, but the issue is that they seem to be a vocal minority.

The poll is incredibly worthless simply because the OP was asking about Papercraft not Scratchbuilding.

Scratchbuilds and conversions are allowed in most tourneys and events and almost universally accepted.

Papercraft, a subset of that is almost universally NOT allowed at most tourneys and events and almost universally NOT accepted at FLGS.

And even Papercraft has levels... A detailed papercraft tank may be welcome but 2D paper printouts of figures may not be welcome by the same people.

So worthless poll is worthless... And trying to say that acceptance of the most detailed plasticard scratchbuild or well-executed conversion of a 3rd party tank means universal acceptance of a Papercraft tank is misleading because that is not reality and is a misleading conclusion to pull from the poll.

Taken from Wikipedia:

Scratch building is the process of building a scale model "from scratch", i.e. from raw materials, rather than building it from a commercial kit, kitbashing or buying it pre-assembled.

Scratch building is easiest if original plans of the subject exist; however, many models have been built from photographs by measuring a known object in the photograph and extrapolating the rest of the dimensions. The necessary parts are then fashioned out of a suitable material, such as wood, plastic, plaster, clay, metal, polymer clay, or even paper, and then assembled.

So yes the poll does aplly to the case of the OP scratchbuilt papercraft tanks.

No. Bullcrap. Just because wiki has a definition doesn't change reality on how this particular hobby functions.

A wiki definition won't get your paper craft models allowed at adepticon or convince the FLGS owner to allow you to use it considering it makes you a non customer. It won't make people ignore the distinct differences between kitbashes and other scratch builds.

It doesn't change "rule of cool".

The poll is flawed. You will see way more people accepting of scratch builds and kitbashes than you will of paper craft. Trying to say a Barbie is equal to a kitbash is trying to say a paper craft model is equal to a scratch built model, there are clear differences and some are welcome and some are unwelcome.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
There is also a difference between models made with paintable card stock and printing out a template off your inkjet. While both are paper, one becomes a scratchbuilt model and the other is a paper craft model.

One will be welcome everywhere, the other unwelcome at most events, tourneys and FLGS.

I think you need to go back and read the original post. We are not talking tourneys or events. He was just talking about how people feel in general about various scratchbuilds. Scratchbuilds are scratchbuilds. You cannot change the definition of the word just to suit your purposes.

As far as FLGSs not allowing papercraft it is good to know that you have spoken to every store in the world on what they would allow. You seem to have missed a few of them as I know a few places that would allow a papercraft model. I use to organize events at my FLGS back in 3rd edition and I would have allowed it and so would have the owner of the store given that most of the people that played in the events i ran spent money to play in said event and was regular customers at the store. I know one person that does papercraft and paints them and he was allowed to play with one tank without any complaints for the other players.

Are far as the rule or cool.... that is totally subjective. and it seems you feel papercraft is uncool. that is your choice but again you view on the the poll does not change the fact of what I previously stated.

 warriorpriest wrote:

Are far as the rule or cool.... that is totally subjective. and it seems you feel papercraft is uncool. that is your choice but again you view on the the poll does not change the fact of what I previously stated.

Most people willing to play against scratchbuilds does not mean most people are willing to play against papercraft.

And considering there are distinctions drawn where scratchbuilt and painted models made out of plasticard and cardstock are allowed by papercraft printed off an inkjet printer and assembled would not be, it shows the poll is flawed and you cannot simply say 'all scratchbuilts are ok' because not all of them are ok.

The poll options are incredibly inaccurate and anyone referencing the flawed poll is also flawed.

And for you allowing Papercraft in your events, some people allow unassembled and unpainted models as well... makes those either casual events or poorly run events, and people DO choose not to attend those events because of the lowered standards. That is totally cool as people should attempt to play with like-minded players and make standards to please the target audience.

Painted Kitbashes and Painted Scratchbuilds meet a 'standard' which papercraft does not which means they are not treated the same regardless if people try to lump them all together for universal acceptance.

As long as people play with like-minded gamers, all is well. When someone tries to RAW argue their way into a tourney which allows scratchbuilds using a wiki definition with their inkjet papercraft models trying to say there is *NO* difference between them, that doesn't work.

nkelsch wrote:

 warriorpriest wrote:

Are far as the rule or cool.... that is totally subjective. and it seems you feel papercraft is uncool. that is your choice but again you view on the the poll does not change the fact of what I previously stated.

