Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

I was about to respond to a post in a product release thread but decided it was off-topic and felt a new thread was warranted.

From cincydooley

I'd rather see stuff like this from CHS rather than the not-Centurion they're doing. Despite the fact that I think they're ugly, at least they aren't wholly derivitive and have some creative thinking involved.

This is the question I pose:

Why does designing something to deliberately have a different aesthetic appeal compared to a competing product involve no creative thinking, when the primary thing that sells these products is aesthetic appeal? When you look at the market, for the most part competition is not based on price but rather almost expressly on aesthetic appeal in the case of boutique miniatures companies.

It seems to me that Cincy's opinion above that a 'not-Centurion' product involves no creative thought is based on little more than that the goal is to express a certain idea or concept in a different way in order to appeal to consumers that are unsatisfied with a particular product.

That is an indictment of the entire concept of competing based on creating products that have value because they are significantly different in terms of aesthetic appeal. Consequently, I feel it bears discussion.

Do such products involve creative expression? What value do they have when it comes to the industry as a whole?

You could say that the rules of a game someone else created give such products value that is unfairly appropriated from the competitor, but that is the way almost all wargaming products work, most of which are sold to work with someone else's rules or purchased by consumers to use with rules sold by a different, and sometimes competing, company. Plenty of companies offer rules for free or for a nominal cost, many more companies create only rules and sell no models, and in fact in the particular case of Games Workshop, the company goes very, very far to argue that it is a model company, not a game company.

For example, It is a fact that there are consumers in the market who do not like the Centurion models enough to simply not purchase them. Does the existence of that one product mean that anyone who finds a way to succeed where that product objectively fails is not being creative or not offering something of value to the market?

Because to me that seems not only rather creative, but also difficult and inherently risky. One knows is that there are consumers who don't want to buy that product, and that consumers who want to buy it will go ahead and buy it anyway. The only potential market, then, is that small sliver of the market to whom the product appeals conceptually, but not in terms of expression. This is not only a small sliver of a market, but a sliver with potentially rather diverse wants and tastes. How do you reliably predict the desires of this small group of potential customers? How do you create something new that appeals to their interest in the concept but has a sufficiently different aesthetic value to cross the line into an actual sale; a sale that a company has already failed to acquire?

To me, that smacks of both creativity and ingenuity. Furthermore, being able to nimbly tiptoe into that space serves a very real interest to the consuming public, offering an appealing product to a segment of the market too small to be served by a larger, less nimble company.

I'm sure there are plenty of folks with different opinions on this topic, and I hope that this sparks an interesting discussion.

In short, I think you're both right!

Making a "counts as" model requires no creativity in the concept, as you are "borrowing" someone else's idea.

That's not to say that detracts in any way from the creativity of the execution.

The fact that there is a market for these models at all says that a) not everyone likes the original minis and b) the alternates are sufficiently different from the original while still being recognisable as sharing the same heritage that people who don't like the original are prepared to buy them to use instead. This wouldn't happen if creativity wasn't involved to make them different enough, otherwise those that dislike the original would still have the same objections to a "rip off."

First of all, you really should have started the thread with pictures of the models in question that are driving this discussion. What Centurion and non-centurion models are we using as examples for this discussion. Context is key, and we need more.

That said I think the difference is that a new product with a new asthetic involves raw creativity and igenuity and a new vision for where go with a concept.

A "not" product still involves some creativity, but not as much, as it is building on someone elses's work. It's as much a marketing exercise as a design problem. The designer of a "not" product looks at the original concept, figures out what the market doesn't like about it and tweaks it to fit what they think the market wants. It still takes intelligence and creativity, but not nearly as much as someone who puts forth a new creative vision.

It's the difference between kind of creativity of someone who rehabs a house or takes a set of plans and modifies them versus someone who drafts their own plans and builds their own design. In most cases (though not all) it's the later who rightfully gets the most respect for their efforts.

I prefer unique creations, rather than straight derivatives.

For example, I just ordered some dune raider models from Urban War (basically quad bikes) which I'll be trying to convert into scout bikers. If they were just "not scout bikers" I would've been a lot less interested.

Of course, is something is so far afield that it doesn't lend itself to multiple uses, that's also a problem!

