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.

 Enigwolf wrote:

nkelsch wrote:

Scratch-building has standards and if you don't have the skills or won't do the effort, don't be mad when your models are not welcome everywhere.

If you lack the skill, you can spend more money and time to make quality models.
If you lack the money, you can use more skill and time to make quality models.
If you lack the time, you can use more skill and money to make quality models.

If you lack all 3, or are unwilling to develop any of those efforts, then why are you trying to participate in this hobby?

Barbie dolls, paper boxes and nondescript foam cube are not welcome everywhere. People act as if they are entitled to be accepted everywhere, which they are not. Being broke, lazy or talentless is not a reason to allow a barbie doll on a wargaming table.

Very, very, true.

Another thing that seems to be a point of contention for a lot of players (and myself, if I'm in a competitive mood) is that when scratchbuilding, the model needs to be representative of the original. i.e. sponsons and fire points can't be modeled for advantage, and the hull needs to be similarly shaped and sized. For example, anyone else remember that cool Stormtalon walker? Unfortunately, I wouldn't play against it in a tournament setting, because its profile and height are different from that of an actual Stormtalon - doesn't mean that I don't think it's cool, though.

Actually, check out the youtube vid here: http://www.belloflostsouls.net/2012/06/hobby-stormtalon-assault-walker.html
It's about the same height. it misses a wee bit of the tail profile but really not something which would make much of a difference on a tabletop in a significant manner. I'd not mind that even in a tournament setting. Really, the difference is minimal...

 Bolognesus wrote:

Actually, check out the youtube vid here: http://www.belloflostsouls.net/2012/06/hobby-stormtalon-assault-walker.html
It's about the same height. it misses a wee bit of the tail profile but really not something which would make much of a difference on a tabletop in a significant manner. I'd not mind that even in a tournament setting. Really, the difference is minimal...

It is the opposite of the guy who hqad a Squat I-guard army, made custom 'hover transports' and then used the squats short stature to shoot UNDER his hovering chimeras claiming true LOS. I also think there were some issues where there was disembarking from a different location than if it was a 'stock chimera'. But these are MFA issues not directly tied to scratch building itself.

The walker stormtalon can be played 'as if it was the stock model' and be fair to both opponents which means it gets more acceptance under the fickle 'rule of cool'. Abusive squat hovertanks being used for LOS cover won't get the same latitude from 'rule of cool'.

Bolognesus wrote:

 Enigwolf wrote:

nkelsch wrote:

Scratch-building has standards and if you don't have the skills or won't do the effort, don't be mad when your models are not welcome everywhere.

If you lack the skill, you can spend more money and time to make quality models.
If you lack the money, you can use more skill and time to make quality models.
If you lack the time, you can use more skill and money to make quality models.

If you lack all 3, or are unwilling to develop any of those efforts, then why are you trying to participate in this hobby?

Barbie dolls, paper boxes and nondescript foam cube are not welcome everywhere. People act as if they are entitled to be accepted everywhere, which they are not. Being broke, lazy or talentless is not a reason to allow a barbie doll on a wargaming table.

Very, very, true.

Another thing that seems to be a point of contention for a lot of players (and myself, if I'm in a competitive mood) is that when scratchbuilding, the model needs to be representative of the original. i.e. sponsons and fire points can't be modeled for advantage, and the hull needs to be similarly shaped and sized. For example, anyone else remember that cool Stormtalon walker? Unfortunately, I wouldn't play against it in a tournament setting, because its profile and height are different from that of an actual Stormtalon - doesn't mean that I don't think it's cool, though.

Actually, check out the youtube vid here: http://www.belloflostsouls.net/2012/06/hobby-stormtalon-assault-walker.html
It's about the same height. it misses a wee bit of the tail profile but really not something which would make much of a difference on a tabletop in a significant manner. I'd not mind that even in a tournament setting. Really, the difference is minimal...

nkelsch wrote:

 Bolognesus wrote:

Actually, check out the youtube vid here: http://www.belloflostsouls.net/2012/06/hobby-stormtalon-assault-walker.html
It's about the same height. it misses a wee bit of the tail profile but really not something which would make much of a difference on a tabletop in a significant manner. I'd not mind that even in a tournament setting. Really, the difference is minimal...

