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.

Even when Forge World models aren't OP by themselves they often open up weird abilities or synergize with already strong units in ways some people don't like.
They also get taken to fill in some perceived weakness in the codex units.
Your book doesn't have a good flier? Forge World
You tanks are glass cannons? Get an invul save from Forge World

Same complaint can be made for allies.

I used to know a guy who would do things like slightly bend a sword, or stick a bit of blu-tac on a mini and call it a conversion of pretty much whatever he liked that was also roughly the same size. No uniformity in weapon representation, units made of a mix of RT beakies and Van Saar gangers and stuff just stuck on whatever base happened to be at hand. If you called him on it, he'd start in on the whole "why are you repressing my artistic vision" schtick.

You need the rule for people like that.

Also, the whole 'bit' about flexibility vs. certainty is a struggle lawmakers have faced since prehistory. Too flexible means uncertainty. Too certain means rigidity.

I reckon that this is why tons of people complain about rules-writing, but never ever come up with anything better themselves.

 Excommunicatus wrote:
I used to know a guy who would do things like slightly bend a sword, or stick a bit of blu-tac on a mini and call it a conversion of pretty much whatever he liked that was also roughly the same size. No uniformity in weapon representation, units made of a mix of RT beakies and Van Saar gangers and stuff just stuck on whatever base happened to be at hand. If you called him on it, he'd start in on the whole "why are you repressing my artistic vision" schtick.

You need the rule for people like that.

Also, the whole 'bit' about flexibility vs. certainty is a struggle lawmakers have faced since prehistory. Too flexible means uncertainty. Too certain means rigidity.

I reckon that this is why tons of people complain about rules-writing, but never ever come up with anything better themselves.

Or, more frequently, when asked to come up with a better rule come up with one with its own potential loopholes or poor interpretation problems. Just different ones.

I run into this problem a lot, since I make a lot of custom rules for events and just goofy alternative game setups. it's super easy to say "A monkey could write better rules than that" and a lot harder to actually...write a rule that someone couldn't totally dunk on and abuse in a laughable way.

At the end of the day nobody wants to confront the reality that a lot of the time, people just want SOMEONE else to be in charge of making a judgement call, and they don't want to have to deal with it themselves. So they want to know there is a rule, and they want to know it would be enforced, but they don't actually care that it be ironclad.

Also, part of having a rule is the ability to have something that can be complained about besides just "the people making the judgement call." I sometimes run into this with painting rubrics and the like - some people are just not operating on a level that is realistic when it comes to their own abilities. A while back we ran an event where some ridiculous fraction of the attendees had INCREDIBLY well painted minis. Like, six out of the 16 people participating had armies that could have come out of catalogs, with loads of amazing conversions. And we had one guy who was by no means a BAD painter, but scored pretty relatively poorly because, hey, his competition was frankly just amazing.

And he got salty about it, but eventually concluded that he'd lost because his conversions were just too subtle for people to have noticed, and one of the categories we had was conversions.

Better that than being salty at someone who did the judging! Tell yourself whatever you have to tell yourself.

the_scotsman wrote:
One guy had an army where space marines with boltguns were genestealers, terminators were hive guards, armless dreadnought torsos were carnifexes, and rhinos were flying hive tyrants (all this stuff was obviously shittily painted stuff he'd got from ebay).

Why didn't he just buy Tyranids off eBay???

Hmm, I imagine that hobby stores would be just happy to keep customers, especially paying ones. It is a big social gap between ignoring and asking not to do something. It is very unpleasant and nobody wants to bother for lose-lose situation. Even then, hobby store managers have a store to manage, it is rare in my experience for them to inspect every table to the point that the whole "you have to pay for playing with store's inventory" can very be easily missed as it is next to impossible for person running the store to inspect separate areas in at least our store.

It's good to see the misconceptions come up right away so they can be dealt with.

beast_gts wrote:
OK, you've got a couple of different points here so in no particular order:

Forge World is mostly due to perceived OP-ness from previous editions, plus availability of the models & rules. 40k FW rules are now done by the main studio and the points are in CA so these issues are going away.

Those issues never existed. FW's rate of UP/balanced/OP has never actually been worse than the GW Studio's, and there's never been an edition where FW put out something that was really egregiously OP where GW didn't put out something that was at least in the same ballpark of badness. The whole "FW can't write balanced rules" mythology is a post hoc rationalisation peddled by tournament gamers who didn't want to deal with units they were unfamiliar with and/or which wouldn't be permitted at the events they were practicing for, and by the "BUY EVERYTHING FROM YOUR LOCAL FLGS OR YOU'RE A CANCER ON THE COMMUNITY!!!11" crowd.