 Eilif wrote:
First of all, you really should have started the thread with pictures of the models in question that are driving this discussion. What Centurion and non-centurion models are we using as examples for this discussion. Context is key, and we need more.

That said I think the difference is that a new product with a new asthetic involves raw creativity and igenuity and a new vision for where go with a concept.

A "not" product still involves some creativity, but not as much, as it is building on someone elses's work. It's as much a marketing exercise as a design problem. The designer of a "not" product looks at the original concept, figures out what the market doesn't like about it and tweaks it to fit what they think the market wants. It still takes intelligence and creativity, but not nearly as much as someone who puts forth a new creative vision.

It's the difference between kind of creativity of someone who rehabs a house or takes a set of plans and modifies them versus someone who drafts their own plans and builds their own design. In most cases (though not all) it's the later who rightfully gets the most respect for their efforts.

The Centurion is just an example. What the products look like is pretty irrelevant from a conceptual standpoint, if you take my meaning. If product A does not sell because it looks a certain way, and product B does sell because it looks a different way, then does not that difference, ipso facto, have a market value entirely separate from the competing product?

How can the market value of the "not-product" be said to in any way derive from similarity to the competing product? The first product cannot properly be said to have created a demand, because little or no demand exists among the potential market for the "not-product."

So in the abstract, actually looking at the two products is rather irrelevant, and in this case the Chapterhouse product only exists as an incredibly vague concept sketch, which is wholly unproductive because there is no way to compare the aesthetics of two actual products offered for sale.

As to putting forth a "new creative vision," that strikes me as a rather subjective qualification. Nothing is really "new" in any case. I do, however, see your point. My counter point would be that if one looks towards some sort of objective standard, one could use the definition of an original work of art in copyright law. Originality requires merely a "minimal degree of creativity," and does not extend to an idea or concept, but rather to expressions.

In terms of the real commercial value of a work of art, why does the subjective "degree" of creativity even matter, so long as there is any creativity at all? Subjective creativity may have to do with the relative success of a product with the consuming public, but shouldn't it be irrelevant when one is determining whether one product may be fairly sold alongside another? If there is creativity involved in the production of a "not" product, should not the product have as much of an inherent right to be offered for sale?

And if such an inherent right exists, what could possibly be the detriment to the consumer? It would seem that such products offer only increased value to the consuming public, both in terms of choice and in terms of specialized, limited demands being met.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 RiTides wrote:
I prefer unique creations, rather than straight derivatives.

For example, I just ordered some dune raider models from Urban War (basically quad bikes) which I'll be trying to convert into scout bikers. If they were just "not scout bikers" I would've been a lot less interested.

Of course, is something is so far afield that it doesn't lend itself to multiple uses, that's also a problem!

But whether or not you are interested in purchasing a particular product, do you feel that such products, where a demand exists and competition is not based on something like price, are valuable additions to the marketplace?

That is, do you feel that it is "good" that such products exist and are offered for sale, regardless of whether you are personally interested in a particular product?

Nevermind...

The problem with the initial question is that it confuses creating an idea with developing an existing one.

While they will both involve design to a greater or lesser extent I can't really see the need to creating a thread to express your annoyance that some people might not approve of one company operating in such a parasitic manner and not to the quality of that which it is copying.

I think it's fair comment, none of us appreciate credit for our efforts being taken by others less so if they make money from it as well.

Are you looking for other perspectives or just for folks to reinforce yours?

You wrote alot of words, but none of it really addresses the main perception that most people have. That is:

When someone makes something that is similar to an existing product, but changed somewhat-and if that product is targeted at people buying it for the same use- then people will rightfully assess that that new product is usually not as creative as the original.

Seems pretty strait-forward to me.

Your beef seems to be with how different people react to what they perceive as differing levels of originality. Some folks say "ooh a better version I want it". Some say "Poo, a copycat, give me something new". Different strokes for different folks.

 notprop wrote:
The problem with the initial question is that it confuses creating an idea with developing an existing one.

While they will both involve design to a greater or lesser extent I can't really see the need to creating a thread to express your annoyance that some people might not approve of one company operating in such a parasitic manner and not to the quality of that which it is copying.

I think it's fair comment, none of us appreciate credit for our efforts being taken by others less so if they make money from it as well.

But you deftly dodged the question there notprop. This is why I think it is an interesting topic of discussion.