It is the opposite of the guy who hqad a Squat I-guard army, made custom 'hover transports' and then used the squats short stature to shoot UNDER his hovering chimeras claiming true LOS. I also think there were some issues where there was disembarking from a different location than if it was a 'stock chimera'. But these are MFA issues not directly tied to scratch building itself.

The walker stormtalon can be played 'as if it was the stock model' and be fair to both opponents which means it gets more acceptance under the fickle 'rule of cool'. Abusive squat hovertanks being used for LOS cover won't get the same latitude from 'rule of cool'.

I stand corrected. I had neither seen the model in real life nor the video. If the storm talon walker is indeed that similar, then I'd had no problems. It just looked a fair bit shorter than a storm talon on a flight stand. I was referring more towards examples such as the squats and hover tanks army. Personally, when I kitbash and scratch build, I get exact dimensions (especially for weapon firing points) from the original model it is meant to represent and work them into my design constraints.

nkelsch wrote:

If you lack the skill, you can spend more money and time to make quality models.

You need practice to build something decently. I'd say that I'm no longer an atrocious painter, but that's because I've practiced for 6 years to get to the average level that I have achieved now. If they've put effort into it and not spent 10 minutes gluing cardboard to a barbie doll, then why not allow it? The chances are that if they get encouragement they'll continue to build and improve their skills.

I once papercrafted a wave serpent using the templates that came with White Dwarf.

Looked pretty nifty!

 scarletsquig wrote:
I once papercrafted a wave serpent using the templates that came with White Dwarf.

Looked pretty nifty!

I remember those!

...Back when White Dwarf actually had cool stuff. :( 'Eavy Metal Masterclass, wasn't it?

Hi. I used to scratch build quite a lot and hadnt heard of the phrase "papercraft" until today. I made quite a few models out of internally structured cardboard that were of a very high standard. These including two ork dreadnoughts, a 19" tall mini gargant for 40k used as scenery, an imperial steamtank, a rhino and loads of other things. Scratchbuilding and "papercraft" for me were an integral part of the hobby and a creative way to get actual representation onto the tabletop without selling a kidney. To hear people say stuff like they will only play using gw minis and on gw terrain is actually quite annoying. People who hold this opinion should realise that they are basically helping gw rake in more money whilst ignoring the fact that wargaming is in part a hobby based on creating your own things. I would never have a problem with scratch built or converted, as long as they looked the part. Its a main part of the hobby after all.

In the end i gave up on the 28mm scale and stuck hundreds of epic models to pennys. I had armies for all of the 40k forces (about 5000 pts per army) based up this way and painted very well. We played using cm rather than inches and the games worked better than in 28mm as it gave a greater feeling of scale and range and mobillity became a real factor in tactics. I mentioned what i had done in the nearby games store and the blokes working there said it was a rubbish idea and that it would never work. Well it did, it played better and saved me vast ammounts of cash. The best thing of all was having actual figure representation, a unit of marine dreads were there, on the table and not a pipe dream. When i gave up the hobby i gave all of these armies away so unfortunatley i have no photos to show you. A shame really as i scratch built plenty of that stuff.

You should definatley scratchbuild. Do it. If people dont want to play you then they are probably too stuck up to be worth your time.

P.s love the toaster and kettle tank thingies, very funny.

The most important part of the hobby to me is how our game looks on the field, or how it looks to other people. If your handmade vehicle looks as good or better than a GW one, then we're golden.

 Mecha_buddha wrote:
The OP has models that look amazing, more importantly they look exactly like what he wants to play them as.

A lot of comments seem to resent papercraft because they didnt buy models, I would rather play someone that put effort into his army.

Two scenarios that drive me nuts, guy has a full 1500 point IG army, everything is glued together primed black, he considers this as "finished" I cant tell what squat is.

scenario 2, guy has 50 bolter tac marines, painted ok. then he explains his army "these 5 are devastators with missiles, these 5 are devastators with lascannon, these 10 are assault marines with jumppacks, this is a 10 man tac squad with melta multi melta...etc etc. completely maddening.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 WaaaaghLord wrote:
So if it's no cheaper, and takes exactly the same amount of time, why not just buy the real thing?

