PDA

View Full Version : Non-GW Models



talthar
07-05-2013, 17:12
What is everyone's stance on using non-GW or FW models? I've seen several that I like and might want to use in an IG army (especially some heavy weapon crews) but I was curious as to whether people like them, hate them or don't give a hoot. The models I've seen are fairly WYSIWIG so it's not like I'm using my Warmachine Sorscha as a commissar...though that would be pretty bad ass. Summary Execution with a huge ******** scythe.

Disposable Hero
07-05-2013, 17:22
Sorry, you can't. Your army, your money but I have decided you can only buy GW and FW.

talthar
07-05-2013, 17:27
Sorry, you can't. Your army, your money but I have decided you can only buy GW and FW.

Well hell, there goes that LOL.

Nikolaus
07-05-2013, 17:28
In a LGS that isnt GW you use what you like if you ask your opponent.

in a gw, you cant.

FW is allowed by your opponents discretion and TO's..

Luffwaffle
07-05-2013, 17:49
I use these as guardsmen except I've attached them to 25mm bases though.
https://s3.amazonaws.com/ksr/projects/287068/posts/357233/image-185811-full.jpg?1354038492

I came up with a plan of always having the same number of GW guardsmen on hand as I have of non GW models. That way if someone complains I can just switch them out for the GW models.

Nikolaus
07-05-2013, 17:57
I use these as guardsmen except I've attached them to 25mm bases though.
https://s3.amazonaws.com/ksr/projects/287068/posts/357233/image-185811-full.jpg?1354038492

I came up with a plan of always having the same number of GW guardsmen on hand as I have of non GW models. That way if someone complains I can just switch them out for the GW models.
all except the gun is an amazing model..

Chem-Dog
07-05-2013, 18:04
I tend to stick to GW stuff, out of habit more than anything else, I know the materials I'm working with, am equipped for them and theoretically shouldn't have any trouble with scale.
But I have no issue with using pretty much anything you like on the table, so long as I know what's what at a glance.

Gossipmeng
07-05-2013, 18:28
I only use GW or FW models in my armies because I like the option of being able to bring my figures into a GW.

chaospantz
07-05-2013, 20:23
I usually set up the tournys at our FLGS and I've made it a point to let people know that using models from other companies is fine. The only problem we've had was when a guy tried to play an all ork killa kan and dread list that was made from plasticard. They weren't even models really, just round peace's of plasticard with square peace's of plasticard on them. we had to let him know that it was fine for fun games but not ok for tournys.

Aluinn
07-05-2013, 22:01
I use these as guardsmen except I've attached them to 25mm bases though.
https://s3.amazonaws.com/ksr/projects/287068/posts/357233/image-185811-full.jpg?1354038492

I came up with a plan of always having the same number of GW guardsmen on hand as I have of non GW models. That way if someone complains I can just switch them out for the GW models.

Which company are those from? They look very good ... much better than Cadians, which are sadly showing their age pretty severely about now.

Sir Didymus
07-05-2013, 22:11
FW is allowed by your opponents discretion and TO's..

Playing a game requires your opponents consent regardless of the manufacturer. Sure tournaments can ban FW products, but like any other house rules, they are just as entitled to ban tyranids or any form of power armored models, as they are FW :)

Caiphas Cain
07-05-2013, 22:20
Which company are those from? They look very good ... much better than Cadians, which are sadly showing their age pretty severely about now.

http://www.miniaturemarket.com/table-top-miniatures.html?cat=980 They also have a plastic titan! :eek:

I don't understand why anyone would refuse to play with non GW minis. It's a game; relax.

Retrospectus
07-05-2013, 22:44
http://wargamesfactory.com/webstore/alien-suns/shock-troops-sci-fi-greatcoat-troopers

I use these guys as stormtroopers. and I mix them with GW parts to make other models (I have a commissar, marbo, priest and bodyguard)
they look close enough and they're few enough that I can usually get away with it if I don't draw attention to them

Ozendorph
07-05-2013, 22:45
The vast majority of my stuff is GW/FW, but some Ultraforge and other manufacturers are represented to some degree. For me it's about having the right look, rather than the name on the package

Chem-Dog
07-05-2013, 22:53
Which company are those from? They look very good ... much better than Cadians, which are sadly showing their age pretty severely about now.


I remember eagerly trawling through threads to see sneak peeks of the Cadians. *feels very old* far as I'm concerned they are new models.


The vast majority of my stuff is GW/FW, but some Ultraforge and other manufacturers are represented to some degree. For me it's about having the right look, rather than the name on the package

Weirdly, this is one of the reasons I lean towards sticking to GW models, they're pretty consistent in their look within each faction (there are a few hiccups along the way, I won't deny that).

talthar
08-05-2013, 00:15
http://www.miniaturemarket.com/table-top-miniatures.html?cat=980 They also have a plastic titan! :eek:

Those are the exact models I was thinking of using. Their heavy weapon teams are incredible.

Aluinn
08-05-2013, 01:22
I remember eagerly trawling through threads to see sneak peeks of the Cadians. *feels very old* far as I'm concerned they are new models.

Weirdly, this is one of the reasons I lean towards sticking to GW models, they're pretty consistent in their look within each faction (there are a few hiccups along the way, I won't deny that).

Oh I remember when they were first released, too; I started playing, or at least took my first tentative steps, when the only multi-part plastic kit (in the modern form we're familiar with) available was FB Chaos Warriors--those old hunchbacked ones :). (They had pretty cool shields, though.)

I think it's just that some models hold up over time much better than others. Plastic Eldar Guardians for example are older than Cadians but to me look like much newer models, or, well, let's just say that they're better sculpted or were easier to sculpt well by nature. Cadians all look like grumpy old half-dwarfs to me and always did. It's just that when they first appeared I found them a lot more appealing because Catachans were the only plastic alternative for 40K humans and those are, IMO, loathsome things that GW should stop making because they're a smear on the company's record. (Excluding the command squad which is halfway decent, though still suffers from ridiculous arms, albeit to a lesser extent.)

Having said that there are some ways to convert them and make them look appealing, but IMO it requires finding them all backpacks, using (oddly) Catachan legs (Cadian legs are like small tree trunks and their feet are inhuman), and either giving them the helmets with goggles strapped around them, heads without helmets, or shaving the absurdly oversized aquila off the helmets. Needless to say this gets expensive really quickly since you need spare parts from all over that you won't get in sufficient quantity just by building an army of Cadians, even if you go heavy on the weapon teams (which get you backpacks and better helmets).

They're just not well-proportioned, basically. They're a halfway point between hideous hamfisted things like the ancient High Elf Spearmen and newer kits with more ... human proportions--so, not the worst GW models, but not something I"m paying $29 US for 10 of when they cost 5 points per model and the kit doesn't even include half of the possible unit/Sarge upgrades.

Needless to say this kind of chaps me when I can get 35-40 excellent plastic, multi-part 28mm infantry from Perry Miniatures for the same cost after shipping. Now that Wargames Factory is making better sci-fi infantry (heads are a bit big, but at least that's only one thing that needs fixing, and one of the easier), I couldn't see using any GW models for IG if I were to build an army of them. Admittedly those Wargames Factory neo-Germans are probably only suitable for carapace Vets or Stormtroopers, though.

Luffwaffle
08-05-2013, 02:07
I highly recommend the Eisenkern stormtrooper models. Can't speak for the heavy weapons teams but the regular Stormtroopers are miles ahead of any guardsmen that GW has produced. Easy to read instructions and easy assembly. The box of 20 comes with 12 different special weapons which includes 4 rocket launchers (I use them as meltas cause they are a lot smaller then the GW RLs), 4 submachine guns (I give them to my sergeants), and 4 SMGs with grenade launchers (use them as grenade launchers obviously). Don't need 12 special weapons? No problem, the box includes enough rifles to equip all 20 models. That's 32 weapons in a single box, leaving you plenty for terrain and such. GW gives what? A flamer and a grenade launcher. Best part is the box of 20 is only $31, that's only $2 more then what GW charges for less then half the content. Just shows you how much of a mark up GW is pushing on us. If a new startup company (Dreamforge) can afford to sell their stuff for that cheap, GW can put a damn melta and plasma gun in their kits.

As for them only working as Stormtroopers or carapace vets, their armor is very thin while the Flak armor on Cadians are fairly thick but it only protects their chest. So while the Eisenkern Stormtroopers have armor over most of their bodies, they would end up with the same amount of protection cause it's thinner then a Cadians.

Only issue is that they are on 30mm bases rather then 25mm like Cadians and thankfully you can order bases from GW.

Luffwaffle
08-05-2013, 02:21
http://wargamesfactory.com/webstore/alien-suns/shock-troops-sci-fi-greatcoat-troopers

I use these guys as stormtroopers. and I mix them with GW parts to make other models (I have a commissar, marbo, priest and bodyguard)
they look close enough and they're few enough that I can usually get away with it if I don't draw attention to them
Those are perfect counts as plasma gunners to go along with my Eisenkern Stormtroopers. Thank you for sharing those. I know what Im spending my next paycheck on. I've kinda got a Sci-Fi WWII German army thing going but I couldn't find anything to use as Plasma gunners. Now I just need to find some SciFi nazis with flamethrowers to count as flamers.

EDIT: just read the description on those guys and saw that they have a option for flamers. My life is complete.

zak
08-05-2013, 02:28
Absolutely no reason for not using whatever models you like in your home or club as long as they represent what the models are supposed to be and fit the same base. I can fully understand why GW only want their own product in the stores though. The Ork range from Kromlech is fantastic and I hope GW get back to making some models like these. The mega-armour suits are 100% better than the very aged sculpts GW are selling. The Ork commissar is a must buy. He even fulfils the role in my Imperial Guard army!

Retrospectus
08-05-2013, 11:14
Those are perfect counts as plasma gunners to go along with my Eisenkern Stormtroopers. Thank you for sharing those. I know what Im spending my next paycheck on. I've kinda got a Sci-Fi WWII German army thing going but I couldn't find anything to use as Plasma gunners. Now I just need to find some SciFi nazis with flamethrowers to count as flamers.

EDIT: just read the description on those guys and saw that they have a option for flamers. My life is complete.

note that the torso and legs come as a single piece and they don't come with bases. on the plus side there's like 3 different head options and enough of each to equip the whole box (including a wierd one with cthlulu face)

Lucifig
08-05-2013, 12:37
It is so weird that this keeps coming up. I really wonder if anyone at all would have a problem. People say, "its fine, but not at GW events or stores", but does GW even run events? And it seems like (judging from this community and others) those who play in GW stores is a rare breed these days. Play what you want. Never forget it is a silly game with little plastic men. If anyone gives you crap for anything...pick up and play someone else. There is always someone else to play with.

demerean
08-05-2013, 14:39
Until GW releases a Bloodthirster that isn't 20 years old, my Ultraforge Greater War Daemon will remain in use.

anselminus
08-05-2013, 15:01
I think that there are ranges very interesting as miniature Victoria for the IG I am not either for or against simply I think that it is a tasteful question. Everything must however be coherent I am enough a fan of the WYSYWYG it avoids the complications in term of game.

Ruination Drinker
08-05-2013, 19:52
I loved how back in the RT days they'd show you how to make awesome kitbashes from normal military model kits. I remember an ork vehicle that was based on the hull of a huey helicopter.

White Dwarf would never do a thing like that again and it's a real shame.

effbomber
08-05-2013, 20:36
I think if somebody tells you they won't play against you because you're not using GW miniatures, you should probably be legally allowed to punch them in the face.

Btw, has anyone got links to Empire armies done with warlord games WOTR minis, or perry plastics, cuz I'd love to see them.

Menthak
08-05-2013, 20:54
Personally wouldn't because i'm playing Warhammer, not Warmachine or some other gaming system.

IMO Stick to Gw parts if you're playing their game

effbomber
08-05-2013, 21:32
Personally wouldn't because i'm playing Warhammer, not Warmachine or some other gaming system.

IMO Stick to Gw parts if you're playing their game

Can I ask why?

PrehistoricUFO
08-05-2013, 21:42
Can I ask why?

Support their game systems by buying their models, if even just some. Also, having Citadel miniatures ensures your opponents know what they're facing, and you can bring them to official battles/tourneys/etc.

talthar
08-05-2013, 21:56
Support their game systems by buying their models, if even just some. Also, having Citadel miniatures ensures your opponents know what they're facing, and you can bring them to official battles/tourneys/etc.
Well I can understand that. I wasn't talking about not fielding any GW models, or even not having the majority of my models being GW. There are some models that are so cool, though, it'd be a shame not to use them.

murgel2006
08-05-2013, 22:03
as long as I can see and identify what a mini is I do not care.
You play guard and use US infantry as your models? why not?

No one can deny you a scorpion exarch conversion made from guardian, and scorpion parts so why deny one bought from company XXX?

I am a fan of WYSIWYG. A fire-daemon is a fire-deamon is a fire-daemon...

effbomber
08-05-2013, 22:31
Support their game systems by buying their models, if even just some. Also, having Citadel miniatures ensures your opponents know what they're facing, and you can bring them to official battles/tourneys/etc.

I've bought enough over the years. My last GW purchase was over 150 on rule books and codexs to catch up with the latest edition. I feel entitled to save money by buying other miniatures whenever I want.

If you feel that you personally prefer to remain loyal, and throw business GWs way, I of course have no objection to that, but I'd hope you likewise would respect my choice to buy my stuff wherever I like.

I'd feel differently about it if it was the other way around: if I was playing kings of war say, and not buying any of mantics miniatures, simply because they put their rules out for free, and I'd feel like I was ripping them off if I didn't buy anything from them. Although interestingly, they kind of encourage this, and tell you any miniatures can be used to play their games.

When I'm paying top whack for rules though, I feel perfectly justified in doing whatever I like with them.

cuda1179
08-05-2013, 22:58
I'm fine with 3rd party miniaturs as long as they fall into at least one of the following categories:

1. You are proxying a miniature to test performance before committing to buying it.
2.There is no miniature of what you want to play with.
3.We've previously agreed on it.
4.It's close enough to the "real" thing that it shouldn't matter. ( I once had a VOID sniper that looked so much like my Catachans when painted that no one can tell without getting extremely close to it).
5. It's a conversion that has had some effort put into it. (I've seen Army Man Tanks that have been expertly converted and looked better than some "official" modelds)
6. The model is reasonably close to what it represents and is cool/rare/or long OOP.

I usually like to keep the "feel" of the 40k environment going, as I believe that brings more enjoyment to the game. So that's why I give more slack to Ork players than anyone else. For them, anything that is converted and non-standardised seems more orky to me.

effbomber
08-05-2013, 23:22
I'm fine with 3rd party miniaturs as long as they fall into at least one of the following categories:

1. You are proxying a miniature to test performance before committing to buying it.
2.There is no miniature of what you want to play with.
3.We've previously agreed on it.
4.It's close enough to the "real" thing that it shouldn't matter. ( I once had a VOID sniper that looked so much like my Catachans when painted that no one can tell without getting extremely close to it).
5. It's a conversion that has had some effort put into it. (I've seen Army Man Tanks that have been expertly converted and looked better than some "official" modelds)
6. The model is reasonably close to what it represents and is cool/rare/or long OOP.

I usually like to keep the "feel" of the 40k environment going, as I believe that brings more enjoyment to the game. So that's why I give more slack to Ork players than anyone else. For them, anything that is converted and non-standardised seems more orky to me.

So would you be ok with, for instance, somebody who'd used wargames factory plastic miniatures to create an entire IG army? Or would that have to be agreed to beforehand?

I'm not that person, and I don't know who is. I'm just curious as to what people's thinking on this sort of stuff is.

My personal feeling would be that it'd be completely fluffy (there are thousands of worlds from which regiments are drawn, so they can look like pretty much anything), the miniatures do have a pretty 40k ish feel to them, and as long as I can easily distinguish his different weapon types, I'd be grateful to be playing an army that had some creativity and effort invested in it (rather than just tonnes of money) and looked different.

I wouldn't care if there wasn't a single GW product on the table.

PrehistoricUFO
09-05-2013, 00:44
I've bought enough over the years. My last GW purchase was over 150 on rule books and codexs to catch up with the latest edition. I feel entitled to save money by buying other miniatures whenever I want.

If you feel that you personally prefer to remain loyal, and throw business GWs way, I of course have no objection to that, but I'd hope you likewise would respect my choice to buy my stuff wherever I like.

I'd feel differently about it if it was the other way around: if I was playing kings of war say, and not buying any of mantics miniatures, simply because they put their rules out for free, and I'd feel like I was ripping them off if I didn't buy anything from them. Although interestingly, they kind of encourage this, and tell you any miniatures can be used to play their games.

When I'm paying top whack for rules though, I feel perfectly justified in doing whatever I like with them.

Oh yeah by all means, if you play multiple game systems then exercise loyalty as you please and based on how they treat you. I only play GW systems (frankly, I don't have time for any more than 1 or 2 game systems, I barely get games in now), so giving them money is really all I care about in the war gaming market. I couldn't care less if the other companies crumble, so long as mine stays afloat. :)

I know I've said in other threads how I mainly buy second hand/eBay/discount retailers, but even discount retailers give GW profit and I'll still buy from the GW site if the item is unavailable elsewhere like direct order models and limited edition stuff.

As far as proxying goes, I've literally let people use erasers as specific units. If they have a legitimate reason as to why they don't have it, not being able to afford the model just yet or still undecided, no big deal at all to me. If they just want to snub the rest of us by not shelling out money for any sort of models (regardless of what company they're from), that's not okay with me.

Menthak
09-05-2013, 01:22
Can I ask why?

Yes you may.

I'd feel like I was cheating GW if I were to play their games with someone else's minis, I find it rude, I'd rather people supported GW.

Plus it always is there, I can tell tell that they're not GW and for me it breaks immersion, it's like mixing megablocks and Lego to me.

And there is nothing you can't make with GW minis.

