Would you play against someone who is using recast models?

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.

**Klerych**

SHUPPET wrote:
I don't know, that's why I'm asking. I'm not pushing forth an opinion with that post as I don't have one yet, I'm merely asking you and others who feel that recasting OOP is ok but recasting regular models is less ethical, where do you draw the line?

Well, the location of that line is of course purely subjective, but I would mark it between "models for discontinued games" such as Necromunda and "models for limited supply products" that would contain Space Hulk and Dreadfleet once it's sold out. The latter are more like limited run collector things and were supposed to be... limited(derp) while the former just got discontinued because of lack of interest in the game from players and/or the company. Again, purely subjective but I think it's a distinction as reasonable as any.

**jhe90**

Its a expensive hobby, if you want to recast go ahead, everyone needs to save a bit here's and there at some times, and gw is so expensive.

Your choice do your hobby as yypu wish

**MWHistorian**

If it was GW stuff, yes. Anything else, no.

**TheKbob**

So would the "no" crowd play against this:

Spoiler:

It's somewhere between a resculpt of an unreleased GW model and could be seen as a recast (but I think it's superior to the current GW offering). Would that model be an issue?

**SHUPPET**

Klerych wrote:
SHUPPET wrote:
I don't know, that's why I'm asking. I'm not pushing forth an opinion with that post as I don't have one yet, I'm merely asking you and others who feel that recasting OOP is ok but recasting regular models is less ethical, where do you draw the line?

Well, the location of that line is of course purely subjective, but I would mark it between "models for discontinued games" such as Necromunda and "models for limited supply products" that would contain Space Hulk and Dreadfleet once it's sold out. The latter are more like limited run collector things and were supposed to be... limited(derp) while the former just got discontinued because of lack of interest in the game from players and/or the company. Again, purely subjective but I think it's a distinction as reasonable as any.

Ok but things that were not intended to be collectors edition E.G slightly different kits like the second latest release of Stealers that they since changed the aesthetics a little and I happen to prefer the older version and want to buy some and run them in my army, but this is a service not provided by GW but is however provided by a recaster. Where does the line lay?

**OgreChubbs**

Nothing wrong with recasts, when they are better then the original lol. Hell I do have around 5k of chaos dwarf forgeworld style and like 10k ogres alone. If they are recasts no one ever knew yet

who knows maybe they are maybe they aren't tho.

But casting is not to cheap unless you want 50+ that is. First 6 you make cost more then buying more. I made some of my own models "alot bigger then 28mm" and it cheaper to make a new one then recast after 5+ it pays off tho.

Plus I like my stuff in resign not plastic or metal.

**Forcemajeure**

This is an easy question when you live in a country that allows "a few" copies for personal use or to give to close family and friends

So I would not care if I saw anyone use recasts. If they used recasts that they bought from a 3rd party it would be different legally, but it is not my place to suspect or investigate how someone acquired their models.

(For the rest of you under Swedish jurisdiction: Lag 1960:729, Kap 2, 12 §)

**Peregrine**

TheKbob wrote:
So would the "no" crowd play against this:

Spoiler:

It's somewhere between a resculpt of an unreleased GW model and could be seen as a recast (but I think it's superior to the current GW offering). Would that model be an issue?

This is different because it's a case of making a new model that uses some copied GW components, not just recasting existing GW kits because you're too cheap to buy the real ones.

**TheKbob**

Peregrine wrote:

This is different because it's a case of making a new model that uses some copied GW components, not just recasting existing GW kits because you're too cheap to buy the real ones.

Those are cheaper.

And "cheap" is a relative term. More like frugal as $15 aged jetbike model is dumb.

**Tressel**

I am against piracy and selling illegally copied models. If they recast the models themselves for their own use then I do not care as they are copying their own property (the originally purchased models).

**Azreal13**

Peregrine wrote:
TheKbob wrote:
So would the "no" crowd play against this:

Spoiler:

It's somewhere between a resculpt of an unreleased GW model and could be seen as a recast (but I think it's superior to the current GW offering). Would that model be an issue?

This is different because it's a case of making a new model that uses some copied GW components, not just recasting existing GW kits because you're too cheap to buy the real ones.

Making the assumption that people buy recasts solely on price.