Papercraft seems to be the extreme hobby dilemma of time vs money. the raw materials are cheap, but to do it well, you need to spend much more of your time.

Its like buying used models, popping them apart, stripping them and rebuilding them. you save money but it takes more time than if you grabbed a kit to start with.

with both there is a certain amount of hobbyist pride when the items turn out well.

Pretty much the post that I would have written had you not beaten me to it.

I do paper modeling - I have been doing paper modeling since the 1960s.

Some of my first wargaming was done with plastic troopers and Indians and a papercraft frontier fort from a Disney magazine.

I have no problems with a decently built paper model.

The Auld Grump

I'm all for good scratch built, especially like the OP has on display. The advantage of doing it that way is that it gives a person the chance to decide if they want to end up using a particular model in their army rather than paying a lot of money and end up shelving it after only a couple of games.

I've seen numerous cardstock, balsa wood, and plastic vehicles over the years.

It comes down to fun. If you are willing to put army to table, you get what you get. You don't get the say to tell someone that they need to fork over a couple of hundred for a model tank.

The minute you started looking at peoples stuff down your nose, you become a GW snob, buying into the party line.

That is the same sort of DB mentality that spouts off at the hole about GW being a collectors company and not about gaming. (Then all you are bringing to the table is a pretty purse and shoes combination.)

It is about wargaming. Game being the operative word here. FUN. PLAY. and hobby. Not HHHobby.

What's with all the necroing?

Scratch build a unit that does not exist is cool.

Those paper things... heresy. You can't afford 40k? Go play something else. Like jacks or hop-scotch.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Grot 6 wrote:
I've seen numerous cardstock, balsa wood, and plastic vehicles over the years.

It comes down to fun. If you are willing to put army to table, you get what you get. You don't get the say to tell someone that they need to fork over a couple of hundred for a model tank.

The minute you started looking at peoples stuff down your nose, you become a GW snob, buying into the party line.

That is the same sort of DB mentality that spouts off at the hole about GW being a collectors company and not about gaming. (Then all you are bringing to the table is a pretty purse and shoes combination.)

It is about wargaming. Game being the operative word here. FUN. PLAY. and hobby. Not HHHobby.

So if I hop down the 3 steps off my porch and call it sky diving, you wouldn't have a problem with that? Because if you did you'd be a skydiving snob.

Are you being serious?

 DeffDred wrote:
So if I hop down the 3 steps off my porch and call it sky diving, you wouldn't have a problem with that? Because if you did you'd be a skydiving snob.

That is clearly the same thing.

If you made a papercraft parachute, I'd call it skydiving.

 Purifier wrote:
If you made a papercraft parachute, I'd call it skydiving.

Except if you want to make a proper analogy with 40k the papercraft parachute is actually half a parachute, has holes in it everywhere, and you fall screaming and die. Because let's be honest here, "papercraft" in 40k usually means "minimal-effort proxy that vaguely resembles the real model" and the people making them are doing it because it's the cheapest way to play the game, not because they're great works of art.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Purifier wrote:
If you made a papercraft parachute, I'd call it skydiving.

Except if you want to make a proper analogy with 40k the papercraft parachute is actually half a parachute, has holes in it everywhere, and you fall screaming and die. Because let's be honest here, "papercraft" in 40k usually means "minimal-effort proxy that vaguely resembles the real model" and the people making them are doing it because it's the cheapest way to play the game, not because they're great works of art.

I've never seen a well-done papercraft model that looks like what it's supposed to be, only the slightest hints of the shape. I shouldn't be able to tell that it's a scratchbuild if you did scratchbuild something.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Purifier wrote:
If you made a papercraft parachute, I'd call it skydiving.

Except if you want to make a proper analogy with 40k the papercraft parachute is actually half a parachute, has holes in it everywhere, and you fall screaming and die. Because let's be honest here, "papercraft" in 40k usually means "minimal-effort proxy that vaguely resembles the real model" and the people making them are doing it because it's the cheapest way to play the game, not because they're great works of art.