Overall, I just take a dim view, like I said before, if you want to use minis from another company, use their damn system, if they don't have one, don't use 40k or Fantasy

FraustyTheSnowman
09-05-2013, 02:22
I'd be perfectly happy with gw going belly up, and refuse to spend money on their product anymore. There's quite a bit of gw minis in my collection, and I end up with more through bit trades, but anymore I sculpt most of my stuff, use other companies product on most of the rest, or mitzvahs the last out of stuff I have/trade for. My local group has no issues with it, so if I came across some who did it'd be easy enough to just find another opponent.

Luffwaffle
09-05-2013, 03:34
Yes you may.

I'd feel like I was cheating GW if I were to play their games with someone else's minis, I find it rude, I'd rather people supported GW.


Plus it always is there, I can tell tell that they're not GW and for me it breaks immersion, it's like mixing megablocks and Lego to me.

And there is nothing you can't make with GW minis.

Overall, I just take a dim view, like I said before, if you want to use minis from another company, use their damn system, if they don't have one, don't use 40k or Fantasy
What about the guy that has spent $3000 on GW stuff over 6 months but likes other SciFi minis better? I think $3000 is enough to earn the right to play 40k with different minis that I think look better or fit my theme better.

If somebody was trying to use an entire army of non GW models, yeah that's a no no, but I've got GW Leman Russes, GW manticores, GW Chimeras, GW Valkyries, GW Hellhounds, GW defense lines, GW baneblades, GW characters (commissars, officers, etc.) painted with GW paints and GW brushes being played on a GW Realm of battle board flocked with GW grass and decorated with GW terrain. Does it sound like I'm trying to cheat GW? No. Their guardsmen kits are terrible and other companies provide better alternatives. That's the way a competitive market works. I will gladly buy GW guardsmen as soon as they make a decent kit that I feel satisfies my wants. Even then, I still have 60+ guardsmen models that I use when someone cries about my non GW models.

As for immersion (at least in my case), considering how vast and varied the imperial guard is, it's kinda hard to find a SciFi mini that wouldn't fit in.

NurglesRot
09-05-2013, 06:55
As long as the model looks like what it is supposed to represent I have no issue with it - but you can see why GW stores would have a problem with it though.

cuda1179
09-05-2013, 08:10
So would you be ok with, for instance, somebody who'd used wargames factory plastic miniatures to create an entire IG army? Or would that have to be agreed to beforehand?

I'm not that person, and I don't know who is. I'm just curious as to what people's thinking on this sort of stuff is.

My personal feeling would be that it'd be completely fluffy (there are thousands of worlds from which regiments are drawn, so they can look like pretty much anything), the miniatures do have a pretty 40k ish feel to them, and as long as I can easily distinguish his different weapon types, I'd be grateful to be playing an army that had some creativity and effort invested in it (rather than just tonnes of money) and looked different.

I wouldn't care if there wasn't a single GW product on the table.

I'm not quite familiar with the models in question, but if you say they look 40k-ish, then by all means I'd play against them. If we were playing Fantasy instead of 40k then I wouldn't mind at all as that would be easier to find a sustitute for. If someone has a substitute for a 40k army I'm fine with it as long as everything is reasonably close to what they represent.

I just don't want to run into someone that says "Those Ogres over there that are green, those are Ogryn, but those Ogres over there that are Brown, those are Terminators." Or the Lego-man army (actually seen this once).

totgeboren
09-05-2013, 11:06
It's all in the aesthetics. It they look cool I don't care who the manufacurer is. Cool models are cool models, and they are the reason why I play the game. I would however not really want to play against someone who lined up lego soldiers, or models that look entirely out of scale. I mean, some of my ork models (http://s70.photobucket.com/user/totgeboren40/media/Orkz/PICT1543.jpg.html?sort=3&o=39) are based on WW2 tank kits and use wheels from toys and things like that. My Traitor IG Chimeras (http://s70.photobucket.com/user/totgeboren40/media/Traitor%20Guards/Guards002-1.jpg.html?sort=3&o=33) are based on Bradleys, my Decimator (http://s70.photobucket.com/user/totgeboren40/media/Daemons/IMAG0106.jpg.html?sort=3&o=55) is a mix of greenstuff, plasticard, GW bitz and random stuff and so on.

I mean, there is a huge difference between using models from other manufacturers and individualising your army by using models from other manufacturers. It's all in the presentation.

Menthak
09-05-2013, 13:47
What about the guy that has spent $3000 on GW stuff over 6 months but likes other SciFi minis better? I think $3000 is enough to earn the right to play 40k with different minis that I think look better or fit my theme better.

If somebody was trying to use an entire army of non GW models, yeah that's a no no, but I've got GW Leman Russes, GW manticores, GW Chimeras, GW Valkyries, GW Hellhounds, GW defense lines, GW baneblades, GW characters (commissars, officers, etc.) painted with GW paints and GW brushes being played on a GW Realm of battle board flocked with GW grass and decorated with GW terrain. Does it sound like I'm trying to cheat GW? No. Their guardsmen kits are terrible and other companies provide better alternatives. That's the way a competitive market works. I will gladly buy GW guardsmen as soon as they make a decent kit that I feel satisfies my wants. Even then, I still have 60+ guardsmen models that I use when someone cries about my non GW models.

As for immersion (at least in my case), considering how vast and varied the imperial guard is, it's kinda hard to find a SciFi mini that wouldn't fit in.

Throwing money at something doesn't give you the right to dictate how it should work, if I spend 40 pounds on a game, then I bitch the whole time about how that game wasn't exactly how I wanted it to be, then I wouldn't look for a knock-off similar game, nor would I bitch to the creators of the game.

As for a vast and varied imperial guard, check out Forgeworld, the Collectors section and the basic range, they've got plenty of variety, plus there are tons of other minis you can kit-bash into other regiments, there is simply no need whatsoever to look elsewhere for aesthetic reasons

effbomber
09-05-2013, 13:57
I'm not quite familiar with the models in question, but if you say they look 40k-ish, then by all means I'd play against them. If we were playing Fantasy instead of 40k then I wouldn't mind at all as that would be easier to find a sustitute for. If someone has a substitute for a 40k army I'm fine with it as long as everything is reasonably close to what they represent.

I just don't want to run into someone that says "Those Ogres over there that are green, those are Ogryn, but those Ogres over there that are Brown, those are Terminators." Or the Lego-man army (actually seen this once).

Makes sense.

I think the only stipulations from other people that I wouldn't find ridiculous are that the models look like they belong in the right universe, and that you can differentiate between different units, weapons and etc.

That's perfectly legit. Everything else just baffles me.

effbomber
09-05-2013, 14:03
Yes you may.

I'd feel like I was cheating GW if I were to play their games with someone else's minis, I find it rude, I'd rather people supported GW.

Plus it always is there, I can tell tell that they're not GW and for me it breaks immersion, it's like mixing megablocks and Lego to me.

And there is nothing you can't make with GW minis.

Overall, I just take a dim view, like I said before, if you want to use minis from another company, use their damn system, if they don't have one, don't use 40k or Fantasy

Ok, so just to get this straight, if someone played multiple rule systems, and they fielded, just as an example, undead armies in all of them, are you honestly suggesting they'd have to buy a seperate army of largely the same type of figures to use for different rules, just because you feel like the name on the minis needs to match the name on the rule book?

I honestly think that's weird. It's just a set of wargames rules. Any minis that work, there should be nothing stopping you using them. Wargames rules have existed a lot longer than GW or PP, and until fairly recently no publisher of wargames rules has managed to convince people that their game can only be played with their minis.

And for good reason. It's silly.

Angry SisterOfBattle Nerd
09-05-2013, 14:46
Personally wouldn't because i'm playing Warhammer, not Warmachine or some other gaming system.

IMO Stick to Gw parts if you're playing their game
So, would you dislike playing against me because my ecclesiarchal conclave looks like that :
https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-mjgELVG1s7g/UYV_ty6LoqI/AAAAAAAAAkM/Dr8HQrTbKNo/w683-h512-no/100_0328.JPG
It's actually somehow GW's fault that I don't use the official model : the death cultists were a gift from someone who went to my favorite game store and asked one of the staff advise on what to give me. Previously, I had a GW-only army, but he logically proposed the awesome Daughters of the blade over the order-only official sisters model. They also not only look way better than the official model, but even fit way better with the look of every other model in the army. I mean, everyone in my army has some bright blue loincloth, big shoulder pad, and a religious look. Those Daughters do too, with the hood giving the religious look. GW's cultist do look like some SM fetishists, with none of those elements. Mine are also more WYSIWYG, since contrarily to half of the official model, they actually use two weapon. Now, to go with them, while trying to break as few as possible the look of the army, and since this unit was already going to be banned from GW shops, I found some female women model with shields, a defensive pose, relatively big should pad, and a cloth loincloth (except for the rightmost one, which has a chain-mail loincloth instead :( ). The confessor is a GW model, though.
Note that the official model are not even present on GW's website in the Sisters of Battle category. If they don't even want to sell me models, why should I buy from them ?

Luffwaffle
09-05-2013, 16:00
Throwing money at something doesn't give you the right to dictate how it should work, if I spend 40 pounds on a game, then I bitch the whole time about how that game wasn't exactly how I wanted it to be, then I wouldn't look for a knock-off similar game, nor would I bitch to the creators of the game.

Straw man. No one is dictating how the game works, nor is anyone bitching about anything. It plays the same regardless of models used. You pay to use the rules when you buy the books.



As for a vast and varied imperial guard, check out Forgeworld, the Collectors section and the basic range, they've got plenty of variety, plus there are tons of other minis you can kit-bash into other regiments, there is simply no need whatsoever to look elsewhere for aesthetic reasons
That's your opinion. I personally don't like any of the Forgeworld guardsmen and GW just ended production of the collectors models for the IG.

IcedCrow
09-05-2013, 16:06
I have zero problem with non gw models so long as they are to scale and represent their stand in accurately

Menthak
09-05-2013, 17:17
So, would you dislike playing against me because my ecclesiarchal conclave looks like that :
https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-mjgELVG1s7g/UYV_ty6LoqI/AAAAAAAAAkM/Dr8HQrTbKNo/w683-h512-no/100_0328.JPG
It's actually somehow GW's fault that I don't use the official model : the death cultists were a gift from someone who went to my favorite game store and asked one of the staff advise on what to give me. Previously, I had a GW-only army, but he logically proposed the awesome Daughters of the blade over the order-only official sisters model. They also not only look way better than the official model, but even fit way better with the look of every other model in the army. I mean, everyone in my army has some bright blue loincloth, big shoulder pad, and a religious look. Those Daughters do too, with the hood giving the religious look. GW's cultist do look like some SM fetishists, with none of those elements. Mine are also more WYSIWYG, since contrarily to half of the official model, they actually use two weapon. Now, to go with them, while trying to break as few as possible the look of the army, and since this unit was already going to be banned from GW shops, I found some female women model with shields, a defensive pose, relatively big should pad, and a cloth loincloth (except for the rightmost one, which has a chain-mail loincloth instead :( ). The confessor is a GW model, though.
Note that the official model are not even present on GW's website in the Sisters of Battle category. If they don't even want to sell me models, why should I buy from them ?

This is my one and only exception, because sisters deserve it, when the plastic models (if the plastic models) come out, this view would change.


Ok, so just to get this straight, if someone played multiple rule systems, and they fielded, just as an example, undead armies in all of them, are you honestly suggesting they'd have to buy a seperate army of largely the same type of figures to use for different rules, just because you feel like the name on the minis needs to match the name on the rule book?

I honestly think that's weird. It's just a set of wargames rules. Any minis that work, there should be nothing stopping you using them. Wargames rules have existed a lot longer than GW or PP, and until fairly recently no publisher of wargames rules has managed to convince people that their game can only be played with their minis.

And for good reason. It's silly.

If someone used Tomb Kings as Vampire counts, people would be annoyed, to me it's the same with other companies minis.

As for getting people to use their minis with their rules, I respect that as GW's choice


Straw man. No one is dictating how the game works, nor is anyone bitching about anything. It plays the same regardless of models used. You pay to use the rules when you buy the books.


That's your opinion. I personally don't like any of the Forgeworld guardsmen and GW just ended production of the collectors models for the IG.

It's a valid point, not my own.

I just honestly cannot see why you'd need to use other companies minis, besides the minor bit with sisters.

yabbadabba
09-05-2013, 17:41
What is everyone's stance on using non-GW or FW models? I've seen several that I like and might want to use in an IG army (especially some heavy weapon crews) but I was curious as to whether people like them, hate them or don't give a hoot. The models I've seen are fairly WYSIWIG so it's not like I'm using my Warmachine Sorscha as a commissar...though that would be pretty bad ass. Summary Execution with a huge ******** scythe. Do it.

Usual caveats apply.

Gorbad Ironclaw
09-05-2013, 17:47
If someone used Tomb Kings as Vampire counts, people would be annoyed, to me it's the same with other companies minis.

As long as you told me before the game, I wouldn't care. It shouldn't even be that difficult to work out and if you prefer the VC rules to the TK then fine. Its not going to matter to me.

Similar with other companies models, GW earns my business by putting out an product I want to purchase. Just because I might like some of their products does not make me feel obliged to buy other products unless I like them to. I don't see the point in paying for terrible/inferior products, and it just so happens that GW isn't the only ones making miniature a and someone else might make a product I do like.

Charax
09-05-2013, 17:49
If GW were giving their ruleset away free I could see some form of moral argument for "its their rules, use their models", but they don't. GW offer the highest priced rules of any wargame system I've encountered (30 for a single codex? Really?) and that detracts from any obligation to support them further.

I've paid for their expensive rules, I've bought a lot of their models - I've even worked for them, I've supported GW quite enough that I don't feel any moral quandaries about buying another company's miniatures if they're better, or cheaper, or more to my taste or whatever.

Money was paid, goods (rules) were received, I may use those rules in any way I wish, with any models I wish. If people don't like it, they're free to play against someone else.

Now, within a GW the situation is somewhat different, in that case they are giving away something for free (gaming space) so there is some expectation to play by the house rules - and if those rules happen to be "no non-gw minis" then so be it, but more generally? No.

Angry SisterOfBattle Nerd
09-05-2013, 18:15
This is my one and only exception, because sisters deserve it, when the plastic models (if the plastic models) come out, this view would change.
What if basic sisters get plastic models, but the ecclesiarchal conclave stays the same ? It's the most likely scenario (beside, of course, Sisters never getting any new model). They have already finecasted the conclave (because it's available to grey knight, else they wouldn't have bothered of course), and the issue stays almost the same. Well, not exactly the same because the model are likely to stop being order only, but you insisted on plastic, so I don't know. Is the exception because of the order-only, or because of the plastic, or both, or something else ?

Taggerung
09-05-2013, 18:28
It's a valid point, not my own.

I just honestly cannot see why you'd need to use other companies minis, besides the minor bit with sisters.

Because they don't like the GW models? Is that really a concept that is foreign to you? You mean to tell me that you like every single model that GW produces?? What if you really wanted to play army X, but cannot stand the models? You would just not play the game as a result? Seems silly.

I like most of the GW models, but due to fluff I won't use any more than 1 ork vehicle model produced by GW (No 2 ork vehicles look the same) so I have a mix of GW, FW and 3rd party models.

effbomber
09-05-2013, 19:28
This is my one and only exception, because sisters deserve it, when the plastic models (if the plastic models) come out, this view would change.



If someone used Tomb Kings as Vampire counts, people would be annoyed, to me it's the same with other companies minis.

As for getting people to use their minis with their rules, I respect that as GW's choice



It's a valid point, not my own.

I just honestly cannot see why you'd need to use other companies minis, besides the minor bit with sisters.

Ok, so you answered my question effectively: you would expect somebody to go out and buy multiple undead armies, despite potentially duplicating everything they already have, so they can only use branded miniatures to match any rules they choose to use. That's just not an attitude I can relate to at all.

As for tomb kings as VC I genuinely don't care what they are, as long as it works. Meaning if they're skeletons with light armour, shields and spears, all that needs to be represented on the model. Why would I care if your VC skellies look a bit Egyptian? Maybe you want to do an Egyptian themed VC army. Fine by me.

And the part about you respecting that as GWs choice, I'm sorry but that just sounds insane to me. You're saying its GWs choice what toy soldiers you buy? Say whaaaaat? Maybe it's their choice what models I play with in their shop, sure. But why would I want to do that? I can't even stand to be in the place for more than ten minutes to be honest.

Scaryscarymushroom
09-05-2013, 19:31
Yes you may.

I'd feel like I was cheating GW if I were to play their games with someone else's minis, I find it rude, I'd rather people supported GW.

Plus it always is there, I can tell tell that they're not GW and for me it breaks immersion, it's like mixing megablocks and Lego to me.

And there is nothing you can't make with GW minis.

Overall, I just take a dim view, like I said before, if you want to use minis from another company, use their damn system, if they don't have one, don't use 40k or Fantasy

Wow, that's a pretty extreme Point of View. Quite frankly I feel like anyone who wants to play GW games already needs to make a huge fiscal commitment with the rules alone. If you buy GW's rules, you've bought the right to have some fun with them. Strictly speaking there's no actual connection between a stat line and a model. Then once you have the rules you're only 1/4 of the way to having a game anyway. You need a table, terrain, dice, models, templates, tape measure...

I would not have very much fun if I took my army to a game and they played with quarters, paper circles or wooden pegs. But proxying is your friend.. Where there is a figurine on the table that looks somewhat battle ready, and plays the part convincingly, (no daemons standing in for IG conscripts, for instance; but Defiance Games' (http://defiancegames.com/index.php/shop#!/~/category/id=1392304&offset=0&sort=normal) human minis would be OK.) that's enough for me. I will even allow for some Lasgun=Autogun=This Semi-auto=S3 AP - shenanigans.