Most people willing to play against scratchbuilds does not mean most people are willing to play against papercraft.

And considering there are distinctions drawn where scratchbuilt and painted models made out of plasticard and cardstock are allowed by papercraft printed off an inkjet printer and assembled would not be, it shows the poll is flawed and you cannot simply say 'all scratchbuilts are ok' because not all of them are ok.

The poll options are incredibly inaccurate and anyone referencing the flawed poll is also flawed.

And for you allowing Papercraft in your events, some people allow unassembled and unpainted models as well... makes those either casual events or poorly run events, and people DO choose not to attend those events because of the lowered standards. That is totally cool as people should attempt to play with like-minded players and make standards to please the target audience.

Painted Kitbashes and Painted Scratchbuilds meet a 'standard' which papercraft does not which means they are not treated the same regardless if people try to lump them all together for universal acceptance.

As long as people play with like-minded gamers, all is well. When someone tries to RAW argue their way into a tourney which allows scratchbuilds using a wiki definition with their inkjet papercraft models trying to say there is *NO* difference between them, that doesn't work.

Then I guess we can find no middle ground and you will always have your mind set on the fact papercraft is not scratchbuild regardless of the definition of the word. .Changing 'your' definition of what scratchbuilding is still does not make the poll invalid. Only invalid in your eyes.

 warriorpriest wrote:


Then I guess we can find no middle ground and you will always have your mind set on the fact papercraft is not scratchbuild regardless of the definition of the word. .Changing 'your' definition of what scratchbuilding is still does not make the poll invalid. Only invalid in your eyes.

If the poll agreed there are different types and some are acceptable and some are not, then maybe the poll would be valid.

Lots of people have commented on the thread that some scratchbuilds are ok, and some are not. Hence "Rule of Cool"

A dictionary definition and an invalid poll does no one any good if it doesn't meet reality. Make a real poll that distinguishes the clear differences between papercraft and other types of scratchbuilding like Kitbashes and plasticard builds and see the difference.

nkelsch wrote:

 warriorpriest wrote:


Then I guess we can find no middle ground and you will always have your mind set on the fact papercraft is not scratchbuild regardless of the definition of the word. .Changing 'your' definition of what scratchbuilding is still does not make the poll invalid. Only invalid in your eyes.

If the poll agreed there are different types and some are acceptable and some are not, then maybe the poll would be valid.

Lots of people have commented on the thread that some scratchbuilds are ok, and some are not. Hence "Rule of Cool"

A dictionary definition and an invalid poll does no one any good if it doesn't meet reality. Make a real poll that distinguishes the clear differences between papercraft and other types of scratchbuilding like Kitbashes and plasticard builds and see the difference.

Again no middle ground so I will take the high road and discontinue this discussion as your argument is based solely on your definition of what scratchbuilding is or isn't. It has been a pleasure though to discuss the topic with you, but i am butting out as I know these things can get heated and that is not my intent. I look forward to the next time.

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.

Still better than having $400 worth of plastic and resin.

Deathshead420 wrote: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.

Spoiler:

Thanks for the info and pics. It really looks spot on, the size is right and appears to be a fairly simple conversion (no dig on your model intended). Maybe I should make a couple of Vindicators this way when I get around to making my RT-marine army.

Kaldor wrote:

Eilif wrote:
[
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?.

We're going to have to agree to disagree here. First of all, we're not talking about historical outfits, we're talking about a sci-fantasy world that is far more diverse in it's representation thoughout it's existance that the current 6th edition range of miniatures would suggest.

Second, There are differences, but there are alot of folks who would see enough similarities between GW Tyranids, and other designs that are similarly Geiger-derived as being more than close enough in asthetic.

As for Marines, I would make the same argument that they are more than similar enough (often because they are intended to be so) to stand in for GW products.

You make a good point that GW has tried to create a unique and cohesive asthetic over the years, but when you look back over the history of most 40k faction miniatures line, a unique asthetic is much harder to pin down. Space Marines for example as produced by GW between 1987 and 2012 represent a rather large range of design features, yet all are GW-cannon and GW-game-legal. There are marines produced in the RT era that are far less similar to current designs (and visa versa) than they are to the lines I showed. In fact many of the alternate space marine lines out there could be easily mistaken by current players as RT era miniatures.