A dangerous assumption from what I've read.

Perhaps you should buy some Peregrine, perhaps you wouldn't be so cross at GW then?

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Tressel wrote:
I am against piracy and selling illegally copied models. If they recast the models themselves for their own use then I do not care as they are copying their own property (the originally purchased models).

Please explain how this is different?

**Thud**

Tressel wrote:
I am against piracy and selling illegally copied models. If they recast the models themselves for their own use then I do not care as they are copying their own property (the originally purchased models).

So, if I buy a Riptide and use the sprues to cast a second, giving me two Riptides but paying GW for only one, that's ok?

What if I outsource the work of actually re-casting the second one, say to China, how does that then become not ok?

As for the original question; I have no problems with it.

**TheKbob**

azreal13 wrote:

Making the assumption that people buy recasts solely on price.

A dangerous assumption from what I've read.

Perhaps you should buy some Peregrine, perhaps you wouldn't be so cross at GW then?

I've seen a recast Tyranid Hierophant and the caster made the model with brass rods built into the molds so the model could be free standing and never sag to it's weight or from heat damage. I could easily see paying more for such a product as it's superior to the one Forgeworld makes.

So there's an example of what I think Azreal is alluding towards.

**Grimskul**

I supply my friends with Forgeworld recasts myself so of course I would

**Steve steveson**

Depends. If someone is recasting OOP minis, maybe, depending on their reason.

If they are recasting, or buying known fakes, of current minis, no matter what company they are from, is wrong. If people want to save money then make scratch builds or count as forces. Recasting is illegal and wrong. Whatever GW may have done two wrongs don't make a right. It's not "sticking it to the man", it's being cheap and is illegal and I won't support it. Don't agree with the pricing or whatever? Don't buy it.

**Hivefleet Oblivion**

SHUPPET wrote:
Yonan wrote:
Hivefleet Oblivion wrote:
Making up a justification that GW treats its customers with 'spite'? really?

If you don't think GW treats their players poorly, perhaps you haven't dealt with them raising prices by 40+% in your country and then putting ridiculous restrictions on merchants in other nations to prevent you from ordering there. I'd call that spiteful, and damn straight I'll shaft 'em back for it.

Exalted. We pay far more than we should. And it's higher than 40% even after factoring in exchange rates

The stupidity of this argument is so manifest that it's hardly worth dealing with, but all the same...

you're complaining about GW charging too much money for something, which they spent money designing, it's theirs. Then because they're charging 40% too much in your entitled mind, you're paying money to someone else for a design they stole.

In other words, you'd rather support a crook than a price-gouger.

my position, don't particularly like recasts, but I understand why people use them and I wouldn't particularly condemn them. Except when they use the aforementioned intellectually and morally bankrupt argument of entitlement: that I deserve to have my toys at whatever price, and because GW prices are too high, it's better to support thieves.

**Steve steveson**

Aren't allot of other things, like electronics and computer games, much more expensive in Australia? Assassins creed unity is 20% more than in the UK. 99 au$, which is £55. £45 in the UK. Makes me think there is some reason behind it than just "we'll charge them more"

**Relapse**

NecronLord3 wrote:
The recasts I own are better than what GW/FW is producing for three times the price. I can't fault anyone for choosing a superior product over an inferior one, and I also challenge anyone to prove any of my models are recasts.

You just confessed. Proof given.

**Kangodo**

I don't think it's written as a "morally argument of entitlement".
It's simply making a statement: I buy recast because GW is too expensive.

If GW-models had decent prices, I would buy them. Even if recasts were still cheaper.
I don't think Imperial Knights are really worth 110 euro, so I try to get them for less.
I surely disagree that their codex is worth 33 euro. I only want the rules so I can play them.

Can we please stop with this legal/moral off-topic discussion?
It's clear that people don't give a gak about the legality or morality.
If I want to see a movie, I will download it.
If I want to read the rules, I will download it.
And if I want a model way cheaper, I will buy recasts.
No amount of arguing on a forum will ever change that.

**Furyou Miko**

For some perspective on the "GW is too expensive!" argument...

There's a pet breeding game on the 'net called Aywas.

Aywas has a very cunning business model. Anyone can breed their pets. However, if you want anything other than a carbon copy of the parent, you have to buy a breeding token.