Like someone else said here, "A fire daemon is a fire daemon is a fire daemon." When GW re-releases an army like Dark Eldar and they make the Talos look completely different, would someone using the old GW Talos model ruin your immersion experience? Or PAGKs? It used to be that they could only use halberds y'know. The idea of them having falchions, hammers and staves ruins my immersion experience. :shifty: :p

effbomber
09-05-2013, 19:34
Wow, that's a pretty extreme Point of View. Quite frankly I feel like anyone who wants to play GW games already needs to make a huge fiscal commitment with the rules alone. If you buy GW's rules, you've bought the right to have some fun with them. Then once you have the rules you're only 1/4 of the way to having a game. You need a table, dice, models, templates, tape measure...

I would not have very much fun if I took my army to a game and they played with quarters, paper circles or wooden pegs. But proxying is your friend.. Where there is a figurine on the table that looks somewhat battle ready, and plays the part convincingly, (no daemons standing in for IG conscripts, for instance; but Defiance Games' (http://defiancegames.com/index.php/shop#!/~/category/id=1392304&offset=0&sort=normal) human minis would be OK.) that's enough for me. I will even allow for some Lasgun=Autogun=This Semi-auto=S3 AP - shenanigans.

Like someone else said here, "A fire daemon is a fire daemon is a fire daemon." When GW re-releases an army like Dark Eldar and they make the Talos look completely different, would someone using the old GW Talos model ruin your immersion experience? Or PAGKs? It used to be that they could only use halberds y'know. The idea of them having falchions, hammers and staves ruins my immersion experience. :shifty: :p

Pretty soon people will be saying you can only use a GW table/dice/tape measure/carry case. Or you can only play the game in a GW store. Or you have to wear an official GW hat. Available (order only) for just 45.00.

ForgottenLore
09-05-2013, 21:55
when the plastic models (if the plastic models) come out, this view would change.

This is a problem I have with some people. If I have an army that is acceptable to play against one week, it shouldn't matter in the slightest what products are released that week, that same army should still be acceptable to play with the next week.

I have actually had this happen to me with my War of the Ring. Around 80 miniatures in an army that were not just acceptable, but considered the default choice to represent a given unit, GW releases a new pack of miniatures and suddenly some people claim my army is no longer legal.

cuda1179
10-05-2013, 04:30
I would like to say that playing in a store is a bit different than playing at home. At home, do what you wish. If you are in the store you need to show a little respect to the store. Using their game table means you should at least buy something there every once in a while. If they have some in-store rules about what can and can't be used, then those are their rules and should be respected, no matter what they are. If you don't like the conditions they put forth then you aren't being forced to game there.

raygunsand rocketeers
10-05-2013, 04:36
Having tired of the controversy,
i have decided that the only acceptable models for use on table top
when I am fighting, are ones that i approve of....
if you dont like it, play some-one else.....
that rule will take care of 95% of the greasy fingered juve player aspirants out there....
it just dont pay to play outside of ones group anymore....sigh

KhornateLord
10-05-2013, 05:11
I loved how back in the RT days they'd show you how to make awesome kitbashes from normal military model kits. I remember an ork vehicle that was based on the hull of a huey helicopter.

White Dwarf would never do a thing like that again and it's a real shame.

In early 00s, Andy Chambers was still rocking an Ork Dreadnought obviously made from some kind of tie-fighter model's cockpit.

Sternguard777
10-05-2013, 05:20
I am perfectly happy to play any army made up of any models so long as everything is consistant. My brother that plays orks converted a plastc green army man tank into a looted wagon, turned glue sticks into artillery and and made a count as warbike (It's a giant squig) out of playdoh. I have no qualms with any of it since he at least makes everything look proppa' an orky.

talthar
10-05-2013, 08:04
Wow...I never thought opinions would be so heated on this. It should be said that there is no GW store near me, but if I played in one I'd respect their policy on models. At home or at an LGS that has no policy, I'll use what I like.

Funny story: when I first started playing WHFB about 19 years ago I had an Undead army consisting of unit of plastic skeletons, Heinrich Kimmler and a buttload of pieces of cardboard with what model they represented written on them. Played happily with those for a long time.

Kakapo42
10-05-2013, 08:22
You mean to tell me that you like every single model that GW produces?? What if you really wanted to play army X, but cannot stand the models? You would just not play the game as a result? Seems silly.

Actually, while I cannot speak for Menthak, I can very much say with certainty that up until very recently I for one DID like every single model that GW produced, and I very much just would not play army X if I did not like the models (though, as the models are one of the biggest parts of weather I find a faction appealing, I highly doubt such a situation would come up), and I find the idea of playing a faction despite not liking how it's models look to be a bit silly myself.

Now, as to my opinion on the subject at hand, I have to say that I am in the 'GW models for GW games' camp, partially out of charity to GW (I sometimes feel that they may need the cash), but mostly due to immersion. Other models, IMO, belong to other settings, even if they are functionally the same. Much like I wouldn't want to see Stormtroopers with phasers or Kirk/Picard swinging around a lightsabre, I wouldn't want other sci-fi miniatures in my 40k, because how the various things look in it is already clearly defined, so adding in things from another setting would damage my suspension of disbelief. I don't actually agree that 'a fire-daemon is a fire-daemon is a fire-daemon', if they're all from different settings because the different settings may likely have different takes on how they act (much like how the vampires from Briam Stoker's Dracula are not the same as the ones from Buffy for instance). But that is likely very much my personal belief, as I consider aesthetics and background story very important things.

That being said, I am not totally unwavering with this. If a kitbash or conversion is mostly (by a considerable margin) GW parts, and looks the part, I will accept it, likewise for models made out of various household bits (again, if they are very well-done and look impressive). Likewise if no official GW model exists for a unit then I will also accept alternatives that fit, as well as older GW models. It's only really models that strike me as blatantly belonging to another line or system that I take issue with, and only when there are official GW models for it.

Kamin_Majere
10-05-2013, 08:48
I still have a quite nice deodorant tube with a las cannon mounted on a plastic spoon on it.

GW has changed, not what is an acceptable model. Play with anything and everything you want as long as its consistent and looks the part. :D

Luffwaffle
10-05-2013, 09:02
I pity people that feel they have to show loyalty to a company that wouldn't hesitate to stab you in the back if it meant improving their profit margin (see Australia for an example).

Worldeaters
10-05-2013, 09:24
Wow...I never thought opinions would be so heated on this. It should be said that there is no GW store near me, but if I played in one I'd respect their policy on models. At home or at an LGS that has no policy, I'll use what I like.

Funny story: when I first started playing WHFB about 19 years ago I had an Undead army consisting of unit of plastic skeletons, Heinrich Kimmler and a buttload of pieces of cardboard with what model they represented written on them. Played happily with those for a long time.

I remember the cardboard days! It was totally the old battle report maps from white dwarf that got us to do that, we slowly started buying the big things after that and used little cardboard squares to flesh out the ranks in our large units...... happy days.

But for now I don't care what people do with their time/money on there hobby, just keep it obvious when playing games.

Also, just for giggles. The worst proxy/counts as I have had to encounter was at a local tournament (everybody knows each other, more of an excuse to have everybody out at the same time) that was about a month after codex chaos marines came out and this kid had two drakes in his list - one was something from spyro with a light up mouth, the other was just something he bashed together, his terminators were all mangled with arms missing (ebay'd them) and said they all had lightning claws. All his other stuff were iffy aswell but people leave him to it, everyone knows his family are scint but the kid just loves the hobby and his friends play aswell.

Awilla the Hun
10-05-2013, 09:26
A friend and I have a plan to crash a (not very official) warhammer tournament with two empire armies. Mine will be English Civil War Parliamentarian from Warlord Games, his Perry Miniatures Wars of the Roses. Hilarity is to ensue.

Kakapo42
10-05-2013, 09:35
I pity people that feel they have to show loyalty to a company that wouldn't hesitate to stab you in the back if it meant improving their profit margin (see Australia for an example).

For me it's very much a case of My Master, Right or Wrong (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/MyMasterRightOrWrong).

Angry SisterOfBattle Nerd
10-05-2013, 09:47
I wouldn't want other sci-fi miniatures in my 40k, because how the various things look in it is already clearly defined, so adding in things from another setting would damage my suspension of disbelief.
Really ? For instance, on my example again, is the look of death cultists and crusader already clearly defined for you ? Because I really think most players (though not most Warseerites) wouldn't be able to describe them even vaguely. And since my model's look blend in much better with the rest of the army…

Kakapo42
10-05-2013, 09:49
Really ? For instance, on my example again, is the look of death cultists and crusader already clearly defined for you ? Because I really think most players (though not most Warseerites) wouldn't be able to describe them even vaguely. And since my model's look blend in much better with the rest of the army…

Your example would come under my exceptions, as I am not aware of a full official GW miniature set for that particular unit that is still in production.

talthar
10-05-2013, 10:10
this kid had two drakes in his list - one was something from spyro with a light up mouth

Skylanders 40K...in the grim darkness of the far future there are only cute cartoon characters...LOL

But it is very cool that y'all let the kid play when he couldn't afford "proper" models. That's a kid that will stay a gamer for a while because no one was an ass and made him feel bad.

Angry SisterOfBattle Nerd
10-05-2013, 10:11
If it did come under your exception, I wouldn't have mentioned it ;).
http://www.games-workshop.com/gws/catalog/productDetail.jsp?catId=cat1140004&prodId=prod1630046a
http://www.games-workshop.com/gws/catalog/productDetail.jsp?catId=cat1140004&prodId=prod1630042a
It's tricky, because they are not available in the Sisters category, though.

Kakapo42
10-05-2013, 10:36
It's tricky, because they are not available in the Sisters category, though.

And not listed as a 'battle conclave', hence me not being aware (the shifting of the Ordo Hereticus stuff into the Grey Knights was really bizarre). I'm not sure what I would do then. I'd still prefer the GW ones, if only deep down, but that's really one of those tricky grey areas I try not to think about.

Wishing
10-05-2013, 11:14
Because they don't like the GW models? Is that really a concept that is foreign to you? You mean to tell me that you like every single model that GW produces?? What if you really wanted to play army X, but cannot stand the models? You would just not play the game as a result? Seems silly.

Maybe I'm weird, but I play for the models. If I don't like the models for an army, I wouldn't want to play that army. The scenario "I really want to play X, but I don't like how the model looks" doesn't exist for me. Liking how a model looks and wanting to play it are one and the same.

At least that's one way to look at it. When I say "how a model looks", it is more about the overall look of the concept, including artwork and description, not the specific sculpt. There are many models where I love what the model is supposed to be, but where the sculpt of the model doesn't do the concept justice. In those cases, I take it as a challenge to make a model that looks like I want it to look. I don't tend to shop around for other manufacturers - I prefer taking GW model parts and converting them into what I want.

Many people here have said that it's all about aesthetics, not manufacturer. I agree with this. However, I think aesthetics is about more than whether a model looks nice. The most important factor to me is "Does it look GW?" This is obviously a subjective evaluation. However, I think that even though the suggested proxy guard models shown earlier are very pretty, to me they don't look GW. And to me, playing GW games means playing games with models that look GW.

Amusingly, to me, there are GW models that don't look GW. Because I'm a Blood Bowl fan, I can use these as examples. The most recent generation of human and "pro" elf teams that GW made some years ago look terrible to me and not like GW models. They break the aesthetic. Therefore I'll always stay as far away from them as possible.

On the other hand, there are non-GW models that look very GW to my eyes. Raging heroes and similar companies make really great GW-looking models. I use some of Mantic's dwarfs on my BB teams because I think they look the part. And I am currently planning to buy a Slann team from Gaspez arts because I like the look of them, I think they fit the GW look, and because (despite having rules for then since long time) GW hasn't made any BB Slann models *ever*.

(I could hunt on ebay for old fantasy slann to make into BB players, which is tempting, but I think they look very hard to convert and will never look as dynamic as the Gaspez ones.)

Capamaru
10-05-2013, 13:29
Allowing other game system miniatures is a can of worms GW will never open. I believe that this is a never ending circle originating from two things:
1) Continues price hikes from GW
2) Quality of miniatures.
Those two are the reasons that a person will generally turn his attention to other miniatures trying to fill the gap, or even create his "GW-ish" army. Gw has been increasing the prices to the point that some people can't afford making a "fully legal" army. I know that GW is a company and making money is the core business but there is a limit by which you increasing the price will see a drop in demand so you start loosing money. Those people turn to other miniature suppliers with more affordable prices. The resulting army isn't legal by GW standards but well in a world that GW stores and tournaments are less and less you don't really care.
The second point comes from the quality of some miniatures outside the GW range. GW as a company making money releases miniatures under a "battle plan" that has to do with our wallet. It will not release too many cool new stuff cause the selling base will run out of money. It will milk the 40k cow in a systematic way so that it can maximize profit in the long run (which is ok for a company), or so they think. Truth is that new releases where as slow as their codex release rate and we all can see that they are trying really hard to improve that. Some third party miniatures suppliers pop up with this amazing model (not necessarily cheap one) and all of a sudden you feel the urge to include the cool demon in your army, just because you are tired of that 20 years old bloodthirster :). This isn't legal but you don't really care cause it is uber cool :). No matter whats the reason you are first pushed to another miniature supplier and then to another game system... When the first happens GW looses some money but they keep the customer. In the long run you will buy again from GW. When the second happens then your selling audience is shrinking and that causes many more problems.

I don't know if GW has the ability to evaluate the situation but, all those moves GW makes are supposed to "keep" people in the hobby? Forbidding foreign minis, embargo on the US stores, rumors shutdown, suing a writer for using the words space + marine one next to the other??? Those remind me of a company struggling to stay on top of business with a mindset stuck somewhere in the mid 80's.

They will never allow minis from other systems cause they are utterly incapable to handle the situation. Problem is they seem utterly incapable to properly handle their existing clients. Thats why they are shutting down FLGS in the US through a bunch of hilarious excuses and thats why in the grim future of 40k I see only customers loss...

Bobthemime
10-05-2013, 13:41
A friend and I have a plan to crash a (not very official) warhammer tournament with two empire armies. Mine will be English Civil War Parliamentarian from Warlord Games, his Perry Miniatures Wars of the Roses. Hilarity is to ensue.

if you have to pay to enter.. you are just wasting your money.

if its free.. you are wasting your time, as any sane TO will stop you coming to future ones.

Menthak
10-05-2013, 13:45
What if basic sisters get plastic models, but the ecclesiarchal conclave stays the same ? It's the most likely scenario (beside, of course, Sisters never getting any new model). They have already finecasted the conclave (because it's available to grey knight, else they wouldn't have bothered of course), and the issue stays almost the same. Well, not exactly the same because the model are likely to stop being order only, but you insisted on plastic, so I don't know. Is the exception because of the order-only, or because of the plastic, or both, or something else ?

If a plastic kit with spare bitz and other stuff came out, then you could model any sisters unit (within reason) so you wouldn't need to shop elsewhere, but, because they're metal I accept that people will look elsewhere.


Ok, so you answered my question effectively: you would expect somebody to go out and buy multiple undead armies, despite potentially duplicating everything they already have, so they can only use branded miniatures to match any rules they choose to use. That's just not an attitude I can relate to at all.

As for tomb kings as VC I genuinely don't care what they are, as long as it works. Meaning if they're skeletons with light armour, shields and spears, all that needs to be represented on the model. Why would I care if your VC skellies look a bit Egyptian? Maybe you want to do an Egypt themed VC army. Fine by me.

And the part about you respecting that as GWs choice, I'm sorry but that just sounds insane to me. You're saying its GWs choice what toy soldiers you buy? Say whaaaaat? Maybe it's their choice what models I play with in their shop, sure. But why would I want to do that? I can't even stand to be in the place for more than ten minutes to be honest.

It's my choice which system to choose, and I chose GW, so they have the choice which minis to supply me, if I chose Warmachine, I would only use Warmachine minis. Simple.


Wow, that's a pretty extreme Point of View. Quite frankly I feel like anyone who wants to play GW games already needs to make a huge fiscal commitment with the rules alone. If you buy GW's rules, you've bought the right to have some fun with them. Strictly speaking there's no actual connection between a stat line and a model. Then once you have the rules you're only 1/4 of the way to having a game anyway. You need a table, terrain, dice, models, templates, tape measure...

I would not have very much fun if I took my army to a game and they played with quarters, paper circles or wooden pegs. But proxying is your friend.. Where there is a figurine on the table that looks somewhat battle ready, and plays the part convincingly, (no daemons standing in for IG conscripts, for instance; but Defiance Games' (http://defiancegames.com/index.php/shop#!/~/category/id=1392304&offset=0&sort=normal) human minis would be OK.) that's enough for me. I will even allow for some Lasgun=Autogun=This Semi-auto=S3 AP - shenanigans.

Like someone else said here, "A fire daemon is a fire daemon is a fire daemon." When GW re-releases an army like Dark Eldar and they make the Talos look completely different, would someone using the old GW Talos model ruin your immersion experience? Or PAGKs? It used to be that they could only use halberds y'know. The idea of them having falchions, hammers and staves ruins my immersion experience. :shifty: :p

I don't care if people Proxy GW stuff to be GW stuff, so long as it's believeable, if someone wanted to use an old Rhino, I wouldn't complain, infact, I and Old vindicator that I still use despite it being a hell of a lot smaller than the modern one, and no-one complains.
As for the fiscal side, I don't consider 30 pounds for a codex a massive issue, considering that we share a rulebook, so we share the cost for it.


Because they don't like the GW models? Is that really a concept that is foreign to you? You mean to tell me that you like every single model that GW produces?? What if you really wanted to play army X, but cannot stand the models? You would just not play the game as a result? Seems silly.

I like most of the GW models, but due to fluff I won't use any more than 1 ork vehicle model produced by GW (No 2 ork vehicles look the same) so I have a mix of GW, FW and 3rd party models.

I do like every mini, except the Imperial Guard Stormtroopers, hence why I use Kasrkyn.
As for Ork vehicles, how hard is it to buy a Leman russ, and raid your bitz box?
The concept it entirely foreign to me, as i've never done it, I have a Tau Army, I have a Small Imperial Guard Attatchment, I have a Silver Legion Astartes army and I have a motly of Chaos and Skaven units. Not one single part of my Army if from anything other than GW, because I don't need to, I don't want to, and I still (aside from sisters) don't see why other people insist on it.