Most players I know have no problem with 3D printed models that aren't direct copies of GW miniatures. The problem is similar to recasting where they're simply copying.

Most players you know are equating two entirely different things, legally speaking. Further in my experience online & off, the people who hate on 3D prints for being "copies" are almost always the exact same people who hate on 3rd party models with even a vague resemblance to a GW aesthetic as "ripoffs" and "parasites".


As to the OP's question of "why" - because some people get off on judging and exerting control over others, some people are bizarre corporate loyalists and/or snobs(the "anything but GW is badwrongbad" crowd), or reverse-snobs(the "FW is expensive and rare, so it shouldn't be allowed" crowd), or any number of other reasons. People are, often, arseholes, it's not unique to gaming. What to do about it? For me it was easy enough - it's a perfect Arsehole Detector; anyone who's going to chuck a hissy over 3D prints, or scratchbuilds, or conversions, or FW, or third-party stuff is someone I'm not going to get along with, so I bring up such things very quickly upon meeting a new potential opponent and if they react badly they cease to be a potential opponent. They don't have their delicate sensibilities or love for Corporate Daddy sullied, and I get to not deal with them, a win-win.

 John Prins wrote:


How did a 'big GW event' allow obvious, unpainted 3D prints to be played? GW has banned non-GW stuff from their tournaments since the beginning.

At various points there were rule that a mini had to be X% GW, to accommodate head-swaps and kit-bashes. So, let the mini painter beware.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Yodhrin wrote:

Those issues never existed. FW's rate of UP/balanced/OP has never actually been worse than the GW Studio's, and there's never been an edition where FW put out something that was really egregiously OP where GW didn't put out something that was at least in the same ballpark of badness. The whole "FW can't write balanced rules" mythology is a post hoc rationalisation peddled by tournament gamers who didn't want to deal with units they were unfamiliar with and/or which wouldn't be permitted at the events they were practicing for, and by the "BUY EVERYTHING FROM YOUR LOCAL FLGS OR YOU'RE A CANCER ON THE COMMUNITY!!!11" crowd.

This isn't entirely true. IA11 had some really broken lists for BFG.

IA:13 let you take Artillery as Troops, tar-pit your opponent with chaff and then fire your Artillery at your own units.

It was glorious, but super-OP.

 Ernestas wrote:

So, did you ever encountered this issue where people are unhappy or unwilling to play with you just because you bought a centerpiece from ForgeWorld or something akin to that?

Nope. not once. in a general setting. arguments can be made for events specifying it for whatever perceived reasons they have but its their event and you should respect their decision whether or not you go to it.

Its the same if its a store policy, as ultimately forgeworld is an exclusive product that they them selves cannot stock and or its not very common and as such may confuse and sour peoples opinions for perceived opness. unfounded or not. really the only thing you can do is start a dialog and work with your stores or events.

Nah. The weirder and rarer the better personally! I love seeing old weird and wonderful models/conversions on the table top.

I would take issue with a FW knight level unit going up against a scrub list but that's because Id have an issue with a non FW knight level unit going up against a scrub lists...

 Excommunicatus wrote:
IA:13 let you take Artillery as Troops, tar-pit your opponent with chaff and then fire your Artillery at your own units.

It was glorious, but super-OP.

That's not NEARLY as bad as IA:11 was for BFG. This was more in the vein of Baneblades as a cheap troops choice and their sponson weapons are megabolters that are also D Pie-pan templates. (Cardinal Heavy Cruisers got resurrected as 25cm 180 torp machines with heavy crusier HP) Some of them didn't even follow the basic movement rules for BFG. Occasionally to hilarious results, since at least one would just move directly across the board, unable to turn before it flew off table edge.

I really don't see the problem unless the model in question is somehow offensive or obscene in some way.
I myself have made a WOW Varimathras figure into a Death guard daemon prince.. Please don't hate me...

Aside from the obvious issues with obscenity in a family-friendly place, I also like to be able to tell what's what.

Making me remember that the Charmander is Magnus, the Pikachus are Rubrics, the Ash is Ahriman and the Snorlaxes are Vortex Beasts puts an extra mental burden on me just keeping track of all that, and makes the game unfun to play.

People here seem generally receptive to Forge World. If someone brings a Titan or similar Forge World centre-piece, it just means they can lose the game Turn 1 and their opponent gets an extra long lunch.

"Offensive" and "obscene" are entirely subjective, almost meaningless, terms.