If you want some edits to the artwork, for example a reposed tail, you need a special breeding token. Oh, and you need to find someone to actually alter the artwork for you.

Special breeding tokens go for $70 US. Essentially, you are paying seventy U.S. dollars to upload your own artwork.

Now tell me that $80 for a plastic model kit that's well designed by a professional artisan is too expensive.

**Azreal13**

You've just cited the business model GW seems to be pursuing!

In fairness though, things ultimately cost what people are prepared to spend. So, if enough people are willing to pay $70 a time for the whole thing to be viable, more power to them.

I will not be one of them.

The existence of recasters, or widespread piracy of any sort in any other industry, is generally indicative of a disconnect between the customer base and the price/quality of the product on offer, which would suggest GW have overstepped the mark in that regard.

**Davor**

Klerych wrote:
Davor wrote:
Oh my a few White Knights in here. Anyone who is claiming it is wrong to use/buy recasts (not talking about making recasts and selling them) is wrong, you telling me you NEVER EVER ONCE downloaded a GW book? Never downloaded a song or movie? A video game?

All I will say is HYPOCRIT.

Yeah! Why not go steal someone's car? I mean.. I already have downloaded a book and pirated a game, so now I am excused in further law violations and it's perfectly okay and justified! And if I infringed someone's copyright already, why not go for more? All I'm saying that if one crime is not wrong, then maybe another one isn't either, right?

See the flaw yet? It's like saying "how can you claim that killing is wrong if you already killed someone before?" so what, killing people is okay now that you have done it before..? Yes, one can call it wrong even if he has done it, that's not being a hypocrite. I'd be a hypocrite if I said that it's wrong and that I don't do it while actually doing it.

Even though I say that it's morally wrong and I would try to convince someone to stop buying recasts, it doesn't actually mean that I can't understand his reasons. Maybe he's too poor and yet he wants to play it without saving up for one army over the year's course and buy crappily painted/mistreated models off eBay. I won't bash him, but I will never say that it's okay. A starving person stealing bread from a rich guy will still be wrong to do so and it will be at best "necessary evil" and he should be ashamed of doing so, even if it was a matter of survival. I would never accept hearing that it's perfectly okay for him to do so in his situation.

If someone's too poor to start an army but really wants to, I will not bash him for buying recasts, but if he ever brags about it or feels that it's alright to buy recasts and there's nothing wrong about it I will disagree with him. Again - no theft(and copyright/IP infringement are a theft) is -ever- okay nor justified, no matter how little love you have for the one you steal from and buying from those guys is promoting theft as they make profit off someone else's work without his consent.

Huh, what? Where did I say it was wrong? Where did I say it was ok? All I said was some white knights are claiming to its wrong, and I am calling them out that they never done this themselves.

Where do you get I am saying it's ok to kill people or what ever you are trying to prove? How can someone say it's wrong, but yet they have done the same thing in the past?

**Steve steveson**

Kangodo wrote:

Can we please stop with this legal/moral off-topic discussion?

It fundamentally IS a legal and moral choice. How can it possibly be anything else?

**TheCustomLime**

If buying counterfeits is as attractive as it is for a lot of people then is it the fault of the consumer for wanting to save money or the fault of GW for their horrible prices? I don't think we owe anything to corporations. If anything, they owe it to us to make their genuine products more appealing than the fakes if they want to stay in business. That's how a free market works.

**Steve steveson**

azreal13 wrote:
You've just cited the business model GW seems to be pursuing!

In fairness though, things ultimately cost what people are prepared to spend. So, if enough people are willing to pay $70 a time for the whole thing to be viable, more power to them.

I will not be one of them.

The existence of recasters, or widespread piracy of any sort in any other industry, is generally indicative of a disconnect between the customer base and the price/quality of the product on offer, which would suggest GW have overstepped the mark in that regard.

No, it's an indication that people place no value on intellectual property and when you look at the number of people still pirating books and music, despite the price drops and availability in multiple formats, that some people will always chose free over legal.

**ashcroft**

azreal13 wrote:
existence of recasters, or widespread piracy of any sort in any other industry, is generally indicative of a disconnect between the customer base and the price/quality of the product on offer, which would suggest GW have overstepped the mark in that regard.