For me it's very much a case of My Master, Right or Wrong (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/MyMasterRightOrWrong).
This^

demerean
10-05-2013, 14:20
Maybe I'm weird, but I play for the models. If I don't like the models for an army, I wouldn't want to play that army. The scenario "I really want to play X, but I don't like how the model looks" doesn't exist for me. Liking how a model looks and wanting to play it are one and the same.

At least that's one way to look at it. When I say "how a model looks", it is more about the overall look of the concept, including artwork and description, not the specific sculpt. There are many models where I love what the model is supposed to be, but where the sculpt of the model doesn't do the concept justice. In those cases, I take it as a challenge to make a model that looks like I want it to look. I don't tend to shop around for other manufacturers - I prefer taking GW model parts and converting them into what I want.

Many people here have said that it's all about aesthetics, not manufacturer. I agree with this. However, I think aesthetics is about more than whether a model looks nice. The most important factor to me is "Does it look GW?" This is obviously a subjective evaluation. However, I think that even though the suggested proxy guard models shown earlier are very pretty, to me they don't look GW. And to me, playing GW games means playing games with models that look GW.

Amusingly, to me, there are GW models that don't look GW. Because I'm a Blood Bowl fan, I can use these as examples. The most recent generation of human and "pro" elf teams that GW made some years ago look terrible to me and not like GW models. They break the aesthetic. Therefore I'll always stay as far away from them as possible.

On the other hand, there are non-GW models that look very GW to my eyes. Raging heroes and similar companies make really great GW-looking models. I use some of Mantic's dwarfs on my BB teams because I think they look the part. And I am currently planning to buy a Slann team from Gaspez arts because I like the look of them, I think they fit the GW look, and because (despite having rules for then since long time) GW hasn't made any BB Slann models *ever*.

(I could hunt on ebay for old fantasy slann to make into BB players, which is tempting, but I think they look very hard to convert and will never look as dynamic as the Gaspez ones.)

So would you be okay with someone using an alternate model for a Bloodthirster, since GW's own model doesn't match it's current art / look of khorne daemons?

effbomber
10-05-2013, 14:33
If a plastic kit with spare bitz and other stuff came out, then you could model any sisters unit (within reason) so you wouldn't need to shop elsewhere, but, because they're metal I accept that people will look elsewhere.



It's my choice which system to choose, and I chose GW, so they have the choice which minis to supply me.^

Again, I can't get my head around this. They have the choice what minis to supply you?

We're talking about buying stuff here dude. How can they have the choice of whether or not you buy something from them.

Unless you think you enter into a legal contract at the point of purchase of rule books that includes an obligation to buy miniatures from them too. But if you do think that, let me assure you that's not even possible, because such a contract would so clearly fly in the face of any reasonable expectation. Hence my point.

Wishing
10-05-2013, 14:51
So would you be okay with someone using an alternate model for a Bloodthirster, since GW's own model doesn't match it's current art / look of khorne daemons?

I was actually just writing about my own preferences, not about what other people do. What other people do is no concern of mine, and whether I want to play them or not will depend on other factors than what models they are using. But that said, of course, I do feel happiest when the preferences of my peers are the same as my own.

If you ask me if I would use an alternate model for a Bloodthirster? If the model I was using felt suitable to me, definitely. Whether a model is suitable or not will depend on the model. Again, to me, suitability is determined mainly by "Does this look like a model sculpted by someone who has aimed at sculpting in the GW style, and have they succeeded?" If it looks approximately like a BT, and looks like a model that GW would have released as a 40k or WHFB model, then I'd be happy to use it, regardless of manufacturer. My main objection to using it would be if it looked like it belonged to a different game universe.

Menthak
10-05-2013, 15:02
Again, I can't get my head around this. They have the choice what minis to supply you?

We're talking about buying stuff here dude. How can they have the choice of whether or not you buy something from them.

Unless you think you enter into a legal contract at the point of purchase of rule books that includes an obligation to buy miniatures from them too. But if you do think that, let me assure you that's not even possible, because such a contract would so clearly fly in the face of any reasonable expectation. Hence my point.

I'm not so stupid as to believe that I enter a contract, here is my view again

I choose to buy and play Warhammer Minis
GW Makes and Supplies these Minis
I don't play Warmachine or any other system, so I do not buy their minis.

Tharilion
10-05-2013, 15:30
I've been looking at third party miniatures for a while - loving Victoria Minis, Pig Iron's done some cool things, and some of the models Mantic's doing with Deadzone are awesome. (Also, Deadzone terrain = instant Necromunda, so I'm sold!)

I generally play games at home in the gaming room, or at a friend's house, and we're all into conversions and kitbashes so third-party stuff is a logical next step. As long as they fit the look of the army, and both players are clear n what's what, fair enough!

Wishing
10-05-2013, 15:38
I see where Menthak is coming from, I think, and can state how I would explain my view of this kind of argument.

When we play different miniature games, what is the difference between them? The rules is one thing. But one very important factor is what miniatures we use for them.

It is possible to play all miniature games using cardboard cutouts and no miniatures. However, each game is always *associated* with a certain type of miniatures. These are the models that are shown in the pictures in the rulebook. The rulebooks are generally designed so that they present the game as supposed to being played with the models they show in the pictures, or models that belong to their "set". GW don't publish a ruleset for a game that is meant to be played with Warmachine miniatures, and PP don't produce a game that is meant to be played with Warhammer miniatures.

Because of this association, some people feel that this association is part of the game experience. Part of playing warhammer is using warhammer miniatures. That's what the rulebook shows. That's the association they have.

Of course you can play with cardboard, or play with non-warhammer miniatures. This is not illegal and doesn't hurt anyone. But then that might not feel like "real" warhammer to some people. Because it's ignoring the association between warhammer the game and warhammer miniatures.

Just one perspective.

TimLeeson
10-05-2013, 16:03
I'm for it. If it looks _good_ then why not? Good, unique looking armies are a joy to play against, especially if the person is great too. Good person with a cool looking army is all i care about personally. I don't have any interest in gaming outside my personal group of friends either, so don't have any problems of "officialness" either. I'm proud that in my gaming group you can find Matchups like ulumeathic league vs adeptus mechanicus or Arbites fighting Enslavers.

Bobthemime
10-05-2013, 16:05
I see where Menthak is coming from, I think, and can state how I would explain my view of this kind of argument.

When we play different miniature games, what is the difference between them? The rules is one thing. But one very important factor is what miniatures we use for them.

It is possible to play all miniature games using cardboard cutouts and no miniatures. However, each game is always *associated* with a certain type of miniatures. These are the models that are shown in the pictures in the rulebook. The rulebooks are generally designed so that they present the game as supposed to being played with the models they show in the pictures, or models that belong to their "set". GW don't publish a ruleset for a game that is meant to be played with Warmachine miniatures, and PP don't produce a game that is meant to be played with Warhammer miniatures.

Because of this association, some people feel that this association is part of the game experience. Part of playing warhammer is using warhammer miniatures. That's what the rulebook shows. That's the association they have.

Of course you can play with cardboard, or play with non-warhammer miniatures. This is not illegal and doesn't hurt anyone. But then that might not feel like "real" warhammer to some people. Because it's ignoring the association between warhammer the game and warhammer miniatures.

Just one perspective.

and its not like Gee Dub doesnt have thousands of miniatures on sale.. and converting adds soo much more to it all..

If you want to field Non-gw minis, be prepared for when you face an opponent that will ask you to play with gw minis, because your special looking guardsmen my look cool.. but it may be confusing as to what gun is what.. or what equipment it has.

Personally I dont have any non-gw minis.. i may have non-gw bitz, like shoulder pads from puppetswar or altern bolters from another company.. but at least you can tell looking at my models what they have equipped.

Luffwaffle
10-05-2013, 17:07
It takes less than 30 seconds to say hey, this is a flamer/melta/plasma/lasgun.

Menthak
10-05-2013, 17:08
I see where Menthak is coming from, I think, and can state how I would explain my view of this kind of argument.

When we play different miniature games, what is the difference between them? The rules is one thing. But one very important factor is what miniatures we use for them.

It is possible to play all miniature games using cardboard cutouts and no miniatures. However, each game is always *associated* with a certain type of miniatures. These are the models that are shown in the pictures in the rulebook. The rulebooks are generally designed so that they present the game as supposed to being played with the models they show in the pictures, or models that belong to their "set". GW don't publish a ruleset for a game that is meant to be played with Warmachine miniatures, and PP don't produce a game that is meant to be played with Warhammer miniatures.

Because of this association, some people feel that this association is part of the game experience. Part of playing warhammer is using warhammer miniatures. That's what the rulebook shows. That's the association they have.

Of course you can play with cardboard, or play with non-warhammer miniatures. This is not illegal and doesn't hurt anyone. But then that might not feel like "real" warhammer to some people. Because it's ignoring the association between warhammer the game and warhammer miniatures.

Just one perspective.

Bingo, also, Wishing, had a look at your kroot thread, it's great, but I digress.

I basically want GW minis in Warhammer, because it's part of the experience to me

Luffwaffle
10-05-2013, 17:26
You realize that's exactly what GW wants you to think. They know that there are companies that make minis better and cheaper than theirs. Instead of lowering their prices to compete or making a better product, they rely on diehards and fanboys that think using non GW minis is heresy to bully others into using only GW minis. I can understanding people not wanting to use non GW minis, but refusing to play a game with someone without GW minis is stupid. As for immersion, if someone is using mini that is similar to its GW counterpart and you claim it's breaking your immersion, you lack imagination.

Scaryscarymushroom
10-05-2013, 17:27
Kudos to the Spyro Heldrake kid. Stories like that give me some perspective: this is a game for everyone, regardless of their fiscal background or their commitment to modeling.

Just makes me feel all warm and fuzzy inside to know that people don't shut him out of the gaming community.

Theocracity
10-05-2013, 17:44
You realize that's exactly what GW wants you to think. They know that there are companies that make minis better and cheaper than theirs. Instead of lowering their prices to compete or making a better product, they rely on diehards and fanboys that think using non GW minis is heresy to bully others into using only GW minis. I can understanding people not wanting to use non GW minis, but refusing to play a game with someone without GW minis is stupid. As for immersion, if someone is using mini that is similar to its GW counterpart and you claim it's breaking your immersion, you lack imagination.

There is nothing wrong with GW advocating or enforcing the use of their models in their stores. They're a business, and its in their financial interest to ensure that people aren't using their services (rules, table space, etc) if they haven't bought in (with GW minis).

Outside of that, there shouldn't be too much problem with using other company's miniatures among friends. It should be noted, however, that GW models all use the same 40mm heroic scale and have a generally consistent art style among its various ranges. Keeping that art style consistent is important for some people's immersion, and the farther away from it you get the more you're likely to get conflicting opinions.

If the models are close in style, its easy to paper over with some imagination. The further away you get, the more belief you have to suspend. It's easier for some than for others.

Bobthemime
10-05-2013, 19:47
It takes less than 30 seconds to say hey, this is a flamer/melta/plasma/lasgun.

and a further 30 seconds each phase as you try to remember if that particular gun is a melta or plasma.. whereas with the actual models they have now, at a glance you can judge the threat level of a squad.

Im not saying use all of gw stuff.. but if i cant tell if your PP/mantic/malifaux models are carrying x weapons, i'll ask you to replace them, or pack up.

totgeboren
10-05-2013, 20:48
and a further 30 seconds each phase as you try to remember if that particular gun is a melta or plasma.. whereas with the actual models they have now, at a glance you can judge the threat level of a squad.

Im not saying use all of gw stuff.. but if i cant tell if your PP/mantic/malifaux models are carrying x weapons, i'll ask you to replace them, or pack up.

Funny thing, I'm all in favour of using models and bitz from all over, but when it comes to weapons I really, really, really wan them to either be GW weapons or look as close to GW weapons that there is no confusion. I think the most defining part of GW models is the ridiculously sized weapons, and if people use weapons that don't look like they fit with the rest of the game, I get a bit bothered. So everything goes, as long as the weapons look like 40k weapons (a meltagun should look like a meltagun just by a glance for example).

golembane
10-05-2013, 20:52
I am of the mind set that a game is meant to be played. As long as the minis look good, my opponent is fun to play against, and where we place is a comfortable gaming environment then I really don't have anything to complain against.

My Kings of War force is built by using a combo of my 6th edition Warhammer High Elves and Mantic Elves, my Heavy Gear Blitz PRDF force is entirely of DP9's line, and I can up with an entire Firestorm Armada fleet is a Gundam themed using RSN ships and DP9 Jovian Chronicle mecha. I build the force on what I think looks best, not out of any company loyalty. If someone came and wanted to play a game using some other companies minis, I won't complain. Of course there is a difference between using other company minis and using slips of paper with 'assault team' written on it.

Luffwaffle
10-05-2013, 20:57
There is nothing wrong with GW advocating or enforcing the use of their models in their stores. They're a business, and its in their financial interest to ensure that people aren't using their services (rules, table space, etc) if they haven't bought in (with GW minis).

Outside of that, there shouldn't be too much problem with using other company's miniatures among friends. It should be noted, however, that GW models all use the same 40mm heroic scale and have a generally consistent art style among its various ranges. Keeping that art style consistent is important for some people's immersion, and the farther away from it you get the more you're likely to get conflicting opinions.

If the models are close in style, its easy to paper over with some imagination. The further away you get, the more belief you have to suspend. It's easier for some than for others.

If you are in a GW store using their tables or at a GW sponsored tournament, then you are obligated to use their models. You use their models, they let you use their tables or play in their tourney, it's give and take. As soon as you leave the store or tourney, GW is no longer providing you with anything, therefore you are not obliged to use their models. As for using the rules, I already said you gain the right to use the rules however you want once you buy the book. GW can advocate till they are blue in the face, but they can't legally force you to use their minis with their rules when you are not on their property.

It should also be noted that some companies make guardsmen that (in my opinion) fit the warhammer 40k universe better than Cadians and especially catachans.


and a further 30 seconds each phase as you try to remember if that particular gun is a melta or plasma.. whereas with the actual models they have now, at a glance you can judge the threat level of a squad.

Im not saying use all of gw stuff.. but if i cant tell if your PP/mantic/malifaux models are carrying x weapons, i'll ask you to replace them, or pack up.

Oh the horror of losing 5 minutes total out of a game that can take up to 3 hours to play!

Angry SisterOfBattle Nerd
10-05-2013, 21:09
If a plastic kit with spare bitz and other stuff came out, then you could model any sisters unit (within reason) so you wouldn't need to shop elsewhere, but, because they're metal I accept that people will look elsewhere.
Oh, I see what you mean now.

Bobthemime
10-05-2013, 21:56
If you are in a GW store using their tables or at a GW sponsored tournament, then you are obligated to use their models. You use their models, they let you use their tables or play in their tourney, it's give and take. As soon as you leave the store or tourney, GW is no longer providing you with anything, therefore you are not obliged to use their models. As for using the rules, I already said you gain the right to use the rules however you want once you buy the book. GW can advocate till they are blue in the face, but they can't legally force you to use their minis with their rules when you are not on their property.

It should also be noted that some companies make guardsmen that (in my opinion) fit the warhammer 40k universe better than Cadians and especially catachans.



Oh the horror of losing 5 minutes total out of a game that can take up to 3 hours to play!


well it wont be 5 mins if i keep having to ask you what things are... it will be a very short game.. where i pack up or lay with someone with less confusing models.

considering how this edition gave me a chance to snipe your special weapons.. i dont want to have the pain of trying to work out what models im shooting at.. chuck in allies and things can get even more confusing

Luffwaffle
10-05-2013, 22:04
well it wont be 5 mins if i keep having to ask you what things are... it will be a very short game.. where i pack up or lay with someone with less confusing models
I'm surprised that you can even remember the rules if your memory is that bad. Should only need to ask once as all the weapons my non GW models use are rather distinct. Only two weapons that somebody might confuse is the melta and plasma guns, but I paint most of the plasmas with a bright blue glow effect which helps with the identification.

AlphariusOmegon20
10-05-2013, 22:11
I'm generally ok with pretty much anything, especially if my table is the one being played on. I do understand why gw asks that only gw products be used in their stores though, and that's fine as a general rule. But I've been known to slip a avatars of war model or two in an army I was using at a gw store and nothing was said about it.

Bobthemime
10-05-2013, 22:17
I'm surprised that you can even remember the rules if your memory is that bad. Should only need to ask once as all the weapons my non GW models use are rather distinct. Only two weapons that somebody might confuse is the melta and plasma guns, but I paint most of the plasmas with a bright blue glow effect which helps with the identification.

Leave the personal insults to a PM..

so you admitted than 2 weapons are similar.. so mid game and I. or your opponent glances at your models and thinks.. "its only a melta 13" away. I'm fine for now.." when it was indeed a plasma gun and i lost a dude to your hard to fathom modelling skills.

Being pedantic in this hobby is better than half arsing through a game because it saves time.

I at least have the common courtesy that when I use 1st or 3rd party bits on my models, they at least look similar to their 40k equiv.. and it doesnt matter if its painted blue, green or sparkly pink and gold, if your opponent cant tell what the model is.. or even equipped with, they can ask you to replace it with a model they /can/ identify.

Being an ass on here isn't helping your argument either.

Bobthemime
10-05-2013, 22:18
I'm generally ok with pretty much anything, especially if my table is the one being played on. I do understand why gw asks that only gw products be used in their stores though, and that's fine as a general rule. But I've been known to slip a avatars of war model or two in an army I was using at a gw store and nothing was said about it.

did it look like the model it was representing?

ie AoW chaos knight lord.. looks close enough to a GW/Shield Lord.

Avatar_exADV
10-05-2013, 22:41
There's a really big range covered by this kind of question. At one end of the range, you're asking "can I play you with my army proxied by coke cans?" At the other, you're saying "I did a head-swap of my FW chapter master with a head from a different model, is that okay?" Almost nobody will be happy with the first scenario, almost nobody will object to the second scenario.