When we look out at the wargaming industry, in which I would expect that the vast majority of us are interested, we see lots of these types of products hitting the market. The Centurion thing is simply a very conspicuous example. There was a "not-Centurion" product on the market before the Centurion product was even released!

Given that this is really happening, I think it is important to talk about in a productive way. I appreciate your feeling about it, but my question was related to the interplay of creativity and market value, both in terms of real currency, and in terms what we perceive to be adding or detracting value to the market.

So if you dislike the "not-products" and think they are parasitic, how does it harm us, the consumers of wargaming products? How does it decrease the value that we experience in the industry? From where I am sitting I see expansion of choice. I see demands being met that have never been met before. I see a proliferation of working artists creating an expanding pool of experienced talent? I see all of that as being valuable additions to the industry, both long and short term.

In terms of the value of a particular work of art, which companies should have a legitimate opportunity to realize, how do these "not-products" harm that value? If the products significantly undercut on price, I could see that as a potential problem. But with price thrown out of the equation in most cases, because these products tend to be more expensive and thus only serve to advantage the original product in terms of price, the products only compete on aesthetic value. Thus if one choose the "not-product" it is because that product is not a copy. It is because whatever differences there are have a separate and unique value that has nothing to do with the competing product, yes?

Since I'm the culprit that spurned this, I suppose I'll chime in.

I think with the concept art they showed for the not Centurion, it's pretty clear that its going to retain a considerable amount of what the GW centurions have and simply "fix" what people on the Internet don't like. I know we haven't seen a full concept of their not-Centurion, but from the photo it appears the only major chassis change is moving the bolters/frag launchers. I just don't think that involves much creativity. It certainly addresses market demand, I can't deny that.

I'll answer the question you posed to Tides: I absolutely think 3rd party producers are valuable. I've purchased from both Kromlech and Puppets war. Like you said, they scratch a market itch. And that's important.

It's no secret that I've been pretty critical of CHS in the past and I'll never purchase any of their derivative works. But if they can make something like the Warp Stalkers that I like, like a Space Wolves thralls boxed set or some alternative Mercenary types for a Tau army, I'd entertain it. I think the Warp Stalkers are leaps and bounds more creative and original than anything they've ever done. I just don't like them. Honestly, I was almost trying to compliment CHS. Almost . I still don't "like" them as a company, but if they produce something that's unique that I like, I'll definitely give them a fair shake.

Additionally, I'm not sure we're ever going to get an honest assessment of how much people like a GW product because there are simply some folks that like to dislike GW. It is what it is. If Mantic released the Centurians with say, the launchers moved to the top like CHS is doing, do you think as many people would have a problem? I don't know how much of the anti-GW bias affects things, honestly.

 Eilif wrote:
Are you looking for other perspectives or just for folks to reinforce yours?

You wrote alot of words, but none of it really addresses the main perception that most people have. That is:

When someone makes something that is similar to an existing product, but changed somewhat-and if that product is targeted at people buying it for the same use- then people will rightfully assess that that new product is usually not as creative as the original.

Seems pretty strait-forward to me.

Your beef seems to be with how different people react to what they perceive as differing levels of originality. Some folks say "ooh a better version I want it". Some say "Poo, a copycat, give me something new". Different strokes for different folks.

I'm not looking for people to agree with me. I'm looking to have a conversation about a very real and swiftly growing trend in the industry.

Whether an individual does or does not want to buy a specific product is less than germane to the discussion, because the premise of the discussion presumes that there will be "different stroke for different folks" in terms of where any individual locates aesthetic value.

The question is whether or not these products have value in an objective sense. The question is how you feel about the effect these products are having on the market and the industry. Therefore, there is little need to drawn on specific examples and compare A to B or who likes this and who likes that. The point is to talk about what this trend means.

I don't see how this is even a relevant question. Who cares about some abstract concept of adding "value" to the hobby/industry? All I care about is whether product X is worth buying or not.

 cincydooley wrote:
Since I'm the culprit that spurned this, I suppose I'll chime in.

I think with the concept art they showed for the not Centurion, it's pretty clear that its going to retain a considerable amount of what the GW centurions have and simply "fix" what people on the Internet don't like. I know we haven't seen a full concept of their not-Centurion, but from the photo it appears the only major chassis change is moving the bolters/frag launchers. I just don't think that involves much creativity. It certainly addresses market demand, I can't deny that.