No, the existence of piracy is indicative that the capability exists to copy a product and sell it for less/free.

And that is all that it indicates.

So much self deception in this thread. Pirating GW/FW is no different morally from pirating any other mini manufacturer. The recasters don't give one feth about GW's policies, or pricing, or rules imbalance. They recast GW because that's what sells. If you think for one solitary second that they wouldn't do the same to Privateer Press or Victoria Miniatures or anyone else then you are very very wrong.

Seriously people, if you must buy your knock offs then do so, but stop pretending that you're taking some sort of stand against Big Bad GW by doing so.

**Steve steveson**

TheCustomLime wrote:
If buying counterfeits is as attractive as it is for a lot of people then is it the fault of the consumer for wanting to save money or the fault of GW for their horrible prices? I don't think we owe anything to corporations. If anything, they owe it to us to make their genuine products more appealing than the fakes if they want to stay in business. That's how a free market works.

That's simply not true. Fakers will always be cheaper than the real thing. They have no intellectual costs and have another business to build there market. It's not about who owes who what. Every country has IP laws for a reason. The free market lets other companies develop competing products, not people make fakes. Fundamentally the market needs protections to encourage innovation. Without IP protection no one will have a guarantee of being able to profit from the work so why bother innovating?

**Davor**

Steve steveson wrote:
azreal13 wrote:
You've just cited the business model GW seems to be pursuing!

In fairness though, things ultimately cost what people are prepared to spend. So, if enough people are willing to pay $70 a time for the whole thing to be viable, more power to them.

I will not be one of them.

The existence of recasters, or widespread piracy of any sort in any other industry, is generally indicative of a disconnect between the customer base and the price/quality of the product on offer, which would suggest GW have overstepped the mark in that regard.

No, it's an indication that people place no value on intellectual property and when you look at the number of people still pirating books and music, despite the price drops and availability in multiple formats, that some people will always chose free over legal.

I think Apple iTunes want a word with you. If all those people wanted free, how come iTunes have made Billions?

**Azreal13**

TheCustomLime wrote:
If buying counterfeits is as attractive as it is for a lot of people then is it the fault of the consumer for wanting to save money or the fault of GW for their horrible prices? I don't think we owe anything to corporations. If anything, they owe it to us to make their genuine products more appealing than the fakes if they want to stay in business. That's how a free market works.

That's a fair point, I've often seen consumer affairs programs on the TV which will talk about counterfeit shoes, handbags etc. There is always inevitably a mini "how to" guide designed to highlight the most obvious way of spotting if your handbag is fake, and these guides inevitably revolve around quality of workmanship and materials.

From my understanding, and, I strongly suspect, the ownership of some large FW resin kits whose provenance is less than stellar, the reverse can often be applied to GW model recasts.

That's a huge deal for a company, and one they really should, you'd feel, address strongly and in the most urgent terms, but as I guess the majority of recasts are bought online, maybe they just don't know about it.

**Captain Avatar**

Klerych wrote:
Yeah! Why not go steal someone's car? I mean.. I already have downloaded a book and pirated a game, so now I am excused in further law violations and it's perfectly okay and justified! And if I infringed someone's copyright already, why not go for more? All I'm saying that if one crime is not wrong, then maybe another one isn't either, right?

See the flaw yet?

Yes, it is in your analogy.

A more accurate automotive analogy would be to ask if it is ok to pull molds of the body panels and then "build" your own car.

To do such is perfectly legal. In fact there is an entire industry built around it. They are called "Kit Cars" or "Repli-cars".

The only time this becomes illegal is of someone tries to pass of the copy as an authentic original.

klerych wrote:
[color=red] Remember that recasting is still illegal and it's still a crime.

No, it is not. One can recast to their hearts contentment without breaking the law.

The crime is attempting to profit off of said recasting by passing them off as authentic.

Matter of fact, one could recast the models and sell them as "replicas" and the worst thing that could happen is GW would file an injunction to cease and desist, then file for civil damages.

A crime would be to fraudulently pass off a copy as an original.

Selling replicas is a civil matter and while they have good lawyers and a strong IP, such lawsuits are not a sure win for gw as recent cases have shown.