If you're fielding a mixed army of GW and non-GW models, the non-GW stuff added in because it looks good, there's not much to object about. Are the models WYSIWYG? Are you having to describe what's what before the game? Is there similar-looking stuff being played as two different units? Have you done what you can within the realm of reason to reduce confusion? ("These guys are stormtroopers, I've painted the stormtrooper's plasma guns with the same glowy color as the regular plasma guns so they're easy to see." "Cool.")

The more off-manufacturer models you've got in your army, the less happy I'll be, but that's also modified by the effort that's gone into what you've got and, to be frank, how awesome it is. "I converted a custom demon prince from a Kingdom Death model!" is sweet. "I have a bunch of grey legs with no bodies that I'm calling purifiers," much less awesome. With respect to the rank and file, I'll be a lot happier about putting some effort into keeping track of what's what if it's obvious that you put some effort into making the models look good. Well-painted and distinctive models are welcome no matter what their origins.

One other thing, though - if you're fielding non-standard models, and there's a rules question that boils down to "if you were fielding the official model it would have been different," yield the point. Your opponent is doing you a favor by consenting to play you despite you using nonstandard models; don't punish him for that.

Theocracity
10-05-2013, 23:03
There's a really big range covered by this kind of question. At one end of the range, you're asking "can I play you with my army proxied by coke cans?" At the other, you're saying "I did a head-swap of my FW chapter master with a head from a different model, is that okay?" Almost nobody will be happy with the first scenario, almost nobody will object to the second scenario.

If you're fielding a mixed army of GW and non-GW models, the non-GW stuff added in because it looks good, there's not much to object about. Are the models WYSIWYG? Are you having to describe what's what before the game? Is there similar-looking stuff being played as two different units? Have you done what you can within the realm of reason to reduce confusion? ("These guys are stormtroopers, I've painted the stormtrooper's plasma guns with the same glowy color as the regular plasma guns so they're easy to see." "Cool.")

The more off-manufacturer models you've got in your army, the less happy I'll be, but that's also modified by the effort that's gone into what you've got and, to be frank, how awesome it is. "I converted a custom demon prince from a Kingdom Death model!" is sweet. "I have a bunch of grey legs with no bodies that I'm calling purifiers," much less awesome. With respect to the rank and file, I'll be a lot happier about putting some effort into keeping track of what's what if it's obvious that you put some effort into making the models look good. Well-painted and distinctive models are welcome no matter what their origins.

One other thing, though - if you're fielding non-standard models, and there's a rules question that boils down to "if you were fielding the official model it would have been different," yield the point. Your opponent is doing you a favor by consenting to play you despite you using nonstandard models; don't punish him for that.

That's exactly my view. There's a spectrum of possible reactions from your opponent, ranging from 'anything goes' to 'GW only,' just as there's a spectrum of non-GW models that can be integrated. Respect your opponent's preferences and he's more likely to respect yours.

effbomber
11-05-2013, 00:28
This is the way I see it: what we're all talking about here is commerce, plain and simple. You buy the rules, they're yours. Do what you want with them. What company you buy your miniatures from is your choice and youre free to make it based on who you think is offering you the best product for the money.

Anybody who's not blind, or a diehard kool aid drinking fanboy knows there is a massive abundance of alternative minis out there which look cool and fit perfectly into both GWs fictional universes, so the 'immersion' argument is nonsense. Also, If you really have so much of a problem with having to take 5 minutes to establish what different weapon types look like, you're a mean spirited and deeply unsportsmanlike individual.

Finally, if you personally feel only one brand of minis will cut it, fine. Buy what you like, use what you like, think what you like. But if you're refusing to play people over what they're using you're probably not the kind of person I'd want to play, or for that matter even hang out with.

Luffwaffle
11-05-2013, 00:40
Leave the personal insults to a PM..

so you admitted than 2 weapons are similar.. so mid game and I. or your opponent glances at your models and thinks.. "its only a melta 13" away. I'm fine for now.." when it was indeed a plasma gun and i lost a dude to your hard to fathom modelling skills.

Being pedantic in this hobby is better than half arsing through a game because it saves time.

I at least have the common courtesy that when I use 1st or 3rd party bits on my models, they at least look similar to their 40k equiv.. and it doesnt matter if its painted blue, green or sparkly pink and gold, if your opponent cant tell what the model is.. or even equipped with, they can ask you to replace it with a model they /can/ identify.

Being an ass on here isn't helping your argument either.
You're the one who said you would pack up if you had to keep asking what weapons my guys were using. You must have a bad memory if you have to keep asking. Everyone who I've played with I only told once and they didn't have to keep asking.

The two weapons that might get confused are about as similar as a lasgun to a boltgun, and they do look similar to 40k equivalents. Only reasons I paint them special is mainly it looks cool and it makes for easier identification if you hadn't already figured out what it was.

Remebering what someone's non GW models are equipped with is easier then remembering what wargear and upgrades a unit has that aren't represented by modeling (ex half of the upgrades for necron lords, the IG grenade choices, psychic powers, etc.). Do you have the same trouble remembering if a Necron Lord took Mindshackle scarabs or not? Do you refuse to play with everyone who doesn't have PRESCIENCE written on the forehead of their librarians?

Bobthemime
11-05-2013, 01:38
You're the one who said you would pack up if you had to keep asking what weapons my guys were using. You must have a bad memory if you have to keep asking. Everyone who I've played with I only told once and they didn't have to keep asking.

In a tournament where i want to play the game as fast and fastidious as possible.. i dont want to have to remember that the badly painted blue OSL are plasma when only "some" (your words) are painted that way AND they can be easily confused with melta

even in a friendly i dont want a git with attitude when i ask what weapons that unit has.. and forget two turns later as unit y with plasma look similar to unit x with melta


The two weapons that might get confused are about as similar as a lasgun to a boltgun

I have met literally one person that confused a las with a boltgun and he was almost completely blind.. so i can see how you win games if your opponents cant tell the difference between them.



and they do look similar to 40k equivalents. Only reasons I paint them special is mainly it looks cool and it makes for easier identification if you hadn't already figured out what it was.

See above.


Remebering what someone's non GW models are equipped with is easier then remembering what wargear and upgrades a unit has that aren't represented by modeling (ex half of the upgrades for necron lords, the IG grenade choices, psychic powers, etc.). Do you have the same trouble remembering if a Necron Lord took Mindshackle scarabs or not? Do you refuse to play with everyone who doesn't have PRESCIENCE written on the forehead of their librarians?

{implied sarcasm}

"Why yes dear Madam, i do get confused when a Necron Lord takes MSS, because that almost never happens. Ever!"

MSS is a given on Lords..

Psykers are easy to deal with as I can snipe them out and 50% kill them turn 1 or whatever turn they pop up, and even when i dont i will remember when the only psyker on the board has a certain power.. when you have more than 1 squad with similar wargear that can get confused with other wargear, especially if they are non-gw, i will ask you to replace models or pack up.


and again leave the insults to PM.. Treating me like an idiot for having a viewpoint on why stupid non-gw models and confusing wargear isnt reagrded highly in my viewpoint, does not strengthen your argument.. or indeed indicate whether or not you are worthy player.

I do feel sorry for your gaming group

Luffwaffle
11-05-2013, 02:26
In a tournament where i want to play the game as fast and fastidious as possible.. i dont want to have to remember that the badly painted blue OSL are plasma when only "some" (your words) are painted that way AND they can be easily confused with melta

I actually said most and that's only because I have a pair that I primed and based but haven't got around to the detail work yet. Also "badly painted", how do you know that when you've never seen my models. What did you say about personal attacks, or did you forget?


even in a friendly i dont wa nt a git with attitude when i ask what weapons that unit has.. and forget two turns later as unit y with plasma look similar to unit x with melta
If you ask, I will gladly tell you plasma/melta/etc. and I will gladly tell you again if you somehow get it confused.


I have met literally one person that confused a las with a boltgun and he was almost completely blind.. so i can see how you win games if your opponents cant tell the difference between them.
That's great. Then you would have no trouble telling the difference between my Plasmas and Meltas.




{implied sarcasm}

"Why yes dear Madam, i do get confused when a Necron Lord takes MSS, because that almost never happens. Ever!"

MSS is a given on Lords..

Psykers are easy to deal with as I can snipe them out and 50% kill them turn 1 or whatever turn they pop up, and even when i dont i will remember when the only psyker on the board has a certain power.. when you have more than 1 squad with similar wargear that can get confused with other wargear, especially if they are non-gw, i will ask you to replace models or pack up.

Still doesn't change the fact if you can remember what a lord/psyker is using, you can remeber that the gun that looks like this and is painted like this is a plasma gun.



and again leave the insults to PM.. Treating me like an idiot for having a viewpoint on why stupid non-gw models and confusing wargear isnt reagrded highly in my viewpoint, does not strengthen your argument.. or indeed indicate whether or not you are worthy player.
It's not confusing. You are just trying to make it sound like it is to justify your unfounded hate of non GW models.


I do feel sorry for your gaming group
Didn't you say something about personal attacks last paragraph?

I recognize that some models having similar weapons can be confusing, but some does not mean all, just as some non GW models can break immersion while others can improve it. Most models' weapons vary enough that a normal human can tell them apart, and most humans are able to remember what they are over the course of a game.

Bobthemime
11-05-2013, 02:40
snip


no personal attacks.. I was generalising with the badly painted OSL.. You may be the best painter in the world.. wont matter **** if people cant tell models apart.

and I feel sorry for them if your attitude leaks out when you disagree with someone..

Luffwaffle
11-05-2013, 03:03
no personal attacks.. I was generalising with the badly painted OSL..
You implied my painting was bad. You may say it was a generalization, but we were talking about my models and my paint scheme specifically at the time.


You may be the best painter in the world.. wont matter **** if people cant tell models apart.
I already said the models were vaguely similar in the way a lasgun is similar to a boltgun. You already said there was no issue with identifying a boltgun over a lasgun, so there would be no issue here.


and I feel sorry for them if your attitude leaks out when you disagree with someone..
Yeah, that's a personal attack as much as what I said.

Bobthemime
11-05-2013, 03:40
You implied my painting was bad. You may say it was a generalization, but we were talking about my models and my paint scheme specifically at the time.


I already said the models were vaguely similar in the way a lasgun is similar to a boltgun. You already said there was no issue with identifying a boltgun over a lasgun, so there would be no issue here.


Yeah, that's a personal attack as much as what I said.

I merely pointed out that when someone has a conflicting argument, you seem to be loose lipped with insults and sweeping statements that seem neither here nor there to actually go ahead and explain your point.

Comparing how one can tell the difference between a lasgun and boltgun and how this correlates to your wargear choices and being able to extrapolate that one similar item is the same as another similar item because of a lick of paint exists on the model, is rather ludicrous.

Being told that if someone objected, in this case, me, when they bring up that x and y item looks identical, where as item y is indeed item z, you would treat them like a person of below average intelligence because your choice of what a miniature that doesnt originate with the ruleset being used, does infact correlate to an example in the orgin rules.

Also with repeated utterances of what does what and what are they armed with, you would further treat them like a sub-human intellectual, and berate them further by insulting their memory skills, even going as far as to say


"Do you refuse to play with everyone who doesn't have PRESCIENCE written on the forehead of their librarians?"

as if they were a simpleton or a child unable of proper motor skills.

So far as to say that I personally attacked you for your rude and untoward attitude to someone fielding their objections to your use of non-games workshop copyrighted material, and how they would react when they are treated like they are an idiot, but what is frankly and uneducated, bottom feeding troll, then indeed Sir/Ma'am, I slighted your pride.

Luffwaffle
11-05-2013, 04:32
I merely pointed out that when someone has a conflicting argument, you seem to be loose lipped with insults and sweeping statements that seem neither here nor there to actually go ahead and explain your point.
How did I insult you? You said that we wouldn't play a game cause you couldn't remember what weapons my units had. I inquired on the irony that you can remmeber a 200 something page rulebook, but can't remember the difference between two weapons.


Comparing how one can tell the difference between a lasgun and boltgun and how this correlates to your wargear choices and being able to extrapolate that one similar item is the same as another similar item because of a lick of paint exists on the model, is rather ludicrous. The models aren't the same. They are two totally different weapons that share similar elements, such as a barrel, magazine, and a trigger in the same way a boltgun and a lasgun also have a barrel, magazine, and trigger. The paint is simply there to help make them easier to tell apart, so that even a newborn child could tell the gun A is different from gun B. It looks different, they are shaped different, and they are painted different. Even without the paint, anyone with a half a brain could tell that gun A is different from gun B. What is so difficult to understand about that?


Being told that if someone objected, in this case, me, when they bring up that x and y item looks identical, where as item y is indeed item z, you would treat them like a person of below average intelligence because your choice of what a miniature that doesnt originate with the ruleset being used, does infact correlate to an example in the orgin rules. A: you haven't even seen the guns in question. B: they don't look the same. They look SIMILAR.


Also with repeated utterances of what does what and what are they armed with, you would further treat them like a sub-human intellectual, and berate them further by insulting their memory skills, even going as far as to say


as if they were a simpleton or a child unable of proper motor skills.
I have no clue how you pulled a personal attack out of that. That fact that you did means you are grasping for things to say against me.

Avatar_exADV
11-05-2013, 05:34
Let's be nice, guys.

The situation is important, too. Obviously in a friendly game, whatever the two players feel like is fine. Tournament environments are different. You didn't pick playing against the other guy, and there's added time pressure... and, frankly, you just have to wander over to the "worst players" thread to see plenty of examples of guys who will take as much advantage of you as they can manage. I've played against guys using counts-as armies who were honestly confused as to which of their guys was what, given that they weren't the models they were being used as proxies for; certainly there are scum out there who would actively cheat given the opportunity, and this kind of thing can make that a LOT harder to police. (Especially if the guy can then claim "oh, well, I just got confused, sorry!" in the event that they get caught out. Uh-huh.)

So some players play in tournaments for most of their games, and they're going to resent being put into situations where it's "play this guy's army of the unknown or scoop and forfeit your prize!" So I can see how some people can say "nothin' but gen-yoo-aine GW for me please." For them, it's not an issue of forcing what they want on other people - it's having game-situations forced on them when they can't say no without losing something.

Charax
11-05-2013, 05:46
Well that's what you get when you play in tournaments - you give up control of certain aspects of the game (which rules you're using, which opponent you get, what length of game/scenario you play). That's just part of being in a tournament, and if the tournament has approved of non-gw models, you don't get a say in that.

Cheating players is a wholly separate issue and should not be lumped together with using third party miniatures. If someone abuses the advantage of having unfamiliar models to swap around weapons they should be reported to the TO, regardless of if those models are GW or not (can't say I recognise every DE weapon out there, but I can recognise when a squad has one set of special weapons one turn and another set the next

totgeboren
11-05-2013, 07:00
Something to keep in mind for all of us who like to use third party bits and such, is that even if we of course thinks its dead easy to separate all the different guns (the ones with blue glow are plasmas and the ones with red are meltas, anyone can see that! ;)), it's probably not that easy for an opponent because of two things. First off, he/she might not be all that interested. They are playing w40k, and are interested in w40k, not your own 'parallel universe' version of w40k. And this also goes further, as they might only be interested in their own army in the w40k setting. If they don't care at all for humans, and have a hard time as it is differentiating between all the different human armies, further complicating things by using stuff that doesn't even look like what it's supposed to represent will not improve the gaming experience for them.

I know of many occasions where people have faced Nids and then complained a bit that they couldn't really separate the weapons from each other (and a bit more rare, where people who play nids themselves can hardly separate the weapons from each other).

On the other hand, with this in mind, it must be said that GW does not seem to care about this, about WYSIWYG. Just look at especially the Daemon Codex. I feel a bit hesitant to use it, just because of all the random tables which mean that I have a hard enough time to keep track of what can do what, and for my opponent it is simply impossible. The CSM has this problem too, but to a lesser degree. If you couldn't care less about daemons, and your opponent needs to randomize at least a dozen different skills, abilities, powers and wargear at the beginning of the battle, you will just get annoyed.

WYSIWYG is supposed to exists to make the game go faster, and allow someone who is not interested in the other guys army to still know what is what by a glance. On the other hand, I have yet to see a serious army that used third party bits and models be as confusing and annoying to face as a Daemon army from GW, as that army is entirely non-WYSIWYG, and simply requires your opponent to keep track of all the different powers and abilities.

I mean, we now have situations like this;
Opponent: If I knew that Plague Bearer champion has a template weapon I would not have bunch my models up! I'm pretty sure you said it was the other Plague Bearer Champion that had the template weapon. The one you are using now had a close combat buff!
CD player: Nono, it was the Plague Bearer Herald that had the close combat buff, the one you think had a close combat buff has an anti-tank shot.
Opponent: What?! If I knew that I would not have moved my dread towards them of course. That all the models look the same, a green one-eyed slimey guy with a sword does not really help. Using pieces of paper with text on it would be more helpful than this!
CD player: Well, I'm using official GW rules and models, deal with it.

Those who want all-GW should take this into account. It's only really Imperial armies where the easy WYSIWYG applies. I have to check twice before I know if an Eldar Wave Serpent has Shuriken Cannons or Scatter Lasers, and I determine it by comparing how the gun looks to the look of a infantry shuriken. I know the weapons look different at a glance to any Eldar player, but to me they look very similar.

Any sort of use of third party models is better than the Daemon codex from a WYSIWYG point of view, and if no WYSIWYG is fine when it comes from GW, a slight departure should be fine when it comes from someone just wanting to make their models a bit special I think.

yabbadabba
11-05-2013, 07:31
This is where my caveat clause comes in; when in Rome and all that.

This is also similar to the painted model thread. Both perspectives have value, neither is more valuable than the other.

Wishing
11-05-2013, 09:17
First off, he/she might not be all that interested. They are playing w40k, and are interested in w40k, not your own 'parallel universe' version of w40k.

*This* is the point in my view. It's not about being able to tell which models have what abilities - it's about whether your models look 40k. A lasgun looks a certain way. If it doesn't look like a lasgun, but is being used as a lasgun, it is breaking some of the 40k experience.

