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 think that 3rd party should be allowed in conversion parts or the odd model which is scratch built, but whole units or armies even is pushing it and it denies you playing in gw.

 e.earnshaw wrote:
I think that 3rd party should be allowed in conversion parts or the odd model which is scratch built, but whole units or armies even is pushing it and it denies you playing in gw.

Luckily, I don't play in a GW

Seriously though, can anyone say the Victoria guardsmen lines are inferior to the GW Cadian sets? I'm genuinely curious if this is just my opinion or pretty generally accepted:

http://victoriaminiatures.highwire.com/

I disagree that it is insulting or disrespectful, but in a way I can see the point.

I care mostly about effort, and I can see a point that many of these cases come about because of a lack of effort. I don't mean like, "I bought the Dreamforge Knight because I can't afford the real one" stuff...more like "this toy I already had lying around glued to a base is my $400 super heavy" type stuff.

We had a player that was often talking of latest army projects and drums up hype to play them, then shows up with a lot of action figures and repurposed other models. No one minds particularly, of course, but it does deflate the excitement somewhat -- the player in question will talk about his various armies and sort of interchange the rules and models, saying things like "oh yeah I have like 7,000 points of Guard" when really he just has a lot of random stuff that could stand in for them to an extent. Again, no one has a problem with this, but it tends to hit people out of left field a lot. It'd be different if he said it differently in the lead up, you know?

I mean, imagine if you had some guy talk for months about his Warhound, and then when the big Apoc game comes, it is killed by the opposing team's Optimus Prime ("Imperial Knight") or Alien vs. Predator toy ("Haruspex") glued to an AOL CD, it does somewhat take away. It's not so much the proxying, it's more when guys who are all "And I'll bring my Warhound!" show up with a Star Wars toy without batting an eye. It's especially harsh on guys who went out and bought something big to counter it (which has happened three straight times in my club, unfortunately).

I don't think it is bad, but this kind of proxying kind of jerks around one's expectations to a degree. I find super heavies/very expensive large single pieces are the worst offenders of this, as they often have sizes similar to much cheaper toys. Not everything has as much aesthetic synergy as the Gundam and Riptide designs.

Third party models that are supposed to represent things in the 40k fiction are fairly different, though. Someone wanting their army to look cool makes anything they do come off in that context; someone who wants a powerful or new army fast and without much work or quality also has everything they do put in that context.

So while I don't agree with the OP, I can understand the sentiment to some degree. There are guys who are in this just for the ability to say "I have [average points level of a game x 10] points of [random niche army that is really hard to collect / paint / find]" and it's surprising how much effort they put into NOT playing the stuff, or not even trying to make it look like what it represents in the game.

 e.earnshaw wrote:
I think that 3rd party should be allowed in conversion parts or the odd model which is scratch built, but whole units or armies even is pushing it and it denies you playing in gw.

I remember going to the grand opening in fairfax va. They pulled my models because I had used non-gw paints on them. As a youth, I was highly hurt. Likely the start of when I started to dislike them as a company.

Could I disagree with the OP anymore than I do? Hmm... nope. I love to see imaginations run wild. Some of the 3rd party bits are really good and add a lot of personality and detail to an army.
And yes, Victoria has amazing minis.

 e.earnshaw wrote:
I think that 3rd party should be allowed in conversion parts or the odd model which is scratch built, but whole units or armies even is pushing it and it denies you playing in gw.

And.....?

I'm not even sure I'd present that as a negative.

I'll declare a conflict of interests because many of my models are either third party alternates, use third party parts or are kit bashes, but I only ever use the "official" GW model if I like it and it represents what I feel is the best representation of that unit I can find.

Even if you're purely a gamer, and hate painting and modelling, why would you invest time and money (many kits will represent a few hours just to get to assembled grey plastic, even if taken no further) in ugly models when there are better options available? It isn't even always a question of price, I've happily spent more than the GW cost for the equivalent models to get a sculpt I prefer.

If it represents what it is supposed to well enough that it isn't confusing, then, as an opponent there really isn't a legitimate objection you can raise AFAICS.

 Dalymiddleboro wrote:
I'm sorry but when I see Dreamforce dreadknights, colonial historical miniatures, and tier things if the like I just can't stand playing against them. I feel they don't fit the 40k aesthetic and are a cheap way into cheating what the hobby is. People spend not only time building and painting their mans, but time earning the money to buy the actual product. Those third part miniatures is kind of insulting to the people who saved for the real thing. What do you guys think?

I disagree.

 EVIL INC wrote:

 e.earnshaw wrote:
I think that 3rd party should be allowed in conversion parts or the odd model which is scratch built, but whole units or armies even is pushing it and it denies you playing in gw.