I'll answer the question you posed to Tides: I absolutely think 3rd party producers are valuable. I've purchased from both Kromlech and Puppets war. Like you said, they scratch a market itch. And that's important.

It's no secret that I've been pretty critical of CHS in the past and I'll never purchase any of their derivative works. But if they can make something like the Warp Stalkers that I like, like a Space Wolves thralls boxed set or some alternative Mercenary types for a Tau army, I'd entertain it. I think the Warp Stalkers are leaps and bounds more creative and original than anything they've ever done. I just don't like them. Honestly, I was almost trying to compliment CHS. Almost . I still don't "like" them as a company, but if they produce something that's unique that I like, I'll definitely give them a fair shake.

Additionally, I'm not sure we're ever going to get an honest assessment of how much people like a GW product because there are simply some folks that like to dislike GW. It is what it is. If Mantic released the Centurians with say, the launchers moved to the top like CHS is doing, do you think as many people would have a problem? I don't know how much of the anti-GW bias affects things, honestly.

Your comment merely sparked a thought that I figured would be interesting to discuss.

You said that certain CHS products are "derivative." If someone buys a "derivative" product because they prefer the way it looks compared to the product from which it is "derived," does not that consumer find different value in that product, unique value that was created by the artist of that product?

I think it's a valuable topic to discuss.

I think that the consumer finds unique value, certainly, but that doesn't inherently mean the product itself is unique. While the Warp Stalkers are meant to be utilized as male banshees, I think they're far less derivative because the art direction is, IMO, far more original and creative than moving the rocket launchers on the not-Centurian. I think I just have a lot of problems finding anything original about their not-Centurions or their Praetorians. Honestly, I think CHS is the least creative of any of the accessory sellers.

I think derivatives have value, I just prefer more unique creations that can also fill the same role.

I'd say more, but that's all you'll get here due to swipe typing on a tablet

Indeed. I do not really consider variation on a theme/aesthetic such as that presented here to be more choice.

I would prefer more differant choices, like the Serition Wars THI models or any number of large Mecha like the Infinity ones or even the FW AdMech models.

Also weeble, I think it may be worthwhile to change the thread title. I don't know if anyone here would associate Chapterhouse or Kromlech to be "boutique".

First thing the came to my mind was Kingdom Death obviously. I guess for me boutique implies a certain level of craftsmanship and art.

 cincydooley wrote:
Also weeble, I think it may be worthwhile to change the thread title. I don't know if anyone here would associate Chapterhouse or Kromlech to be "boutique".

First thing the came to my mind was Kingdom Death obviously. I guess for me boutique implies a certain level of craftsmanship and art.

I concur. The first thing I thought of was Studio McVey.

Anyway, this probably doesn't answer your question (late at night, reading comprehension sucks), but I am of the following opinion. A derivative work may hold some value, but it can never be as valuable as the original, as it is by definition derived from it. It might be a good model, but I always like to give most of the credit to the original, because the derivative could not have existed without it.

That probably didn't make much sense. I'm tired, it's late.

weeble1000 wrote:


Why does designing something to deliberately have a different aesthetic appeal compared to a competing product involve no creative thinking, when the primary thing that sells these products is aesthetic appeal? .

By calling the item a "not Centurion" he's surely implying it is a Centurion substitute.

Either you're misrepresenting him or I'm misunderstanding, it's late here, please enlighten me. If the former the answer is obvious. I haven't seen the item, can someone post a link?

I've bought stuff from CHS but as others have commented, while they're a great poster child for the GW-cynics, there are other little companies with models that, while obviously in the vein of GW, add a bit of humour and originality.

Hivefleet Oblivion wrote:

weeble1000 wrote:


Why does designing something to deliberately have a different aesthetic appeal compared to a competing product involve no creative thinking, when the primary thing that sells these products is aesthetic appeal? .

By calling the item a "not Centurion" he's surely implying it is a Centurion substitute.

Either you're misrepresenting him or I'm misunderstanding, it's late here, please enlighten me. If the former the answer is obvious. I haven't seen the item, can someone post a link?

I've bought stuff from CHS but as others have commented, while they're a great poster child for the GW-cynics, there are other little companies with models that, while obviously in the vein of GW, add a bit of humour and originality.