Granted, some people don't recognise that there is such a thing as a 40k experience, but some do, so different strokes and all that.



Those who want all-GW should take this into account. It's only really Imperial armies where the easy WYSIWYG applies.

Yep. My knowledge of the weapons of 40k comes from the days when all races used imperial weapons. Thus, I have no idea what the different Tau weapons look like, for example. And especially the point about how many weapons and abilities aren't even represented on the model, like with the daemons.

It's not about remembering who can do what... it's about whether stuff looks "right". Which there are varying opinions about, and which some people care more about than others.

Charax
11-05-2013, 09:51
"a lasgun looks a certain way"

... And yet there have been dozens of Lasgun designs produced over the years, and even more have appeared in the background. 40k background is STUFFED with examples of variations and different patterns. Hell, compare Rogue Trader flamers to the ones we have now. Utterly different designs, there are several 3rd party flamer alternatives that look more like modern 40k flamers than the RT/FW ones do

effbomber
11-05-2013, 12:42
This is where my caveat clause comes in; when in Rome and all that.

This is also similar to the painted model thread. Both perspectives have value, neither is more valuable than the other.

Yeah I see the similarity. One thread was full of self righteous holier than thou individuals telling people what they should do with their miniatures. The other is full of self righteous holier than thou individuals telling people what miniatures they have to buy.

effbomber
11-05-2013, 12:52
"a lasgun looks a certain way"

... And yet there have been dozens of Lasgun designs produced over the years, and even more have appeared in the background. 40k background is STUFFED with examples of variations and different patterns. Hell, compare Rogue Trader flamers to the ones we have now. Utterly different designs, there are several 3rd party flamer alternatives that look more like modern 40k flamers than the RT/FW ones do

There's no point offering rational arguments at this juncture. The WYSIWYG argument has already been destroyed: GW minis are no more WYSIWYG than others which are available. The immersion in the warhammer universe argument likewise: WHFB is so generic, pretty much everything ever made fits, and there are tonnes of models available which fit the feel of 40k too.

The people who're saying you should only use GW product are motivated by nothing more than slavish fanboyism.

It's an attitude I dislike because its closed minded, exclusive rather than inclusive, and it limits rather than encourages creativity, and ultimately, lots of people taking that attitude will discourage rather than encourage people from taking up or continuing to play the games they think they're supporting.

Bobthemime
11-05-2013, 13:58
The people who're saying you should only use GW product are motivated by nothing more than slavish fanboyism.



so im a slavish fanboy because i prefer to use models i can use in indies and gw?

instead of picking and choosing what case to bring as one has a AoW/PP mix of models that represent Exodites, but i cant use that in gw because i left the other case at home?


For most people they have either an indie close by, or a gw.. some have both, like me, but i will still choose to use gw stuff because at the end of the day, i want to play the game with the least amount of hassle, and asking every other turn what certain models are or do (unless you are forced into it like the daemon dex), is a giant waste of time.

My indie AND gw has max time of 2hours on tables, i dont want any time not having fun because my opponent is an ass when i keep asking them what x unit does or has, because they look identical to y unit with the same xy guns but different per weapon.

Menthak
11-05-2013, 15:10
"a lasgun looks a certain way"

... And yet there have been dozens of Lasgun designs produced over the years, and even more have appeared in the background. 40k background is STUFFED with examples of variations and different patterns. Hell, compare Rogue Trader flamers to the ones we have now. Utterly different designs, there are several 3rd party flamer alternatives that look more like modern 40k flamers than the RT/FW ones do

For this, I have to say, that I can recognize old Rogue trader lasguns as lasguns more than I would be able to recognize a 3rd party one


*This* is the point in my view. It's not about being able to tell which models have what abilities - it's about whether your models look 40k. A lasgun looks a certain way. If it doesn't look like a lasgun, but is being used as a lasgun, it is breaking some of the 40k experience.

Granted, some people don't recognise that there is such a thing as a 40k experience, but some do, so different strokes and all that.




Yep. My knowledge of the weapons of 40k comes from the days when all races used imperial weapons. Thus, I have no idea what the different Tau weapons look like, for example. And especially the point about how many weapons and abilities aren't even represented on the model, like with the daemons.

It's not about remembering who can do what... it's about whether stuff looks "right". Which there are varying opinions about, and which some people care more about than others.

Aide from Daemons, I like not knowing what an enemies weapons are, because it makes me feel like I'm in the game, rather than an all knowing imperator leading it from heaven. If my fire warriors accidentally fall into the path of an Eldar weapon that I didn't recognize then I would take a note of it, what it looked like and what it can do, like a Tau commander would.

Luffwaffle
11-05-2013, 15:37
For most people they have either an indie close by, or a gw.. some have both, like me, but i will still choose to use gw stuff because at the end of the day, i want to play the game with the least amount of hassle, and asking every other turn what certain models are or do (unless you are forced into it like the daemon dex), is a giant waste of time.

You already made the stupid arguement that having to ask wastes too much time. Even if you have to ask every phase, of every turn (you shouldn't as a normal human has a better memory than that) you would only lose less than 5 mins.


My indie AND gw has max time of 2hours on tables, i dont want any time not having fun because my opponent is an ass when i keep asking them what x unit does or has, because they look identical to y unit with the same xy guns but different per weapon.
You can be an ass using regular GW minis. If a player puts time and effort into the non GW minis there should be no problem with telling what each model is using other then the imaginary problem you keep trying to make up in your head.

Theocracity
11-05-2013, 15:58
There's no point offering rational arguments at this juncture. The WYSIWYG argument has already been destroyed: GW minis are no more WYSIWYG than others which are available. The immersion in the warhammer universe argument likewise: WHFB is so generic, pretty much everything ever made fits, and there are tonnes of models available which fit the feel of 40k too.

The people who're saying you should only use GW product are motivated by nothing more than slavish fanboyism.

It's an attitude I dislike because its closed minded, exclusive rather than inclusive, and it limits rather than encourages creativity, and ultimately, lots of people taking that attitude will discourage rather than encourage people from taking up or continuing to play the games they think they're supporting.

You know, I've said before that I've fine with certain levels of 3rd party models in friendly games. My group does proxy stuff or this-looks-cool-let's-use-it all the time. But you are not doing your argument any favors by claiming that you're superior because you don't think other people's immersion is a thing that's important to them.

It's fine that you enjoy the models from a different company. But other people may not like them and would prefer to play games that are closer to the 40K style. You can't quantify what is or isn't the 40K style - it all depends on the individual and what's important to them. And denigrating someone's opinion about what is important to them just because you'd rather pay less money for your models is not a good way to respect others.

effbomber
11-05-2013, 16:50
You know, I've said before that I've fine with certain levels of 3rd party models in friendly games. My group does proxy stuff or this-looks-cool-let's-use-it all the time. But you are not doing your argument any favors by claiming that you're superior because you don't think other people's immersion is a thing that's important to them.

It's fine that you enjoy the models from a different company. But other people may not like them and would prefer to play games that are closer to the 40K style. You can't quantify what is or isn't the 40K style - it all depends on the individual and what's important to them. And denigrating someone's opinion about what is important to them just because you'd rather pay less money for your models is not a good way to respect others.

I'm not saying other people's immersion isn't important to them. You've either not read, misunderstood or deliberately ignored my argument, which incidentally makes all your subsequent remarks meaningless.

I said if people were open minded they would know that using third party miniatures doesn't necessarily have any negative impact on that immersive experience.

I'm not talking about people using dominos as space marines. I'm talking about people selecting models from the vast and wide range available which can accurately and thematically represent units within GWs game universes, rather than just from the narrow range available from GW themselves, which might not fit the aesthetic they want for their army.

Now regarding the rest of your post, if your point is that it's up to the individual what he plays against, and if he doesn't think your models look '40k ish' enough, that's legit, I will accept that as long as you accept that I can just as easily refuse to play against you, because your GW catachans don't look remotely 40k, as they look like cartoon bodybuilders, or that the horrible anatomical proportions of an opponents cadians are ruining my immersive experience as I can't suspend disbelief. Because if your argument was actually that its all about each individuals enjoyment of the game based on their own aesthetic expectations, those would be equally valid positions.

But I suspect that you were just using this thin argument to prop up your position, which actually has nothing to do with aesthetics, and just comes down to one brand being bad and another being good.

Your comment about paying less is based on an erroneous assumption about my motivation for using alternative miniatures, and for supporting other people's choice to do so. Although its often motivated by value for money, my choices are certainly not motivated purely by cost, and I have and will pay more for none GW miniatures if I prefer them.

effbomber
11-05-2013, 16:57
so im a slavish fanboy because i prefer to use models i can use in indies and gw?
.

No of course not. I said it already, but buy what you like, play with what you like, where you like.

You're only a slavish fanboy if you're telling other people its wrong for them to use none GW products to play GW games, or refusing to play people who do.

By the way, that would also make you several other things, but politeness dictates I can't be specific about that.

Scaryscarymushroom
11-05-2013, 20:12
You know, I've said before that I've fine with certain levels of 3rd party models in friendly games. My group does proxy stuff or this-looks-cool-let's-use-it all the time. But you are not doing your argument any favors by claiming that you're superior because you don't think other people's immersion is a thing that's important to them.

Personally, I'll go out of my way to use non company-specific stuff (usually related to price but sometimes related to how much I like the model). I have some really awesome Reaper pirates that I use as press gangers in Warmachine, I have AoW halberdiers and sword+shield warriors that I will use in place of other fantasy minis for fantasy wargames, and I'd readily use Winter Guard as Valhallan Imperial Guard or Pig Iron Productions shock troops as inquisitorial storm troopers.

However, the most important aspect of gaming to me is immersion. A well painted, based, non-GW model on a fully modeled table, with the same style base as other models in the army (lipped or regular), goes a lot farther than a bare GW mini on a wooden dining room table. Even for the "GW universe."

One particular aspect of the 40k universe that's open to extreme proxy friendliness is the Inquisition armies. A rag-tag bunch of fools that basically amount to a blank slate and puts design purely in the hands of the player. Give them a huge variety of weapons, a huge variety of armor, psychic powers, or themes (radical v. puritan, penitent, daemonhost, missionary, animated objects like servo skulls and familiars, summoners, combat specialists, servitors, assassins, planetary defense force, the list goes on).

Now I'm all reminiscent and crap. Look what you've done! ;) I haven't wanted to play 40k so badly since 4th edition. Inquisition = Best. Thing. Ever.

Ironically it's also the thing that got me away from GW. I'd look at any model from any company and ask "Could that be an inquisitor (http://phildeb.files.wordpress.com/2009/03/xii1.jpg)? An assassin (http://www.warpuppy.com/images/products/anima/justina_lge.jpg)? An acolyte (http://client-cdn.crystalcommerce.com/photo/gamenightz/file/109128/large/Church_Agent.jpg)?"

Hrw-Amen
11-05-2013, 21:49
As it is at the moment I have all GW and/or FW stuff and have not got any third party models. I personally do not mind other people having them as it is your money to buy what you want and in friendly games as long as everyone is happy it really should not matter.

I wonder though as time goes on if this will become more of an issue? What with people being on a budget and things like money for models has to be weighed against money for food or rent/mortgage etc. At least in Europe I do not see many signs of things getting better any time soon.

Is it conceivable that more people will turn to cheaper options especially for massed troops, not because they particularly like or prefer them but simply because they cannot afford GW prices but want to still play the games. Among friends which i imagine is the bulk of what most games are, it probably should not matter.

I am not sure how wide spread this is or has it even started to happen? Maybe people save the GW models for the characters or HQ / Heavy choices and so on whilst filling the bulk of their armies with cheaper options for troops?

Any sign of that where anyone is at the moment? Or will people just stop playing GW games turning instead to other more cost effective games, or just give up all together?

Theocracity
11-05-2013, 22:19
I'm not saying other people's immersion isn't important to them. You've either not read, misunderstood or deliberately ignored my argument, which incidentally makes all your subsequent remarks meaningless.


Wow, you are quite the charmer.


I said if people were open minded they would know that using third party miniatures doesn't necessarily have any negative impact on that immersive experience.

I'm not talking about people using dominos as space marines. I'm talking about people selecting models from the vast and wide range available which can accurately and thematically represent units within GWs game universes, rather than just from the narrow range available from GW themselves, which might not fit the aesthetic they want for their army.

Now regarding the rest of your post, if your point is that it's up to the individual what he plays against, and if he doesn't think your models look '40k ish' enough, that's legit, I will accept that as long as you accept that I can just as easily refuse to play against you, because your GW catachans don't look remotely 40k, as they look like cartoon bodybuilders, or that the horrible anatomical proportions of an opponents cadians are ruining my immersive experience as I can't suspend disbelief. Because if your argument was actually that its all about each individuals enjoyment of the game based on their own aesthetic expectations, those would be equally valid positions.

Sure, you could do that. You might get confused looks from people, but you could do it.

I'm not advocating denying games based on aesthetics. I'm saying that you shouldn't assume that people's preferences come down to brand loyalty or moral inferiority....


But I suspect that you were just using this thin argument to prop up your position, which actually has nothing to do with aesthetics, and just comes down to one brand being bad and another being good.

...like you did just there. I don't really care what models you like to play with - I just don't like the way you disrespect other people's opinions and act like there's no way they could prefer something other than what you want.


Your comment about paying less is based on an erroneous assumption about my motivation for using alternative miniatures, and for supporting other people's choice to do so. Although its often motivated by value for money, my choices are certainly not motivated purely by cost, and I have and will pay more for none GW miniatures if I prefer them.

A lot of argument I've seen in this thread regard not wanting to pay GW prices. Apologies if I got those confused with yours.

Menthak
11-05-2013, 22:45
I wish the people of this thread would go back to objectively stating their opinions rather than having a go at one another.

IMO, I don't like other people doing it, because it breaks my immersion, I'm not a simpleton, nor am I unimaginative, It's just my preference

Wishing
11-05-2013, 23:04
"a lasgun looks a certain way"

... And yet there have been dozens of Lasgun designs produced over the years, and even more have appeared in the background. 40k background is STUFFED with examples of variations and different patterns. Hell, compare Rogue Trader flamers to the ones we have now.

...but because I like 40k and have followed it over the years, I know those variants of lasguns, and know them to be lasguns because they are labeled as such by the game. If a 3rd party manufacturer made some models armed with 100% identical 40k lasguns, of whatever era, then I would recognise them as lasguns, and I wouldn't care who made them. But you can't just take a generic rifle-armed model made by another company and say "of course this is a lasgun". If I'm a 40k player, then what I'll recognise as a lasgun is a lasgun sculpted in the 40k style and labeled as such.

To those feeling like this is a pointless discussion - of course it is if you think you're going to change anyone's opinions. People changing their opinions in internet debates is very rare. We just do it (or at least should do it) because we think it's fun to share our opinions with the community. Dismissing opinions you personally disagree with as irrational and contemptible is of course natural, but not very mature.

Wishing
11-05-2013, 23:25
You realize that's exactly what GW wants you to think. They know that there are companies that make minis better and cheaper than theirs. Instead of lowering their prices to compete or making a better product, they rely on diehards and fanboys that think using non GW minis is heresy to bully others into using only GW minis.

I think this argument is interesting so going back to it for a moment. To start with, obviously bullying is bad. This isn't a thread about bullying though (as I read it anyway). This is a thread about preferences. Saying "people who prefer to use GW models are mean bullies!" is just meaningless accusation. Whether someone is a bully or not has nothing to do with whether they prefer GW models or not. I could just as well say that people who hate GW are bullies who say that all GW fans are mindless fanboys.

But onto the thing about how GW relies on fans who like their product to sell their product. I agree that GW intentionally present the game as only being playable with their own models, and therefore they create this preference in the head of their fans. They don't throw their games open to competition by saying "here are some game rules. you should use whatever models you prefer to play with them. if you like ours best, use ours, otherwise, use someone else's. whatever floats your boat." But then I don't know any other game company that does that either. They all tend to publish a game, and then a line of models to go with that game, and present the two as being interlinked, even though they are not.

In fact, in Warmachine, you are specifically only allowed to use the correct official model to go with a certain set of rules in their organised play. Scratch-building or sculpting your own models is not allowed. So compared with PP's regulations, GW's approach is much more lax, since they tend to be totally cool with you making your own stuff from scratch (historically at least).

Scaryscarymushroom
12-05-2013, 01:10
In fact, in Warmachine, you are specifically only allowed to use the correct official model to go with a certain set of rules in their organised play. Scratch-building or sculpting your own models is not allowed. So compared with PP's regulations, GW's approach is much more lax, since they tend to be totally cool with you making your own stuff from scratch (historically at least).

to be fair, Warmachine does have some very compelling reasons to make explicitly clear which version of a model you are using. A faulty assumption is much easier to make when a single named character can have three very different sets of rules.

Although I do wish there were less restrictions for unnamed, generic units, as long as confusion is still unlikely.

Kakapo42
12-05-2013, 01:26
Something I must admit to finding a bit odd, is that many use the argument that because there are countless styles and variety of IG regiments that any model can be suitable for them (paraphrased), yet a few also at the same time say that the GW IG models do not fit at all with 40k. Surely if there is such potential variety among IG regiments they would as well?

My apologies if this is interpreted as an attack, it is not meant to be. It's just something that is confusing me a bit.

Bobthemime
12-05-2013, 02:06
Something I must admit to finding a bit odd, is that many use the argument that because there are countless styles and variety of IG regiments that any model can be suitable for them (paraphrased), yet a few also at the same time say that the GW IG models do not fit at all with 40k. Surely if there is such potential variety among IG regiments they would as well?

My apologies if this is interpreted as an attack, it is not meant to be. It's just something that is confusing me a bit.

to an extent "any" model /could/ be used to show the varying degrees of IG regiments out there.. as they do seem to like having a stupid amount of flavour to them.

But it still boils down to WYSIWYG, in that it has became a major component of 6th ed rules, that stuff that doesnt really look like the officially accepted representation of the wargear, can lead to people being an ass about how that development is treated.. as I'm sure Luff can give an excellent example of, in reply to this post.