I remember going to the grand opening in fairfax va. They pulled my models because I had used non-gw paints on them. As a youth, I was highly hurt. Likely the start of when I started to dislike them as a company.

Wait- they pulled your army because it used different PAINTS!? How the heck do they even figure that out, and why the do they care?!

I have deleted a lot of spammy rude posts where people chime in just to call OP a troll. Please don't do this. If you don't want to constructively and politely respond, just go about your business. Thanks.

 EVIL INC wrote:

I remember going to the grand opening in fairfax va. They pulled my models because I had used non-gw paints on them.

How could they tell? I mean, okay there was that period of a year or so when GW didn't have the color pink in their paint line (despite Slaanesh armies existing) and it took them 20 years to get more than 3 shades of "purple" (for the longest time it was one purple, one violet, and one realy dark blue that they decided to call purple because they think we're all colorblind or something) so if your models sported colors outside of the established range of paints available I could see a redshirt getting suspicious... But if you didn't use those colors, how would a GW drone know they weren't GW paints?

As long as its clear what the models are(or are standing in for) I couldn't care less if they are 3rd party models. Some of the 3rd party kits do look amazing, as long as it doesn't make anything more confusing, i.e. well the guys with sticks have lasguns, the guys with rocks have plasma guns, the guy with the big rock is a las cannon heavy weapons team(though if done right and suitably awesome I would still be fine with this).

 Accolade wrote:

 EVIL INC wrote:

 e.earnshaw wrote:
I think that 3rd party should be allowed in conversion parts or the odd model which is scratch built, but whole units or armies even is pushing it and it denies you playing in gw.

I remember going to the grand opening in fairfax va. They pulled my models because I had used non-gw paints on them. As a youth, I was highly hurt. Likely the start of when I started to dislike them as a company.

Wait- they pulled your army because it used different PAINTS!? How the heck do they even figure that out, and why the do they care?!

I wondered that too, until I remembered that I painted my first minis with testers enamels. You could tell.

It's still a jerk move on their part.

 Accolade wrote:

 EVIL INC wrote:

 e.earnshaw wrote:
I think that 3rd party should be allowed in conversion parts or the odd model which is scratch built, but whole units or armies even is pushing it and it denies you playing in gw.

I remember going to the grand opening in fairfax va. They pulled my models because I had used non-gw paints on them. As a youth, I was highly hurt. Likely the start of when I started to dislike them as a company.

Wait- they pulled your army because it used different PAINTS!? How the heck do they even figure that out, and why the do they care?!

I had used oil based. My painting skills then were most definately not what they are now so werent as good as many others there. This was before the youngbloods section or anything like that. As a youth, i knew nothing about any requirements. i was just a bright eyed young fan excited to go to a big event. Like i said Likely the start of why I dislike the company. I like many of their games and cherish the memories of playing them with friends but the company itself is a different story.

 Dalymiddleboro wrote:
I'm sorry but when I see Dreamforce dreadknights, colonial historical miniatures, and tier things if the like I just can't stand playing against them. I feel they don't fit the 40k aesthetic and are a cheap way into cheating what the hobby is. People spend not only time building and painting their mans, but time earning the money to buy the actual product. Those third part miniatures is kind of insulting to the people who saved for the real thing. What do you guys think?

You're off base in a number of ways here, so I'll list them out:

1. Characterizing conversions as "a cheap way into cheating what the hobby is" shows that you either haven't been playing GW games very long, or just aren't aware... but converting models, and even making models completely from scratch, has always been part of the culture of GW games, and was strongly encouraged for a long time. Using complete third party models is a bit of a different animal, which I personally enjoy, but you're even lumping in conversions here, which are undoubtedly part of the culture of GW games.

2. Regarding "cheap", I personally have spent much more on making awesome conversions / counts-as models, than I would have buying the GW equivalent. As shown by the success of Forgeworld, people are willing to pay significantly more than GW prices for awesome models.

So, probably starting out with a less inflammatory premise/tone would net you better results here. If you don't like conversions, that's fine, but they are a very real part of "the hobby" of playing GW games, and often make things more expensive than the base model.

I'll give you a good example: I commissioned a sculptor to make weapon arms for the chaos dwarf weapon options that FW does not offer. This was a huge expense, and when I finish the project should look really awesome, perfectly in keeping with the GW aesthetic, but very much a "third party conversion". So, you need to be more specific about what you're talking about here, and not lump all third party model conversions as "cheap" and "cheating" those who saved for the real thing. When all is said and done, I'll have spent signifcantly more on my converted chaos dwarfs than someone who just stuck with the stock/standard GW arms and weaponry for them! And I think (hope!) they will look amazing

Most (all?) of my favorite armies done by others have been heavily converted too, whether from third party models/bits or from scratch.