"Not xxxx" is a Dakka/Wargamer/Internet trope, I've never once seen anything advertised for sale as such, and don't expect I ever will.

There is no item from CHS yet, just a WIP sketch, unlike several others company's versions, which don't appear to have attracted nearly as much criticism.

 azreal13 wrote:

"Not xxxx" is a Dakka/Wargamer/Internet trope, I've never once seen anything advertised for sale as such, and don't expect I ever will.

There is no item from CHS yet, just a WIP sketch, unlike several others company's versions, which don't appear to have attracted nearly as much criticism.

I did understand the former... but would like to see the sketch if there's a reference. To assess the not-ness.

Edit: thanks for referencing the illustration. Well, it's not really at all creative, is it? Items like the Kromlech Meganobz have a bit of a swing to them. Not this. Nor much of their stuff.

It's pg8 of the CHS thread in N+R.

It depends entirely upon the individual model - I have the female Not-Empire Long Gunner by Raging Heroes - I love the model, even if it is pretty derivative of the Empire line by GW.

Sometimes I like the counts-as model better than the 'original' - the Chapterhouse jetbike is pretty danged spiffy, and I want to get more of them. (The quotes is because sometimes the 'original' is pretty danged derivative of other works... yes, I am looking at GW.)

Sometimes I like the GW models more - though that is happening less of late. Even there though, there are some older, out of production models that I think are much better than either what is available either as 'original' or third party. (Daemonettes....)

So... a model by model basis is the only way to go.

The Auld Grump

I am not familiar with the Chapter House not-Centurion models, which I could not find on their website.

The Centurions are obviously GW’s 28mm Heroic version of the Laserburn dreadnought armour suits that came out in the early-1980s in 15mm scale, and are still available.



GW have expressed an Imperial or Space Marine aesthetic in their new model, however the basic design is a humanoid figure with bulky armour and weapons stuck all over.

This is inevitable given the core brief to design a human figure with bulky armour and weapons. Any other company who wanted to design such a figure would come up with something broadly similar. Here are two 28mm examples that both predate the GW Centurion.





The origin of this concept lies deep in SF history in the Lensman series, Starship Troopers, and so on, which themselves drew on mediaeval armoured knights for inspiration. This line of argument was explored in some depth in the recent GW vs CHS case, which CHS essentially won.

That said, if one believes that a generally similar design that differs in some elements is unoriginal and worthy of condemnation, the GW variation must be condemned first, surely?

As for the value in the market place, I think there are always people interested in a different look for their army, and it is good that products should be available for that.

I believe also that the growing number of “not-SM” and “not-IG” models, available from Mantic and others, shows a demand for models compatible with 40K at a lower price -- in other words, GW have started to price themselves out of their own market.

Of course it’s true that by introducing a new set of rules for the new model, GW have created more demand. Their game is the most popular, though not the first SF ruleset. Other games with super-heavy-armour infantry pre-dated it, so we can’t praise GW for their originality in that respect.

Weeble, how would you describe the Chapterhouse style?

 Kilkrazy wrote:
GW have expressed an Imperial or Space Marine aesthetic in their new model, however the basic design is a humanoid figure with bulky armour and weapons stuck all over.

This is inevitable given the core brief to design a human figure with bulky armour and weapons. Any other company who wanted to design such a figure would come up with something broadly similar. Here are two 28mm examples that both predate the GW Centurion.

The origin of this concept lies deep in SF history in the Lensman series, Starship Troopers, and so on, which themselves drew on mediaeval armoured knights for inspiration. This line of argument was explored in some depth in the recent GW vs CHS case, which CHS essentially won.

That said, if one believes that a generally similar design that differs in some elements is unoriginal and worthy of condemnation, the GW variation must be condemned first, surely?

This. I always find it slightly hypocritical to criticize derivative variations of a design that already is completely derivative itself. Yes, I know, we've never seen a SPACE MARINE (TM) inside one of these generic powerlifter suits, but come on, how much "creativity" did it take to execute this idea? The much-maligned Heldrake might not be everyone's cup of tea, but at least it's a fairly fresh idea and you can even glimpse some of the thought process behind designing it the way it is in its fluff description, which tries to emphasize that Chaos vehicles are more than "cars with spikes".