Here's the mini that caused me issues, spoilered because She def. is NSFW and 'cause the pic is huge;



Aside from points cost, monetary cost and crappy paintjob, is She offensive and obscene? At least one person thought so.

You spoilered the image because you acknowledge it is not safe for work, but you don’t get why someone complained that it was not safe for work public gaming spaces?

No real criticism intended other than to point it you seem to have rebutted your own point.

People do work in game stores.

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
You spoilered the image because you acknowledge it is not safe for work, but you don’t get why someone complained that it was not safe for work public gaming spaces?

No real criticism intended other than to point it you seem to have rebutted your own point.

Not really. I spoilered the image because I have been repeatedly told that it is NSFW, but mostly 'cause it's huge.

I've had posts outside my own plogs deleted because She wasn't spoilered.

I’ve spent a long time ensuring every model I ever put on the table is fully painted and based. I convert often sometimes, making crazy weird things, more usually something simple such as cutting all the arms and legs to repose the marine so they are aiming their gun properly or in a more dynamic pose.

I don’t expect that from other people. Not everyone has the time to artisan an army. But they shouldn’t be expecting to me to play their derpy counts-as nonsense, dreadful 3d printed garbage or cardstock. Frankly it is beneath me.

I still think it is funny that in a game about Skull-Lord McGenocidejollies we get uptight about nude miniatures. We want the Lord of Excess in our game, but PG13 only please!

What do people think is gonna happen to kids of they see some nudity? And do people think kids are NOT using the internet?

Just a very funny thing to me.

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
You spoilered the image because you acknowledge it is not safe for work, but you don’t get why someone complained that it was not safe for work public gaming spaces?

No real criticism intended other than to point it you seem to have rebutted your own point.

My local store banned Fiends/Slaanesh/the FW Keeper at one point due to the boobs. It was only allowed on their "veteran night"

 Stevefamine wrote:

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
You spoilered the image because you acknowledge it is not safe for work, but you don’t get why someone complained that it was not safe for work public gaming spaces?

No real criticism intended other than to point it you seem to have rebutted your own point.

My local store banned Fiends/Slaanesh/the FW Keeper at one point due to the boobs. It was only allowed on their "veteran night"

Did they also ban the Bloodwrack Medusa cause she's got an actual human upper body and one exposed breast. Also fiends? I mean freaking heck banning fiends is like banning cows for having udders. Which actually reminds me that I've casually noticed that a few more GW mounts have actually got some form of genitalia detail whereas in the past the area between the hind legs was a sort of nothing spot of odd angles and such. The only mounts I've seen that repeated on now are the Bonereaper ones which is "sort of" ok because they are constructs, but its ood that much of their under design suggests that they are hollow rather than thickly packed with skulls like the top half suggests.

It's just really odd because in games like Battlefleet gothic GW went nuts with underside detail so its clear that the whole "its not in view" aspect isn't a huge issue for them when packing in detail to a model.

The Hastur model behind these Anvil Industry Cultists was what I wanted to use as a Great Unclean One:

You would think people would get more upset by the imagery reminiscent of the genocides of the 20th century with huge piles of human skulls and so on. Than a bit of tissue attached to half the population that the other half depended on for sustenance in their early life.

Very odd attitude. I mean if it is religiously motivated I am pretty sure "Thou Shalt Not Commit Murder" is a bigger one than "Thou Shalt Not Display Mammaries". AFAIK that one didn't even make it into the top ten.

It was on the third tablet Moses dropped and broke by accident. FACT!





/s

The issue with Slaanesh is not with boobies and sex. It is our poor imagining of what excess means. Demons of Slaanesh should go for alluring, subtle look. Leaving something to imagination and having weird look of hot chicks who are just slightly off. I do not know why society at large are so obsessed with nudity, for me, a girl is actually more attractive is she leaves little bit of clothing for my imagination to run wild.

Also, kids are completely innocent. We must protect their pure minds. On their own they would never look for something spicy. Sure, we did a lot of this stuff being kids ourselves, but our children? Never!

 torgoch wrote:
I’ve spent a long time ensuring every model I ever put on the table is fully painted and based. I convert often sometimes, making crazy weird things, more usually something simple such as cutting all the arms and legs to repose the marine so they are aiming their gun properly or in a more dynamic pose.

I don’t expect that from other people. Not everyone has the time to artisan an army. But they shouldn’t be expecting to me to play their derpy counts-as nonsense, dreadful 3d printed garbage or cardstock. Frankly it is beneath me.

Really! "Beneath you", you say.

I designed my cardstock models in MS Paint through trial and error. I then colored the templates for a paint scheme using grey scale only. Next, I have to cut them, score, them, fold them, and then secure them together.