So, you're cool with the potato face guardsman but the Victoria miniatures guardsman offend you? Why? Would they still offend you if they had a GW sticker on them?

As for conversions... I don't get it. Really, I don't get how all conversions could get on someone's nerves. I can kind of understand bad conversions but good ones? They rock.Hell, I have a few conversions in my 98% GW Marine army and they're most just repositioning the bolter arms. Would that offend you?

Personally, I don't give two gaks about what the other person have. Unless it's MLP:FIM miniatures. Then I'll be laughing my ass off.

Completely depends on the models and the players motives, if they are alternative models with a view to still fitting the 40k style, as companies like Victoria Miniatures are then awesome.

If it is someone week after week just wanting to use whatever models they have laying about without ever embracing the world by creating a cool army from miniauters sold by any company that fit the 40k style then i would lose interest playing them on a regular basis if im being honest.

Its the rule of cool as always.

I can kind of sympathize with the OP on this one. The GW miniature ranges do have certain aesthetics to them and if this is what attracts you to GW gaming then of course you are going to be disappointed to see something else on 'the other side of the table' TM.

That said, there are a lot of 3rd party pieces that can be made to fit the GW model aesthetics. Furthermore, if you look at the background art the miniature ranges are actually just a very narrow slice of the 40k aesthetics.

What frustrates me (only slightly) is when people chose third party alternatives for deliberate ambiguity. Like when you hear 'oh yeah, I picked up these guns cos they could make some really good plasma guns, meltas or flamers' - make your mind up! But this frustration isn't only a (edit: non-)GW problem; most of us are guilty of sometimes counting a weapon as one thing or another (like that chaos champion with a groovy sword arm mutation; is it a power sword or not? Varies by game).

As to being cheap; when I started the hobby using conversions and paint jobs were expected; some elite choices didn't have their own model ranges so at the very least you had to paint up regular models differently so your opponent could tell which marine was a tactical and which was a veteran (e.g. by helmet colour or freehand markings). I still retain this philosophy that basic models can be turned into elite ones with simple conversion and/or paint work.

I am perfectly fine with third party substitutes and scratchbuilt models. *** BUT *** they must have weapons that are clearly identifiable and look like the intended weapons.

I won't accept a table full of Flames of War miniatures substituted for Imperial Guard, I won't play with someone who uses M16s and calls them lasrifles, or who calls a H&K a laspistol.

Nor will I accept a Sherman as a LRMBT or a M39 as a Chimera. I would jokingly tell them that sure they can use it, but they need to play it as a 38,000 year old antique with S1, AV1. But if someone makes an LRMBT out of plasticard, and it has a roughly identical base size to a real one, I will happily accept that, no problem.

I guess, part of it is also effort. If someone builds custom Tau from scratch and it obviously took them two hundred hours to make ten models, of course I'm going to let them use them, even if they look funky or weird. But, if they want to use some robotech units, forget it.

Also, I have no problem with third party models that are recasts. Not that I can tell, usually, but where or how they got it isn't really my business.

Talys wrote:


I won't accept a table full of Flames of War miniatures substituted for Imperial Guard

That would probably be hard given that most of the infantry would barely come up the knee on a Cadian guardsmen, and event the largest tank would struggle to match most Bike models for size

nareik wrote:

What frustrates me (only slightly) is when people chose third party alternatives for deliberate ambiguity. Like when you hear 'oh yeah, I picked up these guns cos they could make some really good plasma guns, meltas or flamers' - make your mind up! But this frustration isn't only a GW problem; most of us are guilty of sometimes counting a weapon as one thing or another (like that chaos champion with a groovy sword arm mutation; is it a power sword or not? Varies by game).

If someone used a generic weapon in most of their specials/heavy slots, and I had to guess at what was what or they just decided before each game "That's a plasma and that's a multimelta", no, I'd actually politely decline the game and explain why.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Vaktathi wrote:

Talys wrote:


I won't accept a table full of Flames of War miniatures substituted for Imperial Guard

That would probably be hard given that most of the infantry would barely come up the knee on a Cadian guardsmen, and event the largest tank would struggle to match most Bike models for size

Yeah I was using an extreme example, though

Well GW itself said that people that sold their stuff cheaper were stealing from them. So those that buy cheaper models made or not made by GW are buying stolen goods.