Eilif wrote:
We're going to have to agree to disagree here. First of all, we're not talking about historical outfits, we're talking about a sci-fantasy world that is far more diverse in it's representation thoughout it's existance that the current 6th edition range of miniatures would suggest.

Second, There are differences, but there are alot of folks who would see enough similarities between GW Tyranids, and other designs that are similarly Geiger-derived as being more than close enough in asthetic.

As for Marines, I would make the same argument that they are more than similar enough (often because they are intended to be so) to stand in for GW products.

You make a good point that GW has tried to create a unique and cohesive asthetic over the years, but when you look back over the history of most 40k faction miniatures line, a unique asthetic is much harder to pin down. Space Marines for example as produced by GW between 1987 and 2012 represent a rather large range of design features, yet all are GW-cannon and GW-game-legal. There are marines produced in the RT era that are far less similar to current designs (and visa versa) than they are to the lines I showed. In fact many of the alternate space marine lines out there could be easily mistaken by current players as RT era miniatures.

The only point I was trying to make is that while you can get models that looke like GW stuff, it still isn't GW stuff. A generic alien is not a Tyranid, despite looking similar, and a generic space marine is not a Space Marine despite looking very close. For instance, Scibors Space Knights are the spitting image of Space Marines, but they are still different.

When you compare that to historical figures, the differences are important. The style of the clothing, the shape of the weapon, the type of hat that your model is wearing is all important. I can't just run American Civil War troops in my Napoleonic games, despite how similar the two ranges look. I mean, I can, but it would be proxying and in my experience historical and GW gamers are both pretty accepting of short term proxying solutions.

 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.

Those are probably the second and third most easily-proxied ranges/armies, after Imperial Guard.

 scipio.au 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.

Those are probably the second and third most easily-proxied ranges/armies, after Imperial Guard.

My point though, is that they would be proxies. As much as using Medieval French troops to represent Ottoman Turks would be. Sure, they're similar looking, but they're not the same. And I don't think it's fair to paint GW gamers as less accepting of proxies or counts-as than historical gamers. If anything, I think the reverse is true.

I apreciate how hard and long someone had to work on it. They arent the most attractive thing on the board but if they are made well I have no issue proxying in stuff. its a game, its about having fun.

I was tempted to click the go back to mud hut one just because it gave me a chuckle.

 Kaldor wrote:

 scipio.au 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.

Those are probably the second and third most easily-proxied ranges/armies, after Imperial Guard.

My point though, is that they would be proxies. As much as using Medieval French troops to represent Ottoman Turks would be. Sure, they're similar looking, but they're not the same. And I don't think it's fair to paint GW gamers as less accepting of proxies or counts-as than historical gamers. If anything, I think the reverse is true.

When did I ever say that you should use Medieval French troops to represent Ottoman Turks? All I said was that you can use multiple manufacturer's models for, say, a Viking army and that if the models are appropriate for, say, 40k then not many would complain. There are so many Tyranid Hive Fleets why couldn't Termagants for Hive Fleet Mediolanum look different from the more common ones?

 ExNoctemNacimur wrote:
When did I ever say that you should use Medieval French troops to represent Ottoman Turks? All I said was that you can use multiple manufacturer's models for, say, a Viking army and that if the models are appropriate for, say, 40k then not many would complain. There are so many Tyranid Hive Fleets why couldn't Termagants for Hive Fleet Mediolanum look different from the more common ones?

I've been posting to a couple of people, so I'm really not sure who has said what.

The original statement that I took issue with, was that historical gamers are more laid back because they are happy to use miniatures from any manufacturer, while GW gamers are more up tight, because they only want to use GW miniatures.

I don't think this is accurate. Anyone can produce a medieval viking. There is no copyright or trademark or intellectual property or what-have-you, so anyone who wants an army of vikings can use miniatures from any company. At the same time, you can also proxy or use 'counts-as' to represent your viking army. Perhaps you want a zulu army, but the game system doesn't have rules for them, so you buy and paint zulu miniatures and use them with viking rules. There are better analogies, but you get where I'm coming from.

Now, GW games are different. There is a specific trademark, copyright, intellectual property or what-have-you. The only people that can produce Space Marines are GW. This, of course, doesn't prevent anyone from using generic or converted models from another manufacturer to play GW games. You can use your Starship Trooper bugs as Tyranids, or your Scibor Space Knights as Space Marines. However, this is either a proxy or counts-as situation. To refer to the first situation, it's not the same as using vikings from another manufacturer. It's the same as using zulus as vikings. You're taking something, and using it to represent something else.

