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.

What is your take on scratch-built models?
Do you feel it enables to the player to have some creative choice in their army?
or do you see them as a way for people to not spend their money on the product like the rest of us?

I want to hear your opinions.

Thanks
Austin

If the model is well done, then it's fine.

If it looks roughly like what the other guy's claiming it is I'm happy.

I had a scratch-built graveyard, that was modelled with a necromancer conjuring skeletons out of their graves that I used as a casket of souls, and some people just freaked out about it... it was the exact size of a casket.. but they lost it, and wouldn't play me

Thanks
Austin

Sometimes, I actually prefer to see scratch-built models. They can add some new flavor to the army if they look the part, and as long as the base is the right size, there really aren't any complaints to be had.

If it matches the theme of the army, I welcome it.
Many of my pieces are not GW. Statues of dragons abound in the cheaper jewellery shops...
And for years GW didn't make one or two of the pieces I wanted for my WoC...
What would you recommend for a Necrolith Colossus?
ETC publish standard base sizes, and so long as the figure(s) fit the base, bring it (them) on.

Rule of cool, if it is cool then it is ok.

If they look good, I'm cool with it.

I won't turn scratch built away. Instead of cash, they're putting in effort. Cash vs time are different values depending on the person. Nobody has the right to tell anyone what their time is worth within a hobby field (your boss can define your pay vs time though, kinda the norm). And anyone who does is an donkey-cave. No exceptions. Redbad, you should be glad those guys refused to play you. They sound like pieces of gak. You're better off without em.

*scratch built does not mean "this peanut butter jar with a carnifex head and spare claws is a carnifex"

100% for Scratchbuilding. Kitbashes, homemade stuff, combinations thereof are all ways of being creative with the hobby, saving cash (you can't really blame anyone for that!) and providing something different to play with.

That, and I scratch-build a lot myself, so could hardly refuse!

I think some folks are confusing...
- "Scratchbuild": built almost entirely from raw materials.
- "Kitbash": assembled from multiple model kits or an extremely modified existing kit.
-"Alternate model": using a model other than the Official GW model.
… they aren't the same thing.

As for the topic at hand, the poll should have an entry for
"I love them!"
I'm in the camp of folks that would always prefer to see a well-done* scratch-build over a stock model. For me gaming is very much visual expereince so whatever makes the table more interesting I'm always in favor of. Also, it nicely harkens back to the days when outside-the-box modeling was encouraged by GW.


*By well done, I mean representative (size, armament, etc), completed and painted.

I'm all for them. I think they can be very neat! And like others have noted, when people make them, they often put a lot of effort into it. The effort and the artistry alone make it worthwhile.

Entirely depends on quality. Dont stick pasta and some spiky bits into playdough and call it a chaos spawn.

Scratch builds should show effort, skill, and creativity not laziness/cheapness.

It shows creativity

 Geemoney wrote:
If the model is well done, then it's fine.

This^^^^

Not kitbashed. I mean if you can sculpt and build from raw materials and make it entirely your own then I say go for it. If you plan on doing something like the "blob army" one of our locals 6 year old did with colored clay then no. That is only acceptable if you are 6.

As long as it looks like reasonable effort was made and it looks like what its supposed to represent.

Dont like it to be honest

 Trondheim wrote:
Dont like it to be honest

Why? This is of course assuming that it is to scale and fits the army being played. Nothing wacky

 namiel wrote:

 Trondheim wrote:
Dont like it to be honest

Why? This is of course assuming that it is to scale and fits the army being played. Nothing wacky

Well that's an entirely subjective decision.

This sort of question really requires specific information on the model in question and the answer will vary from person to person.

 Grey Templar wrote:

 namiel wrote:

 Trondheim wrote:
Dont like it to be honest

Why? This is of course assuming that it is to scale and fits the army being played. Nothing wacky

Well that's an entirely subjective decision.

This sort of question really requires specific information on the model in question and the answer will vary from person to person.

we can use this as an example of what I am talking about as far as scale, look, quality. This was made by a guy over on the one ring forum. it is dain ironfoot from the 3 hobbit movie. What would you say to someone showing up with that for a scratchbuilt?

Absolutely acceptable.

It looks like what its meant to represent, and its a good quality effort.

Must admit I was pretty blown away by how well that Dain fitted in with my Dwarf army (that painted one is mine, I didn't sculpt it!). It's certainly an example of how something 'unofficial' can look just as good as something GW-sanctioned. I guess it blurs the line between 3rd Party and Scratch-build, but the point stands.

I can see why people would take issue with a scratch-build that was shoddily put together or not at all representative of the intended 'original', but by and large, a good-quality scratch-build will be just as good as the original (check out some of the 40k-scratchbuilders in the Blog section to see some amazing examples)

I would agree with rule of cool.

But all of the scratch-built models I have seen, honestly look terrible. So unless the person making the model is a master sculptor, or used something very similar, then I think it can detract from the look of the army.

But the Dwarf above is amazing and perfectly acceptable.

If a scratch-built model shows a proper level of effort, I don't understand why anyone can have a problem with it. If you're willing to accept current plastic Empire State Troopers on a gaming table, you should accept everything.

I'd go for rule of clarity, rather than rule of cool. Does it look enough like what it's meant to be for me to be able to identify it mid game? Does it have the appropriate attributes (like base size) for it to be used fairly in game? Then sure.

It can be a terrible just but meet those requirements and be fine, or it can be the most awesome sculpt ever but fail those requirements and be unacceptable.

There was once a kid at the GW I was at who had a Space Marine "army" consisting almost entirely of models slaped together using random bits. It was the ugliest army I had ever seen, and wish never again to see any army similar to it.

 Ciciro wrote:
There was once a kid at the GW I was at who had a Space Marine "army" consisting almost entirely of models slaped together using random bits. It was the ugliest army I had ever seen, and wish never again to see any army similar to it.

How does that have anything to do with scratchbuilds?

My check list of meh is

1) does it look good?
2) is it painted
3) is it roughly the right size for what it is supposed to be?

Anything below 50% gets a big meh

anything else is alright with me

 Eilif wrote:

 Ciciro wrote:
There was once a kid at the GW I was at who had a Space Marine "army" consisting almost entirely of models slaped together using random bits. It was the ugliest army I had ever seen, and wish never again to see any army similar to it.

How does that have anything to do with scratchbuilds?

I was just saying that because if it is scratchbuilt but it doesn't look good, then no one wants to play with you.

 Ciciro wrote:

 Eilif wrote:

 Ciciro wrote:
There was once a kid at the GW I was at who had a Space Marine "army" consisting almost entirely of models slaped together using random bits. It was the ugliest army I had ever seen, and wish never again to see any army similar to it.

How does that have anything to do with scratchbuilds?

I was just saying that because if it is scratchbuilt but it doesn't look good, then no one wants to play with you.

I see. I was wondering because what you describe is a "kitbash".

I think some folks are confusing...
- "Scratchbuild": built almost entirely from raw materials.
- "Kitbash": assembled from multiple model kits or an extremely modified existing kit.
-"Alternate model": using a model other than the Official GW model.
… they aren't the same thing.

I do agree with your general point though that a poorly executed non-standard model is not likely to be accepted