Extreme examples such as that could gain you a lot of flames. I know when I did, I got about 12 pages of them. you should be fine though. lol

i honestly wouldnt mind models using m16s as las rifles under a few conditions... 1. that the size be "correct". 2. that it be consistant. I dont want the m16 on THIS guy to be a las gun while the m16 on THAT guy to be a melta gun. Pretty much the same for the tanks. So long as the size is right, the weapons placed close enough and they be consistant. Many just LIKE the retro feel of older real world tanks.

Often times, it is just for cool value. I own 3 valkrie/vendettas but I wanted to be able to field vendettas that looked different than valkries so i converted up a ork dakka jet with the 3 twin linked guns being 3 twin linked las cannons. I've gotten a lot of compliments on it and aside from a few "blasphemies!" (said in jest), no one has ever complained. (before you ask, where do the passengers ride?, I put handles on the tops of the wings for them to hold onto if they are brave enough to ride. For some reason, my troops prefer to remain landbound)

 Dalymiddleboro wrote:
I'm sorry but when I see Dreamforce dreadknights, colonial historical miniatures, and tier things if the like I just can't stand playing against them. I feel they don't fit the 40k aesthetic and are a cheap way into cheating what the hobby is. People spend not only time building and painting their mans, but time earning the money to buy the actual product. Those third part miniatures is kind of insulting to the people who saved for the real thing. What do you guys think?

I love insulting people like you with my armies.

Its easy and saves money!

Creativeryy, 3rd parties can make armies come to life.

Why buy the one that looks kinda right when can have a perfect match to idea

I'm not a fan of massive 3rd party proxy usage. I'd rather play "official" models built under the same aesthetic and intended for the same game than debatable "counts as" stand ins. I tend towards rule of cool like most people, though, and things like 3rd party bits don't phase me.

I also understand people getting annoyed at cheap proxy armies. I appreciate the money saving aspect as I had base-only proxy armies for a month so I could learn my codex and only buy units I knew I'd use. I asked my friends beforehand and they were fine with it. Now that I know what to buy I'm buying GW to be fair to my friends who also ponied up to have the "correct" models. It'd feel unfair if my opponent didn't do the same (obvious exception for try-before-you-buy).

There's also the "support the IP" argument.

Not sure where the "if you don't like 3rd party proxies you're an elitist donkey-cave" mindset came from. I'm entitled to my preferences whether you like them or not.

 Dalymiddleboro wrote:
Just doesn't do it for me. It's like proxying action figures in a game. I feel that if you should play something you should support the IP.

But only when the game has an IP, right? Because that's not how it worked for years with historical gaming.

Personally I don't care. Some third party stuff looks far better than anything GW does, some of it looks like a different aesthetic but if you're doing an entire army with that aesthetic then it's fine, mixing and matching though is kinda odd.

Nope.

If you want to put in the time and energy to get third-party stuff in the volume you need for Warhammer and work out consistent armament equivalencies such that your opponent can tell what's what without having to ask constantly you've put at least three times as much effort into the game as someone who buys some Space Marines, spray-paints them a solid colour, and dumps them on the battlefield. Using GW's models doesn't imply you're inherently more invested in the hobby aspect.

And well some 3rd parties in certain items cost more than gw. Regular push ffit cadian guard cost allot less per model

Effort and/or enthusiasm is all I require for the social contract to be fulfied by my standards. I enjoy a great looking army as much as I enjoy someone telling me all the cool things about their army.

I think this is very much dependent on the army itself. I have played against Tau armies which use gundam toys and godzilla toys to represent riptides... not my favorite.

I have also played against people who use some fantastic 3rd party stuff, like scibor for example. Some 3rd party companies create amazing figures which look fantastic.

The bottom line for me comes to where we're playing and what we're doing. If I am chumming around with my pals in the basement, then go ahead and use a proxy model for your flyrant or whatever, but if I go to an event, I expect a certain level of commitment, whether that mean paint, or conversions, or even 3rd party models.

Neither of these examples bother me as much as the people who come to event with unassembled models, or things which look like they were painted this morning, or not at all.

I recently played in a large GT in my area, and played against an opponent who had several tanks which were literally plopped together... not glued, not even really assembled... and definitely not on flying stands.

I'm a solid cat so I didn't raise a stink or anything, but it really does take something away from the game.

Also, as an aside, remember that the Ork army was founded on conversions. I mean the only vehicles they had for a long time were looted wagons and various trukks... which were usually Rhino or Leman Russ conversions. I have a friend who has a heavily converted Ork army, with many 3rd party sources used in his conversions, but he created a great look for his force, and receives many complements when he brings them to events. He even took a $2 kids helicopter toy bought at a yard sale and heavily converted it into a looted wagon helicopter (something really missing in the Ork line). Orks are a huge source of some of the best non-GW conversions and models. IMHO