Also, artistic expression doesn't end at the idea stage. In fact, the execution is the more important part. Judging the artistic value of something on the idea alone is a very skewed view on art.

Finally, on a purely personal note: The world isn't YouTube, crying "First!" won't help anyone. I love the old Perry designs for the Imperial Guard. I own tons of them. But Victoria Lamb simply does them better these days, so why should I not buy these? And why would I prefer her to do something else, something "creative", that I have no interest in buying, like her Monty Python Inquisition set?

 RiTides wrote:
I prefer unique creations, rather than straight derivatives.

There's no such thing. The problem is people are basing this discussion in a classical understanding of "creativity", this idea that some people can just sit down and think really hard, or just wander about looking at clouds and trees and birds, and they will be struck down by some vision of beauty that only they are capable of rendering into physical form. There have maybe been about ten such people in the entirety of human history, everyone else operates based on iteration, not inspiration. We take the information we're exposed to in life and, consciously or otherwise, we twist it, mould it, break it apart and put it back together again, but without the initial exposure to the information we have nothing to work with.

Lets look at the Centurion, since that's the example in the OP; what's unique about "the original"? Because the only aspect of it that I can determine is actually original in any respect is when someone from Games Workshop said "we should make some kind of exo-suit", everything else about it is based on other people's work. The Aliens loader, the Matrix walkers, other 40K Space Marine design elements that have been around for decades, the half-dozen Saturday morning cartoons that come to mind which involved armoured suits that had extra bits of armour strapped to them, etc etc etc. So, if the only truly original part of the "concept" is GW's desire to make a commercial product in that category, how is that any different than another company doing the same but including GW's Centurion as part of their information basis along with all the other sources?

The absolute worst you can say about the third parties in this case is that they're taking advantage of another company's market research, and even then either they're taking advantage of the market segments that GW's research would have indicated wouldn't want to buy their product anyway, or they're providing an iteration on the exo-suit concept that is so aesthetically superior to the GW iteration that people would be persuaded to buy the one over the other, in which case don't they deserve the custom?

Joyboozer wrote:
Weeble, how would you describe the Chapterhouse style?

That is largely irrelevant to the discussion, isn't it? The CHS "style" versus the Kromlech, Maximini, Scibor, Puppets War, Anvil Industries, Mantic, Games Workshop, etc. and so forth "styles" are all a matter of subjective opinion that we can't really discuss in anything approaching a concrete manner.

However, I do know that CHS, Kromlech, Maximini, Scibor, Puppets War, Anvil Industries, etc. and so forth are profitable businesses with plenty of customers. The consumers in this industry, very much like yourself, buy those products, often at a higher price point than a product from which the products are said to be derived, inspired by, referencing, replacing, etc.

So why does it matter how I subjectively feel about the "style" of Chapterhouse's products in particular? Somebody finds value in those products that has naught to do with a lower price point for the same thing another company offers for sale. That value is therefore arguably tied to aesthetic appeal, thus one can objectively say that the market, or some portion thereof, believes there is sufficient difference in terms of aesthetic value to pay more money for that product.

The question is whether you think that means something important? Do such products deserve to be on the market just because somebody wants to buy them? Are they unique creative expressions based on the objective reality that somebody values precisely the uniqueness of the product's aesthetics? Does the increasing prevalence of these products improve the industry or hurt it? Why or why not?

These products are out there and are growing in number. That is a fact. I haven't purchased a single one of them if you must know, but that is irrelevant. It does not change the fact that they are out there, that there are more of them every single day, and that one of the most major players in this industry has condemned them writ large and pledged to eradicate them at all costs. That is happening right now. That is the reality of the market we all participate in on a regular basis. So, what do you think about it?

I didn't ask how you feel about them I asked you to describe their style. You're ranting, pure and simple. This is worse than the Native American thread you started on Warseer.

Yodhrin- I should have said "more" unique, rather than straight derivatives. Basically, putting their own spin on the idea. Just my preference. I love Kromlech for this reason, they really make it their own despite being a perfect substitute for other company's products. Ymmv

Joyboozer- There's absolutely nothing wrong with this thread, it's an interesting idea to talk about and very wargaming related- exactly what Dakka Discussions is for! If you disagree with the OP, you can argue your point, but the thread's fine.