Of course, that was when I had more time than money. Now, I find it is much easier to put down cash for a model than make it myself.

https://bloodandspectacles.blogspot.com/2017/07/wargaming-on-budget-making-models.html

Long Answer:
FW: FW bans are mostly idiots justifying their loss by claiming something is OP instead of accepting the blame. You still see it all the time with regular GW units, especially when they don't even know what the unit actually does. Everyone I have ever met who cries about the Y'Vahra being OP immediately shuts up when you point out that it costs as much as a Knight with half as many wounds, no melee capability, and has to self-damage in order to get its guns to work. It's a simple "git gud" scenario. People like to put the blame elsewhere so they don't have to improve.

Recasting/3D Printing: Recasting/3D printing is subjective. Showing up with unpainted 3D prints or recasts is blatantly disrespectful much like walking into a movie theater with a freshly popped microwave popcorn bag in your hands. The spikeybits story is a good example when that isn't a big deal, "Hey is it cool if I bring in this bag of popcorn?" Although generally if you clean your models, paint them, then generally speaking nobody will notice. Even if it is a legitimately a recast usually people shut up about it if you go "oh ooops I got it on ebay." Although personally, I would much rather play against fully painted recasts instead of a gray horde. One of these people took the time to make their army look nice and one did the bare minimum. Either way we came to play, so just like making sure its casual vs casual or competitive vs competitive, you should probably check if your opponent wants a scenic game or just wants to play.

Offensive models: This one is trickier. Art has a pretty good standard for this. There's a big difference between nude, naked, and lewd. Generally speaking 40k doesn't have many naked models since the term tends to imply vulnerability, surprise etc. Nudity is straight-forward and is simply a lack of clothes. Lewd is an artistic choice with the intention of creating a sexual response. The important detail there is it doesn't even have to have a lack of clothing like the other two.
For example: A woman being seen in her bra and panties is typically seen as exposed or "naked." A woman in a bikini which covers the exact same amount of clothing, especially when its appropriate like at the beach/lake/whatever isn't seen as naked despite having the same amount of skin exposed. Lastly, take that same woman and put her in that same bikini/bra and panties, but give her thigh-highs, a garter-belt, 4 inch heels, and she will get a much more explicit response despite technically being more covered. It's creating that response that tends to be more of a problem then exposed flesh. Take a look at the TCG playmats that have some kind of fully clothed anime girl doing something suggestive like sucking on a dripping ice pop. Those are inappropriate because of the sexual response they are trying to elicit despite being more clothed than any of the previous examples. Knowing which one of the three the model displays is usually the easiest way to determine if its appropriate or someone just trying to greenstuff boobies and penises on everything cause boobies and penises.

Non-standard models/Conversions: Personally this seems to boil down to "cheap vs inexpensive." A cardboard box with the same proportions of a leman russ is cheap and feels lame compared to the real thing. A papercraft leman russ that is designed to look like it is straight out of a 90s video game with hard polygon angles and vibrant colors is inexpensive. The "do you play against unpainted models" debate is just another example of this.

Short answer:
TLDR; The motive for why the model is unorthodox is pretty much the defining factor. The more people approve of your motive the less likely there is going to be a problem. Sometimes no motives are acceptable. Sometimes it is unacceptable regardless of motive. Naturally, what motives are acceptable varies from person to person so YMMV.

 Da Boss wrote:
I still think it is funny that in a game about Skull-Lord McGenocidejollies we get uptight about nude miniatures. We want the Lord of Excess in our game, but PG13 only please!

What do people think is gonna happen to kids of they see some nudity? And do people think kids are NOT using the internet?

Just a very funny thing to me.

Group dynamics are weird. Every person in the store could be perfectly okay with the miniature, and fine with their kids seeing it, but so worried about other people being uptight or judging them/the store/nerddom in general that they enforce what they believe to be the acceptable norms of the society they live in as they understand them. It's like the HR problem at a small company: individually, everyone is cool, but en masses you better watch your language.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Da Boss wrote:
You would think people would get more upset by the imagery reminiscent of the genocides of the 20th century with huge piles of human skulls and so on. Than a bit of tissue attached to half the population that the other half depended on for sustenance in their early life.

Very odd attitude. I mean if it is religiously motivated I am pretty sure "Thou Shalt Not Commit Murder" is a bigger one than "Thou Shalt Not Display Mammaries". AFAIK that one didn't even make it into the top ten.

Murder is merely wrong. Public nudity is embarassingly awkward. Guess which people have a greater aversion to.

I'm gonna say murder.

I'm certainly against it.