To boil it down:

This game uses A. Lots of companies manufacture A.

The other game uses B. Only one company manufactures B

Lots of companies manufacture C[/c], which can be used instead of [b]A or B.

The suggestion that gamers who use A are somehow more laid back because they have a wider choice of manufacturers is a bit silly when, if anything, the gamers who use B are probably more accepting of people using C than the first group of gamers would be. An open ended scifi setting like 40K lends itself much better to proxying and counts-as than historical games do, after all.

Wow, that got longer than I thought it would.

Crazyterran wrote:
but I'd probably not be very polite about it.

Why?

Do you want people making fun of your paint jobs? I really don't think you want to start being unpolite to people based on what models they can/can not bring to the table.

Besides, I would challenge anyone to try building that Paper Russ or Land Raider the OP posted. Trust me, it is NOT as easy at it looks. Plastic kits are much more forgiving.

 Highland_Piper wrote:

 Lansirill wrote:
Heck, why should I have to play against someone with a poorly painted army? If you can't paint to a high tabletop standard, pay someone else to do it. If you can't afford to pay someone, then maybe you need a more affordable hobby.

Can't play the game at a top tournament level? Hire someone to train you until you figure it out, or stay away. Why should I waste my time playing someone who isn't very good? Again, if you can't afford it, maybe this isn't the right hobby for you.

Wow! Really? So if everyone who does not have the skill of the Heavy Metal team should go find another hobby? You realise that GW would fold within a year if that was the case. Out of all the posts yours shocked me the most!

Mate, you pretty clearly fell into the Sar Chasm there.

I'd play against paper models that looked like the ones in the OP. Those take a lot of skill and time to look that great, actually. I'm fine with it. The toasters Dark Eldar thingies? Not so much.

As the topic seems to be veering towards proxies...

I'm fine with Proxies, so long as I can look across the table and tell what I'm looking at. Pig Iron Productions guardsmen? Find, as long as I can tell who has a meltagun, a flamer, and a plasma gun.

Mantic's Space Orks? Sure, if I can pick out the Nobs from the boyz and the power klaw from the big choppa.

Hmm hard one to comment on but my thoughts:

If there is some measure of WYSIWYG I would let you use anything.

Anything involving effort and not a lazy method of "proxy" I can respect.

This is Papercraft which I still feel is different even though much of the assembly process is the same (my problem not yours). An origami Rhino I would like to see though.

When all is said and done: a model that looks consistant to the material and looks like a miniature real "thing" is what we are after. A way to clean up the edges of these paper/cardboard objects would really help their look.

If we were looking for an impressive looking battle these types of figures would detract from the look. I have a hard enough time getting non-gamers to stop calling these toys or a waste of time.

 Kaldor wrote:

 ExNoctemNacimur wrote:
When did I ever say that you should use Medieval French troops to represent Ottoman Turks? All I said was that you can use multiple manufacturer's models for, say, a Viking army and that if the models are appropriate for, say, 40k then not many would complain. There are so many Tyranid Hive Fleets why couldn't Termagants for Hive Fleet Mediolanum look different from the more common ones?

I've been posting to a couple of people, so I'm really not sure who has said what.

The original statement that I took issue with, was that historical gamers are more laid back because they are happy to use miniatures from any manufacturer, while GW gamers are more up tight, because they only want to use GW miniatures.

I don't think this is accurate. Anyone can produce a medieval viking. There is no copyright or trademark or intellectual property or what-have-you, so anyone who wants an army of vikings can use miniatures from any company. At the same time, you can also proxy or use 'counts-as' to represent your viking army. Perhaps you want a zulu army, but the game system doesn't have rules for them, so you buy and paint zulu miniatures and use them with viking rules. There are better analogies, but you get where I'm coming from.

Now, GW games are different. There is a specific trademark, copyright, intellectual property or what-have-you. The only people that can produce Space Marines are GW. This, of course, doesn't prevent anyone from using generic or converted models from another manufacturer to play GW games. You can use your Starship Trooper bugs as Tyranids, or your Scibor Space Knights as Space Marines. However, this is either a proxy or counts-as situation....

...The suggestion that gamers who use A are somehow more laid back because they have a wider choice of manufacturers is a bit silly when, if anything, the gamers who use B are probably more accepting of people using C than the first group of gamers would be. An open ended scifi setting like 40K lends itself much better to proxying and counts-as than historical games do, after all.