I think the quality of his paper parachute being poor is only going to marginally lower his already abysmal chances of survival. I'd still call it skydiving. There are other things I would also call it.

Look, to be honest, it shouldn't really matter what someone does or doesn't do. If they want to play with papercraft models, why do we complain? We're the same people who have 10-page long threads about how expensive GW models are, then complain about people trying to save a bit of money. In addition, it's really really bloody hard to make the models to look respectable. Do you remember making those 3d models in primary school out of paper? Do you remember how difficult it was?

Have to admit have never tryed it myself or even fought against any one who has had any paper craft.

To be honest would love to try it if nothing else to see how it all turns out but then again have always hated glueing if they look good and keep money out of gw hands I am all for it

I'm amazed at people who would refuse to play an army because you didn't fork out crazy $$$ for it. I bought my army second hand for 20-30% of store price - got a problem with that?

With regards to scratch built models, like any good Ork I use these extensively. I actually prefer scratch builds, as long as they look decent and/or the other guy has clearly put effort into it. They can look as good or better than GWs stuff, and have the added bonus of not adding to GW's heaping pile of jewgold

Will tolerate rubbish looking / unbuild / proxy stuff as long as its temporary. They're trying something to see if its worth building, or its under construction.

Overall kind of indifferent. Don't exactly mind versing them, but probably wouldn't use them myself.

Ultimately though it just depends on how interesting they are to me. For example with the OPs land raider, I can clearly see it is one, but at the same time can see its a papercraft so it'd give me something to talk about over the course of the game (looking at a more pick up game setting here). It's just like well painted official models, I've seen plenty of unpainted/poorly painted leman russes which is fine but not exactly interesting. The odd time something's well painted I'm often inclined to talk about the painting side of the hobby, just like if I saw those papercrafts opposite me.

I can understand the other views of not wanting to verse scratch builds at all though. I imagine its sort of a case of; I forked out for all of this army and paints/books etc etc, and feel that its unfair for someone else to be able to have the same army but not have had to make the same (monetary) sacrifice. This is sort of reflected in me not wanting to use scratchbuilds myself, but being okay if an opponent is using them since I'm not really in a position to judge or impose my views on them.

The one thing I would say that is very important for scratchbuilds is for them to be painted (or in this case: printed). For me, painting a scratchbuild shows a certain degree of dedication to the creation of the model itself, and not just building it for the sake of have a model substitute on the field. Doesn't even have to be painted well, just well enough... and that's were you make da call, just not on an online forum.

Scratchbuilt terrain on the other hand is a completely different matter. I've never bought any official terrain pieces from GW in my life. Admittedly I have got some from other retailers like micro art studio but in general have made it all myself.

A pretty clear bit of trolling, but I'll bite.

 DeffDred wrote:
Those paper things... heresy. You can't afford 40k? Go play something else. Like jacks or hop-scotch.

It's only heresy to someone who believes that rules must be inextricably linked to models by the same company, and that's a mindset that pretty much only exists among some fantasy and sci-fi gamers. Historical gamers and lots of fantasy/sci-fi gamers (as shown by the high # of aftermarket bits/figs companies) don't have that same hang-up.

 DeffDred wrote:

So if I hop down the 3 steps off my porch and call it sky diving, you wouldn't have a problem with that? Because if you did you'd be a skydiving snob.

That's a poor analogy. A slightly better analogy would be that you can skydive with any brand of parachute gear and as long as the size and general specs are similar. You're still skydiving whether you're using a high-end Sensei or a student level Solo. The analogy breaks down when you take into acount built vs bought, so perhaps boats is a better one.

Whether you buy a boat kit, build it from raw materials, or buy a fully constructed boat, you're still boating. Whether the hull is Carbon fiber, fiberglass, wood, or styro-foam, you're still on the water.

 Dakkamite wrote:
I'm amazed at people who would refuse to play an army because you didn't fork out crazy $$$ for it. I bought my army second hand for 20-30% of store price - got a problem with that?

Not at all because you are using the real models.

If you had pieces of paper with colored dots on them and claimed that blue dots were marines and red dots were terminators I'd have a problem.

Again, 40k is a hobby for people to spend on hobbies.