I am not against you using non-official models to play with, and I'm pretty sure i will remember that the "ak-47" are stubbers which are 99% same rules as lasguns, that it will be a good trade off, and rpgs as ML, and other examples of wargear that you may use.. i have seen a very nicely done guard army using the historical Shogun/1900 Japan minis.. as flintlock rifles en masse can be easily treated as lasguns. and HWT mortar as cannons and rockets as autocannons.. they are on the right base, and look close enough to fit the theme of the army AND the represented official GW model.

My gripe with Luff and their similar looking weapons (they complain that they can be told apart, yet no evidence has yet been provided), is that in a game setting with limited time frame, models that should look like one thing but also something else, can take your mind out of the game, or lose train of though as you try to remember what each component is.

It isn't their fault they have similar items in his army (well by and large it is.. they modeled them to begin with) but i have had experience of similar looking wargear changing during the game.. that on turn 1 they are plasma with 24" and when my 'fiend is finally in charge range in turn 4-5, its suddenly a melta that one-shots it.

It is harder to fake a SM army and pull off shenanigans, as most of the range, bar a few old OoP miniatures, is the same across the board. A HB is a huge gun that is belt fed and may or may not have a back pack that is huge too. So using a 3rd oarty or non-gw weapon, you would choose something of similar dimensions.

Though you could pull off the same tricks with melta and plasma looking the same BUT having checked all of GW website and FW, melta and plasma stuff are entirely different. So modeling two weapons from another company to make analogues of the originals, you will need two distinct difference..

So Luff, please post an example of your "two" distinct models, so i can get off the subject of using you as an example of how not to field non-gw stuff.

Is that an imaginary excuse now?

Luffwaffle
12-05-2013, 02:41
to an extent "any" model /could/ be used to show the varying degrees of IG regiments out there.. as they do seem to like having a stupid amount of flavour to them.

But it still boils down to WYSIWYG, in that it has became a major component of 6th ed rules, that stuff that doesnt really look like the officially accepted representation of the wargear, can lead to people being an ass about how that development is treated.. as I'm sure Luff can give an excellent example of, in reply to this post.

I am not against you using non-official models to play with, and I'm pretty sure i will remember that the "ak-47" are stubbers which are 99% same rules as lasguns, that it will be a good trade off, and rpgs as ML, and other examples of wargear that you may use.. i have seen a very nicely done guard army using the historical Shogun/1900 Japan minis.. as flintlock rifles en masse can be easily treated as lasguns. and HWT mortar as cannons and rockets as autocannons.. they are on the right base, and look close enough to fit the theme of the army AND the represented official GW model.

My gripe with Luff and their similar looking weapons (they complain that they can be told apart, yet no evidence has yet been provided), is that in a game setting with limited time frame, models that should look like one thing but also something else, can take your mind out of the game, or lose train of though as you try to remember what each component is.

It isn't their fault they have similar items in his army (well by and large it is.. they modeled them to begin with) but i have had experience of similar looking wargear changing during the game.. that on turn 1 they are plasma with 24" and when my 'fiend is finally in charge range in turn 4-5, its suddenly a melta that one-shots it.

It is harder to fake a SM army and pull off shenanigans, as most of the range, bar a few old OoP miniatures, is the same across the board. A HB is a huge gun that is belt fed and may or may not have a back pack that is huge too. So using a 3rd oarty or non-gw weapon, you would choose something of similar dimensions.

Though you could pull off the same tricks with melta and plasma looking the same BUT having checked all of GW website and FW, melta and plasma stuff are entirely different. So modeling two weapons from another company to make analogues of the originals, you will need two distinct difference..

So Luff, please post an example of your "two" distinct models, so i can get off the subject of using you as an example of how not to field non-gw stuff.

Is that an imaginary excuse now?

As you wish.

170695

DeeKay
12-05-2013, 02:56
The only "rule" for models should be the rule of cool. If I like a model, I will use it. If you think a model is cool, I would be bothered if you didn't use it. I think myself very lucky that my local gaming scene has a GW store, an independant LGS, 2 independant clubs and a really cool bunch of gamers/modellers/painters/sculpters. In addition, I am of the opinion that people who do not tinker with rules or models are to be pitied for their lack of creativity and imagination rather than pandered to.

With regards,
Dan.

Bobthemime
12-05-2013, 03:00
As you wish.

170695

i can see at a glance that would annoy me.. as they look similar from a 45 degree angle i would be across the board.

Though the painting will help. a tad.

Bobthemime
12-05-2013, 03:02
mis-read what he meant.. ignore post.

Scaryscarymushroom
12-05-2013, 03:33
so me, and other people who take it to a great extreme of 100% GW are to be pitied?

and you would be bothered if i DID use official unchanged models?

Read that again. He didn't say he'd be bothered if you didn't change your models, just that the only rule is the rule of cool. That second comment about pitying people who don't think outside the box at least a little bit seems to me to be really quite narrow. How many people have never painted a model in their own color scheme for instance?

First thing first is to remember that this is YOUR hobby. No one else controls how you enjoy it. Not your opponent, and significantly, not GW either.

Same goes for me and my hobby. And Luffwaffle and his. It'd be nice if we could compromise on some minute details every once and a while.

JWhex
12-05-2013, 03:41
i can see at a glance that would annoy me.. as they look similar from a 45 degree angle i would be across the board.

Though the painting will help. a tad.

Based on your replies, you would absolutely hate playing my traitor guard army that is heavily modeled (every single guardsman is a conversion, hundreds of them). However, in all the many tournament games I have played, the army has been universally praised as fun to play against. All of these issues you raised about how it is hard to tell this or that weapon, in my experience is just nonsense. No one, not in over ten years of taking the army to tournaments has complained to me or a judge that all the crazy diversity of models and weapons I use has caused the game to be slowed down.

I really think you are just trolling this thread or perhaps you need to play a game with rules and models that do not pose as much of a challenge to you.

It is actually more important that the owning player know which models have which special weapons than it is for the opponent to insure they are applying the rules correctly when shooting at you.

All of those guardsman except the HW team and specialists have lasguns, its not that hard to understand and know that unless you are a bit daft. You cant even see the three veterans in the chimera that are shooting either a plasma or melta guns. You greatly exagerate how much time it takes to identify various units even if you have to ask. The game is just not that complicated, well not for me anyway.

Bobthemime
12-05-2013, 03:43
over reacted sorry.. ignore post too

Scaryscarymushroom
12-05-2013, 03:53
maybe you should re-read.. he said he would be bothered if I didnt use rule of cool, because i didnt deviate from the official model.

and it is only as narrow as what you take from his meaning. I took that he pitied people who didnt follow HIS ideas for MY hobby, so he is controlling my hobby by judging me by my models, and thus being treated differently, with contempt maybe as im not following his ideal, of not using unusual models.

Nowhere did he say that GW models are not cool, or that people can't think they're cool.


And GW does control my hobby, in a way that if i wanted to use a Avatar of War/Warmahorde/Mantic/etc to represent a something that already exists in the model range they sell in their store, I wouldnt be able to play in their store.

It's your choice to play in their store.

Bobthemime
12-05-2013, 04:14
Based on your replies, you would absolutely hate playing my traitor guard army that is heavily modeled (every single guardsman is a conversion, hundreds of them). However, in all the many tournament games I have played, the army has been universally praised as fun to play against. All of these issues you raised about how it is hard to tell this or that weapon, in my experience is just nonsense. No one, not in over ten years of taking the army to tournaments has complained to me or a judge that all the crazy diversity of models and weapons I use has caused the game to be slowed down.


Are your weapons easily told apart? yes? No problem

As i said.. i dont give a flying spaghetti monster if its converted to sodom and back, if its recognizable and not within a gnats' crotchet of a similar piece of wargear, there isnt a problem.

I will probably hate you more, as I wont judge someone on their army, but on their attitude toward me, and how they react when i ask them to reiterate something i didnt understand the first time around.




I really think you are just trolling this thread or perhaps you need to play a game with rules and models that do not pose as much of a challenge to you.



So if i sat back and let people talk trash about my views, i wouldnt be a troll.. but actually, Emperor forbid, having a discussion, about the topic at hand, and how non-gw and gw models may pose a problem if there is conflicting data provided to work from, I am a Troll?

Shall I crawl back under my bridge now, Mr Billy Goat Gruff?




It is actually more important that the owning player know which models have which special weapons than it is for the opponent to insure they are applying the rules correctly when shooting at you.

it is, but I have met too many WAAC or cheaters bending rules and similar looking equipment to confuse or con me, to give the benefit of the doubt to an oik on the internet and his holier than thou views on what is acceptable to play on the tabletop.




All of those guardsman except the HW team and specialists have lasguns, its not that hard to understand and know that unless you are a bit daft. You cant even see the three veterans in the chimera that are shooting either a plasma or melta guns. You greatly exagerate how much time it takes to identify various units even if you have to ask. The game is just not that complicated, well not for me anyway.


As i told Luff, leave the insults to a PM where i can be more vocal with how I deal with undesirables, as I find swearing and insulting someones intelligence diminishes their argument.

And granted i may have been heavy handed with Luff in this thread, but it was only after he started insulting me did i mock how he handles the argument, and his modeling choices.

I only exagerated, not greatly, the time it takes, because I have faced in tournies people, like luff, who has similar wargear that have two different properties, that causes enough of a distraction, under a stressful situation, to lose track of dice rolls or tactics, to warrant me bringing up my problems in this thread, one that asked about usage of Non-gw models, and peoples stance on it.



and yes i cant see the 3 vets in the chim shooting me, but if i pop his pillbox, and its contents tumble out and his plasmas that have been shooting me for 4 turns are actually very very similar to the melta he has elsewhere in the army, it can be difficult.

The game is very much complicated when you get people who try to game the system for little buffs, chuck in the poorly written rules, and RAW versus RAI, and even worse faq's.. arguments can happen, rules will be discussed.



Back to your point of hating your Traitor Guard.. I guess now that I have thought about it.. maybe i will hate it, if you have hundreds of heavily modified models on the table, and not one of them has the same weapon being represented by X, you will get annoyed quickly when i ask what parts of your "universally praised as fun to play against" army is what every other turn.


Now if that is enough, i can go back to lurking, and hopefully never having to deal with oiks and their preferances to insult people they dont know because it is the internet and they are a superhero and untouchable.

What if I called you a troll? as your posts seemingly have been designed to get a rise out of me.

Bobthemime
12-05-2013, 04:16
Nowhere did he say that GW models are not cool, or that people can't think they're cool.



It's your choice to play in their store.

granted.. sorry for being an ass to you.. bit worked up over luff and "saviour" Whex. I dont much like being insulted by people i dont know because of their views being different.

Scaryscarymushroom
12-05-2013, 04:17
Also I edited my post to address one important point and I really think you should see it bobthemime.


First thing first is to remember that this is YOUR hobby. No one else controls how you enjoy it. Not your opponent, and significantly, not GW either.

Same goes for me and my hobby. And Luffwaffle and his. It'd be nice if we could compromise on some minute details every once and a while.

and it seems you're able to. Anyway, no problem about the extreme reaction thing.

Bobthemime
12-05-2013, 04:24
Also I edited my post to address one important point and I really think you should see it bobthemime.


and it seems you're able to. Anyway, no problem about the extreme reaction thing.

i misread his post.. will probably go back to delete or edit them.

Thanks for pointing it out to me.

DeeKay
12-05-2013, 04:37
Edit: Post was no longer relevant.

Still, I'll repeat that I'm an advocate of "rule of cool" for my own stuff, anyone else's stance on the matter is cool too.

With regards,
Dan.

Bobthemime
12-05-2013, 04:40
@ Bobthemime: You have unfortunately mistaken my comment. I never said that GW models aren't cool, or that others couldn't think of GW models as cool. Whoever allows their own enjoyment be curtailed through their own blindness (for want of a better word, it works for now) is to be pitied. I suppose I could have worded my comment in a better way if it could be misinterpreted in such a way.

I don't really know what within the thread could bring out such apparent vitriol, it simply asks for a person's opinion on a rather minor position.

With regards,
Dan.

i went back and changed my position on it when i realized, and from help of Scaryscarymushroom.

sorry to offend you.

Gorbad Ironclaw
12-05-2013, 09:28
But then I don't know any other game company that does that either. They all tend to publish a game, and then a line of models to go with that game, and present the two as being interlinked, even though they are not.


Wyrd put out a new tournament guideline PDF a few months ago where they changed their stance on proxies to basically make it at the TOs choice where as before I don't think they officially recognized proxies. Although it should be said they have a seperate document for Wyrd run events (I think that's basically the masters tournament at Gencon) that says Wyrd only. So while not saying use whatever straight up, they certainly give you the option for it in their own guide.


As for gameplay and GW games, I don't know, to me its never been an issue. There are several ranges where I have no idea what any of it is anyway. I never did bother to learn what all the different 'Nid weapons looked like and I got no real idea about Ncrona, Tau or DEldars either. And of course you then get things like War gear and psychic powers or an even better example, magic items in WFB who have always specifically not been WYSIWYG and can have a much bigger impact. Its never really mattered. And its not like 3rd party models would be the only way of getting confusing models, I can do that easily with all GW bits. But that's really a separate discussion.

As for immersion, I can see the issue if someone goes out of their way to make a non-40k force like if someone made an IG army that's clearly a Star Wars stormtrooper force. On the other hand if someone replaced all their Leman Russ tanks with models that actually looked like a tank and not a horrible blocky toy then immersion would be improved.
But that I guess all comes down to personal preference and how much you value GWs specific design. Personally I think there is a bunch of stuff you could quite easily replace with better looking versions from elsewhere but not everyone would agree on that or with my choice of replacement. On the other hand that doesn't mean that just because you are using an all GW army it will be good looking.

yabbadabba
12-05-2013, 10:18
Wyrd put out a new tournament guideline PDF a few months ago where they changed their stance on proxies to basically make it at the TOs choice where as before I don't think they officially recognized proxies. Although it should be said they have a seperate document for Wyrd run events (I think that's basically the masters tournament at Gencon) that says Wyrd only. So while not saying use whatever straight up, they certainly give you the option for it in their own guide. Fairs fair, GW don't exactly go around imposing such choices on the community outside of their own events, or those they are sponsoring, either.

But that I guess all comes down to personal preference and how much you value GWs specific design. Personally I think there is a bunch of stuff you could quite easily replace with better looking versions from elsewhere but not everyone would agree on that or with my choice of replacement. On the other hand that doesn't mean that just because you are using an all GW army it will be good looking. It's all got to be about personal choice for me, which makes life tough because the common values have to be (and should be) negotiated on subjective criteria.

About 10 years ago I saw the most awesome Star Wars Stormtrooper IG army. It was breathtaking. Shortly after that I saw something similar with a Marine army, all with the correct SW Imperial symbols and everything. I'd never want to see that aspect disappear from our hobby.

effbomber
12-05-2013, 10:58
I'm not advocating denying games based on aesthetics. I'm saying that you shouldn't assume that people's preferences come down to brand loyalty or moral inferiority.....

Ok, this doesn't make any sense. You're saying you don't want to play against people using none GW models because it will ruin your immersion in the game. Well the only way that arguments holds up is if you admit that it's based on a subjective judgement about the aesthetics of the other persons army.

Again, this had been said too many times, but nobody is saying its ok to use playmobil as space marines here. If somebody has modelled an army which looks very much like what it's supposed to be, and looks like it fits into the game universe, and you still don't want to play them, what are your reasons for that?

It can only be either brand loyalty, or your own personal, very specific aesthetic preferences, because they might look like guardsmen, but they don't look exactly like you want guardsmen to look.

My statements aren't based on assumptions about you, your preferences, or anything else. They are based, as they only can be, because that's all I have to go on, on inferences I'm making based on logical extensions of your own arguments.

It's wrong of you to suggest I'm making things up about you, or judging you speculatively, when all I'm trying to do is break down your arguments further, and question your logic. That's called debate.

As far as your remarks about my character, and my attitude, I will point out that all I'm doing here is questioning the viewpoint of people who want to effectively exclude others from playing the games they like based on their own judgements about their army.

I'm not the one saying I wouldn't play a game with somebody because they haven't bought the right miniatures, yet I'm the ******* for questioning that attitude?

nicol247
12-05-2013, 11:27
Mantic zombies are pretty cool for cultist with the mark of Nurgle or Plauge zombies. You can get 60 for around 30.

Menthak
12-05-2013, 11:51
Fairs fair, GW don't exactly go around imposing such choices on the community outside of their own events, or those they are sponsoring, either.
It's all got to be about personal choice for me, which makes life tough because the common values have to be (and should be) negotiated on subjective criteria.

About 10 years ago I saw the most awesome Star Wars Stormtrooper IG army. It was breathtaking. Shortly after that I saw something similar with a Marine army, all with the correct SW Imperial symbols and everything. I'd never want to see that aspect disappear from our hobby.

I agree that despite my views on the matter, the hobby would be greatly diminished if people stopped doing stuff like that, it's the culture of modification and messing about with the models that makes 40k Great (One of the things atleast) So whilst I wouldn't like to see them in a game, I would still want people to do it

Bobthemime
12-05-2013, 13:31
Ok, this doesn't make any sense. You're saying you don't want to play against people using none GW models because it will ruin your immersion in the game. Well the only way that arguments holds up is if you admit that it's based on a subjective judgement about the aesthetics of the other persons army.

Again, this had been said too many times, but nobody is saying its ok to use playmobil as space marines here. If somebody has modelled an army which looks very much like what it's supposed to be, and looks like it fits into the game universe, and you still don't want to play them, what are your reasons for that?

It can only be either brand loyalty, or your own personal, very specific aesthetic preferences, because they might look like guardsmen, but they don't look exactly like you want guardsmen to look.

My statements aren't based on assumptions about you, your preferences, or anything else. They are based, as they only can be, because that's all I have to go on, on inferences I'm making based on logical extensions of your own arguments.

It's wrong of you to suggest I'm making things up about you, or judging you speculatively, when all I'm trying to do is break down your arguments further, and question your logic. That's called debate.