Wow, that got longer than I thought it would.

I think it's a moot point. Proxying rarely comes up in Historicals because as you point out the range of figures/companies is so great.


I do disagree with the strict application of the terms "Proxying" or "Counts as", which implies a completely different figure being used to represent something it is not. If I plunk down Starship Marine from BTD which is armed with a chainsword and bolter-ish gun it's not really proxying, it's simply using an "alternate figure" representing the same subject matter. Falling back on GW's copyright of the term "Space Marine" as proof that using a Starship marine is proxying doesn't hold water with me and just mirrors the sentiment that folks seem to cling to that:

only GW figures should be used with GW games because GW holds the copyright and trademark on a certain set of designs and names.

I realize that many folks hold this view, but myself and my friends use the figs we want, with the rules we want regardless of what some company or fanbase tells us to use.

I agree that 40k is much more suitable for using "alternate figures", but that is also because it's a game whose owners try to steer you into their own expensive brand of figures. See my post below.

 Kaldor wrote:

My point though, is that they would be proxies. As much as using Medieval French troops to represent Ottoman Turks would be. Sure, they're similar looking, but they're not the same. And I don't think it's fair to paint GW gamers as less accepting of proxies or counts-as than historical gamers. If anything, I think the reverse is true.

That's an interesting point. I'd say they're probably equally intolerant of proxies or alternate figs, but the difference is that GW gamers are tied to one company with very expensive miniatures. That changes the entire dynamic when you talk about which figures to use so much that comparing GW fans feelings about Proxies and Historical Fans feelings is like comparing apples and oranges.

If a given historical gamer doesn't want to buy the more expensive figs (which are usually already dramatically cheaper than GW) then there are usually several available price points of figures from various miniature companies. The issue of proxying rarely comes up because there's not the same price barriers.

People use proxy or "alternate figs" figs to have cheaper miniatures or different miniatures. Both of these issues are handled by having a range of choices in the historical market, so almost no one proxies. When they do, it's usually a matter of using the same countries soldiers from a different theater of operations or a slightly different historical time, and both situations are usually handled without complaint. Whether you show up with Perry Plastics or Foundry metals, your ACW figs will be accepted at the table even if the figures are armed and clothed slightly differently than might be expected for the particular date of the battle being played.

However, the same dynamic doesn't exist for 40k where if it isn't the GW official model, then alot of folks will get thier feathers ruffled, even if it's similarly armed and armored.

Kinda not quite on topic, but GW make Rohan Warriors that look like:


Gripping Beast make Viking Hirdmen that look something like this:


They look pretty damn similar don't they?

Now, for 20 pounds you get 44 Vikings and for 15 pounds you get 15 Rohirrim. Yet the miniatures are nearly the same, or very similar.

I would gladly play against these any day, they look better than many of the "painted" models I have seen.

 ExNoctemNacimur wrote:
Kinda not quite on topic, but GW make Rohan Warriors that look like:
[/img]

Gripping Beast make Viking Hirdmen that look something like this:

Spoiler:

They look pretty damn similar don't they?

Now, for 20 pounds you get 44 Vikings and for 15 pounds you get 15 Rohirrim. Yet the miniatures are nearly the same, or very similar.

It's roughly the same issue you get with 40k models.

I'd consider them simply an alternate model, more than similar enough to be a good representation of the subject matter, and great for play.

Some folks would say that GW/Jackson Rohan Warriors are a specific design, the Gripping beast figs do not match the design, and thus are proxies and not suitable for play.

It all depends how insistent your opponent is that the smaller elements of a given GW-trademarked design are essential in making it an appropriate representation of the subject.
or...
Simply how (in)tolerant they are of off-brand miniatures in their game.

I keep hearing effort being a component, so would purchasing a painted model and putting zero effort into it before plunking it on the table be bad?

Or does it only matter if it looks like it took the kind of effort that the observer thinks is appropriate?

I liked the papercraft models in the OP, they were clean and to scale. I liked some of the later examples as well, so in my opinion if it is a proxy or kitbash for a pickup game all that really matters is that it is easy to play with and keep track of. If playing a serious campaign, then maybe accuracy and painting could matter, but I would rather have a fun game with a monster toaster or paper tank that I can keep track of than someone who complains about how the person at the next table over is using unpainted models.