If you cannot afford the hobby try a different one.

I'll try a different analogy:

Let's say I want to race in Nascar. I don't have the money or resources to get involved. But I can afford an old Chevy Prism and I have friends who do automotive body work.

If I have them make a body that LOOKs like a Nascar racecar and show up to a race I don't think they'd let me join in.

If it looks like a duck, sounds like a duck and floats like a duck... it's a mallard (possibly a witch).

The rule of cool my friend. The rule of cool.

 DeffDred wrote:

 Dakkamite wrote:
I'm amazed at people who would refuse to play an army because you didn't fork out crazy $$$ for it. I bought my army second hand for 20-30% of store price - got a problem with that?

Not at all because you are using the real models.

If you had pieces of paper with colored dots on them and claimed that blue dots were marines and red dots were terminators I'd have a problem.

Again, 40k is a hobby for people to spend on hobbies.

If you cannot afford the hobby try a different one.

I'll try a different analogy:

Let's say I want to race in Nascar. I don't have the money or resources to get involved. But I can afford an old Chevy Prism and I have friends who do automotive body work.

If I have them make a body that LOOKs like a Nascar racecar and show up to a race I don't think they'd let me join in.

If it looks like a duck, sounds like a duck and floats like a duck... it's a mallard (possibly a witch).

Sometimes I spend more on my conversions than the real model would have cost, but I can't play with it according to some because it's not GW.

I can understand not allowing paper with blue dots on it to be "16 space marines" but the elitism in this hobby is out of control sometimes.

 Purifier wrote:

 DeffDred wrote:

 Dakkamite wrote:
I'm amazed at people who would refuse to play an army because you didn't fork out crazy $$$ for it. I bought my army second hand for 20-30% of store price - got a problem with that?

Not at all because you are using the real models.

If you had pieces of paper with colored dots on them and claimed that blue dots were marines and red dots were terminators I'd have a problem.

Again, 40k is a hobby for people to spend on hobbies.

If you cannot afford the hobby try a different one.

I'll try a different analogy:

Let's say I want to race in Nascar. I don't have the money or resources to get involved. But I can afford an old Chevy Prism and I have friends who do automotive body work.

If I have them make a body that LOOKs like a Nascar racecar and show up to a race I don't think they'd let me join in.

If it looks like a duck, sounds like a duck and floats like a duck... it's a mallard (possibly a witch).

Sometimes I spend more on my conversions than the real model would have cost, but I can't play with it according to some because it's not GW.

I can understand not allowing paper with blue dots on it to be "16 space marines" but the elitism in this hobby is out of control sometimes.

It is an elite hobby after all. In fact one of the local FLGS around here is " Elite Hobbies and Games".

 DeffDred wrote:
Let's say I want to race in Nascar. I don't have the money or resources to get involved. But I can afford an old Chevy Prism and I have friends who do automotive body work.

If I have them make a body that LOOKs like a Nascar racecar and show up to a race I don't think they'd let me join in.

If you meet the actual requirements (which is more than just looks) I'm sure they would.
Can you show me any requirements other than your elitist assumption that would preclude a papercraft model?

rigeld2 wrote:

 DeffDred wrote:
Let's say I want to race in Nascar. I don't have the money or resources to get involved. But I can afford an old Chevy Prism and I have friends who do automotive body work.

If I have them make a body that LOOKs like a Nascar racecar and show up to a race I don't think they'd let me join in.

If you meet the actual requirements (which is more than just looks) I'm sure they would.
Can you show me any requirements other than your elitist assumption that would preclude a papercraft model?

3 colors and basing?

 DeffDred wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 DeffDred wrote:
Let's say I want to race in Nascar. I don't have the money or resources to get involved. But I can afford an old Chevy Prism and I have friends who do automotive body work.

If I have them make a body that LOOKs like a Nascar racecar and show up to a race I don't think they'd let me join in.

If you meet the actual requirements (which is more than just looks) I'm sure they would.
Can you show me any requirements other than your elitist assumption that would preclude a papercraft model?

3 colors and basing?

GW events require GW parts. All Warhammer World events still have this requirement.

This image should make my feelings quite clear.