As far as your remarks about my character, and my attitude, I will point out that all I'm doing here is questioning the viewpoint of people who want to effectively exclude others from playing the games they like based on their own judgements about their army.

I'm not the one saying I wouldn't play a game with somebody because they haven't bought the right miniatures, yet I'm the ******* for questioning that attitude?

I would love to see a playmobil army, as long as their loadouts werent too confusing. Like Night Sticks are lasguns or bolters or splinter rifles.

as long as the generic and the unique can be told apart, i wouldnt say no to a cardboard cut out army either, Im not stifling creativity here, i am merely saying that when you start using non-gw, and chuck in weapons that look pretty darn similar at a glance, or worse close up, that is when the hang up begins.

Be christ i must be stupid to ask question of my opponents army because they must all be Emperor fearing, rule following saints of the tabletop universe.

Luffwaffle
12-05-2013, 18:01
as long as the generic and the unique can be told apart, i wouldnt say no to a cardboard cut out army either, Im not stifling creativity here, i am merely saying that when you start using non-gw, and chuck in weapons that look pretty darn similar at a glance, or worse close up, that is when the hang up begins.
I actually agree with this.
If you choose to use non GW models it is your responsibility to make sure everything is easily distinguishable.

Luffwaffle
12-05-2013, 18:11
I agree that despite my views on the matter, the hobby would be greatly diminished if people stopped doing stuff like that, it's the culture of modification and messing about with the models that makes 40k Great (One of the things atleast) So whilst I wouldn't like to see them in a game, I would still want people to do it
What? You want people to spend time and money building and army, but not play it? I'm sure there are some people that build 40k armies just to look at, but most people intend to use them.

Theocracity
12-05-2013, 19:07
Ok, this doesn't make any sense. You're saying you don't want to play against people using none GW models because it will ruin your immersion in the game.


You must have been reading a very different post from mine, considering how I specifically said that I didn't advocate or practice that even in the one sentence you excerpted.


As far as your remarks about my character, and my attitude, I will point out that all I'm doing here is questioning the viewpoint of people who want to effectively exclude others from playing the games they like based on their own judgements about their army.

I'm not the one saying I wouldn't play a game with somebody because they haven't bought the right miniatures, yet I'm the ******* for questioning that attitude?

My only point was that people have different comfort levels about different aspects of the game. Someone can refuse a game because their opponent uses Heldrakes, or someone can refuse a game because they don't like how the opponent's models look. There's no value judgement inherent in those decisions, because the point of having a game is so that both players can have fun. If one player doesn't think he'll have fun, why should he be guilted into spending hours playing something he won't enjoy? Talking down to him like he's some sort of brainwashed victim of GW or an easily confused dope is no way to get someone to accept a different point of view. Just accept that his comfort levels are different and move on, or be friendly and talk about coming to a compromise that could make both players happy.

brain_dead_1st
12-05-2013, 19:27
In the old days we had cardboard armies... GW provided the cardboard cut outs in whitedwarf. Dreadnaughts were very often cardboard. 2nd ed. was the glory days

effbomber
12-05-2013, 20:25
You must have been reading a very different post from mine, considering how I specifically said that I didn't advocate or practice that even in the one sentence you excerpted.



My only point was that people have different comfort levels about different aspects of the game. Someone can refuse a game because their opponent uses Heldrakes, or someone can refuse a game because they don't like how the opponent's models look. There's no value judgement inherent in those decisions, because the point of having a game is so that both players can have fun. If one player doesn't think he'll have fun, why should he be guilted into spending hours playing something he won't enjoy? Talking down to him like he's some sort of brainwashed victim of GW or an easily confused dope is no way to get someone to accept a different point of view. Just accept that his comfort levels are different and move on, or be friendly and talk about coming to a compromise that could make both players happy.

Of course there is a value judgement in saying people shouldn't use none GW models to play GW games, or that you'll refuse to play someone who does. One earlier posters position basically amounted to: If you don't like the models, find a different game. How can that not be a value judgement?

If you're saying one type of models are the right type to use, and others aren't, that's a value judgement. Whether its based on the look of the models, or something less tangible, like the idea that its wrong to use a companies rules without buying their stuff.

As far as persuading people to accept a different point of view, that was never my intention, and in my view is never the purpose of debate. Someone who has already made up his mind can almost never be persuaded to change it. One should always aim instead to expose the weakness of their argument so that neutral observers might be persuaded of the strength of yours. In other words, the person you're trying to convince should never be the person you're arguing with.

However, I do always focus on the argument itself, and not on the person making it, and if I've appeared to condescend to, or insult anyone in this thread, I sincerely apologise.

Finally, regarding your advice that I should attempt to reach compromise, I personally have never met anyone in real life who would attempt to dictate to me what models I can use, but if I did, I would have no interest in compromising, because I feel safe in assuming that the things were looking for in our hobby differ to such an extent that it would not be worth either of our time.

effbomber
12-05-2013, 20:35
In the old days we had cardboard armies... GW provided the cardboard cut outs in whitedwarf. Dreadnaughts were very often cardboard. 2nd ed. was the glory days

Slightly OT, but I still have the cardboard cutout grom the paunch from warhammer 4th edition somewhere.

Bobthemime
12-05-2013, 20:51
Off-topic here.

Aint it odd that Whex sauntered in, called me troll and sauntered out?

and i went to all the hoo-hah of replying to him civilisedish.


anyway back on topic..

with what luff agreed and elaborated on.. it is entirely the models owners responsibility to make sure his army isnt as confusing as possible.

Menthak
12-05-2013, 22:02
What? You want people to spend time and money building and army, but not play it? I'm sure there are some people that build 40k armies just to look at, but most people intend to use them.

I meant to put "Play against me" Feel free to buy them, paint them, model them, play them, but if they're not GW, don't bring them near me

Iron_Lord
12-05-2013, 22:08
How about when the models are not GW because GW doesn't make that kind of model?

A person who wants to play a Tilean army, for example (using Empire rules)?

Bobthemime
12-05-2013, 22:12
How about when the models are not GW because GW doesn't make that kind of model?

A person who wants to play a Tilean army, for example (using Empire rules)?

that would be grand.. same as the mycetic spore and before the model came out, TWC, GW couldnt stop you using non-gw models as they didnt have an adequate replacement.

Theocracity
12-05-2013, 22:46
Of course there is a value judgement in saying people shouldn't use none GW models to play GW games, or that you'll refuse to play someone who does. One earlier posters position basically amounted to: If you don't like the models, find a different game. How can that not be a value judgement?

Because you're taking it as one. That person has made the judgement that he prefers GW only models in GW games. That's not a totally unreasonable suggestion, considering that it's the default state of the hobby, but it's also one that doesn't matter to everyone (like you and me). Why take it personally that he prefers something different than you?


If you're saying one type of models are the right type to use, and others aren't, that's a value judgement. Whether its based on the look of the models, or something less tangible, like the idea that its wrong to use a companies rules without buying their stuff.

Or it could be a personal preference. If I had an army with no flyer defense, or thought flyers didn't fit the skirmish type games I preferred, or in general had a lousy time against armies with flyers, I might request to only play against non-flyer armies. If someone didn't agree to do that, I wouldn't play them. Am I making a value judgement that they should feel bad about, or am I just prioritizing my time so that I'm doing something I enjoy? For some people, using recognizable, setting-appropriate GW models is something they prioritize more than you or me. There's no reason to feel judged just because they prefer something different.


As far as persuading people to accept a different point of view, that was never my intention, and in my view is never the purpose of debate. Someone who has already made up his mind can almost never be persuaded to change it. One should always aim instead to expose the weakness of their argument so that neutral observers might be persuaded of the strength of yours. In other words, the person you're trying to convince should never be the person you're arguing with.

However, I do always focus on the argument itself, and not on the person making it, and if I've appeared to condescend to, or insult anyone in this thread, I sincerely apologise.

It's very difficult to logically persuade anyone that their personal preferences aren't important. I don't think logic has much place in a discussion of aesthetic preferences. I agree that there's no logical reason why you shouldn't be able to use any models you like, but there's a huge spectrum of emotional reactions that highly depend on the context. A lovingly converted and weapon-correct Star Wars themed IG army might be perfectly great, unless your opponent thinks Star Wars is stupid and doesn't want to play.


Finally, regarding your advice that I should attempt to reach compromise, I personally have never met anyone in real life who would attempt to dictate to me what models I can use, but if I did, I would have no interest in compromising, because I feel safe in assuming that the things were looking for in our hobby differ to such an extent that it would not be worth either of our time.

That's fine! The choice to play a game is entirely dependent on your personal preference and how much fun you think you will have. You should never play games against someone whose view of the hobby is diametrically opposed - that's just a recipe for a bad time.

Wishing
12-05-2013, 22:48
If somebody has modelled an army which looks very much like what it's supposed to be, and looks like it fits into the game universe, and you still don't want to play them, what are your reasons for that?
It can only be either brand loyalty, or your own personal, very specific aesthetic preferences, because they might look like guardsmen, but they don't look exactly like you want guardsmen to look.

I just want to point out that the premise of this question is a subjective judgment. "Personal, very specific aesthetic preferences" and "Totally reasonable and normal aesthetic preferences" are identical outside of a subjective value judgment. Nobody gets to say with authority "These models look like guardsmen", because what a guardsman looks like will always be a question of personal evaluation.

Note that this transcends the GW/not GW debate though, which I'm sure you'll agree with. There are lots of GW models that I don't think look right for what they are supposed to represent, and which I therefore wouldn't use. Conversely, there are lots of non-GW models that I think look just right and which I will therefore use. But I won't accept anyone telling me "I have decided that these models look totally like guardsmen, and therefore you aren't allowed to think that they don't."

Wishing
12-05-2013, 22:56
A lovingly converted and weapon-correct Star Wars themed IG army might be perfectly great, unless your opponent thinks Star Wars is stupid and doesn't want to play.

I think this is a great example which is relevant to the topic at hand. Yabba commented earlier that he had seen several extremely cool Star Wars themed 40k armies, and this is an aspect of the hobby he loves. I am totally in the opposite camp on this one - a Star Wars themed army can obviously be extremely beautiful and cool, but if it is Star Wars themed, then it's not a 40k army, because Star Wars isn't part of the 40k universe. If someone wants to play a SW themed army using 40k rules, no problem with that, but it's then a SW game that just happens to use a 40k-based rules engine. If someone plays a SW army against a 40k army, then they're playing a game with no setting, because those franchises belong to different universes. It would be like playing a 40k army against a Warmachine army. Can be lots of fun I'm sure, but it's neither 40k or Warmachine, it's something unspecific that isn't set in either game world.

Bobthemime
12-05-2013, 23:00
I think this is a great example which is relevant to the topic at hand. Yabba commented earlier that he had seen several extremely cool Star Wars themed 40k armies, and this is an aspect of the hobby he loves. I am totally in the opposite camp on this one - a Star Wars themed army can obviously be extremely beautiful and cool, but if it is Star Wars themed, then it's not a 40k army, because Star Wars isn't part of the 40k universe. If someone wants to play a SW themed army using 40k rules, no problem with that, but it's then a SW game that just happens to use a 40k-based rules engine. If someone plays a SW army against a 40k army, then they're playing a game with no setting, because those franchises belong to different universes. It would be like playing a 40k army against a Warmachine army. Can be lots of fun I'm sure, but it's neither 40k or Warmachine, it's something unspecific that isn't set in either game world.

What about a Judge Dredd perfectly converted SM w/ Guard Allies?

Menthak
12-05-2013, 23:52
How about when the models are not GW because GW doesn't make that kind of model?

A person who wants to play a Tilean army, for example (using Empire rules)?

As I recall Tileans in Warhammer were similar to Venice back in the day, so I'm sure some messing around with normal empire models would be simple enough.


What about a Judge Dredd perfectly converted SM w/ Guard Allies?

No, because Arbites are based around Judge Dredd, so if you want a Judge Dredd army play Guard, and buy from the (soon to be gone) Necromunda Enforcers set.

ForgottenLore
12-05-2013, 23:55
I think this is a great example which is relevant to the topic at hand. Yabba commented earlier that he had seen several extremely cool Star Wars themed 40k armies, and this is an aspect of the hobby he loves. I am totally in the opposite camp on this one - a Star Wars themed army can obviously be extremely beautiful and cool, but if it is Star Wars themed, then it's not a 40k army, because Star Wars isn't part of the 40k universe. If someone wants to play a SW themed army using 40k rules, no problem with that, but it's then a SW game that just happens to use a 40k-based rules engine. If someone plays a SW army against a 40k army, then they're playing a game with no setting, because those franchises belong to different universes. It would be like playing a 40k army against a Warmachine army. Can be lots of fun I'm sure, but it's neither 40k or Warmachine, it's something unspecific that isn't set in either game world.

Which brings up the question (which I suspect is really at the heart of these kinds of debates) of "What IS Warhammer 40K?" Is it the setting and background? Is it the rules being used? Is it the miniatures? The answer, of course, is that it is all of these things and more, each individual weights each element differently and that is what leads to these arguments. "a Star Wars themed army can obviously be extremely beautiful and cool, but if it is Star Wars themed, then it's not a 40k army" is a statement that makes no sense to someone who considers "40K" to be the rules. To them, if it uses the 40K rules, it is a 40K game and army. While someone who considers the rules to be less of what defines "40K" than the background just naturally assumes the statement is blindingly obvious to everyone.

Wishing
13-05-2013, 00:07
What about a Judge Dredd perfectly converted SM w/ Guard Allies?

To me it's about the way it is presented. If I look at it and see an arbites army, and it is presented to me as an arbites army, then to me it will seem like a 40k army. If it doesn't look like an arbites army to me and it is presented to me as a Judge Dredd army, then I'll see it as a JD army rather than a 40k army.


Which brings up the question (which I suspect is really at the heart of these kinds of debates) of "What IS Warhammer 40K?" Is it the setting and background? Is it the rules being used? Is it the miniatures? The answer, of course, is that it is all of these things and more, each individual weights each element differently and that is what leads to these arguments. "a Star Wars themed army can obviously be extremely beautiful and cool, but if it is Star Wars themed, then it's not a 40k army" is a statement that makes no sense to someone who considers "40K" to be the rules. To them, if it uses the 40K rules, it is a 40K game and army. While someone who considers the rules to be less of what defines "40K" than the background just naturally assumes the statement is blindingly obvious to everyone.

Couldn't agree more. And the ultimate and only point of discussions like these is that everyone has their own individual preferences and perspectives.

Bobthemime
13-05-2013, 00:13
To me it's about the way it is presented. If I look at it and see an arbites army, and it is presented to me as an arbites army, then to me it will seem like a 40k army. If it doesn't look like an arbites army to me and it is presented to me as a Judge Dredd army, then I'll see it as a JD army rather than a 40k army.


Odd that GW did make a Dredd model line and army that could be used with RT 40k.

effbomber
13-05-2013, 00:16
To me it's about the way it is presented. If I look at it and see an arbites army, and it is presented to me as an arbites army, then to me it will seem like a 40k army. If it doesn't look like an arbites army to me and it is presented to me as a Judge Dredd army, then I'll see it as a JD army rather than a 40k army.



Couldn't agree more. And the ultimate and only point of discussions like these is that everyone has their own individual preferences and perspectives.

While I agree with the sentiment, I still think that there's more to it than just personal preference, and everyone having the right to enjoy the hobby their own way, because I feel that the attitude that alternative miniatures shouldn't be used excludes people, and/or limits people's choice and is in general bad for the hobby. I think it should be discouraged rather than just regarded as an equally legitimate point of view.

yabbadabba
13-05-2013, 00:19
Odd that GW did make a Dredd model line and army that could be used with RT 40k. Saw a great 40K army made out of old citadel Dr Who minis. Looked great.

Theocracity
13-05-2013, 03:40
While I agree with the sentiment, I still think that there's more to it than just personal preference, and everyone having the right to enjoy the hobby their own way, because I feel that the attitude that alternative miniatures shouldn't be used excludes people, and/or limits people's choice and is in general bad for the hobby. I think it should be discouraged rather than just regarded as an equally legitimate point of view.

Which comes back to what I said earlier - there's a spectrum of reactions on the subject. Everyone has a certain point at which the various elements of a fun 40K game cease to fun, 40K, or both. For some people it's when they run into cheesy competitive lists; for others it's when their opponent's converted army is too confusing or aesthetically unpalatable. Of course there's many levels of competitive or converted armies that are perfectly acceptable to many people, and we're only talking about the extreme cases. Actually calling off games because of it is rare and doesn't really contribute to an 'exclusionary' culture as much as we're worrying about in the context of this thread.

Wishing
13-05-2013, 09:21
Odd that GW did make a Dredd model line and army that could be used with RT 40k.

I'm not familiar with this one so I'd like to hear more. However, we have to be clear about what I'm saying here. If the Judge Dredd setting is actually an acknowledged and canonical part of the 40k universe, that I just wasn't aware of, then cool, I'll adjust my view on the 40k background accordingly. Then JD will be a named character in 40k, just like Draigo or Ghazkull. And all the Dredd films will actually be 40k films - cool. (Note that I don't know anything about JD fluff.)

However, if the JD franchise isn't actually seen by GW as a canonical part of 40k, then any rules published for Dredd armies in 40k will just be an example of non-canonical whimsy on behalf of GW, in which case my original assessment stands - Judge Dredd is not part of the 40k background, and therefore, by my logic, a Dredd army is not a 40k army. Having 40k rules does not make something a part of 40k. If GW writes rules for He-Man as a 40k character, that does not make Masters of the Universe a part of the 40k universe. GW once published rules for an ex-Blood Bowl player as a Warhammer Quest character - but that doesn't make BB into an official part of Warhammer canon. GW publishes random non-canonical rules sometimes. They are pretty lax about that kind of thing. But that doesn't mean that a canonical 40k universe doesn't exist, in my view.

Maybe I'm the weirdo here, but in my mind, popular sci-fi and fantasy franchises don't exist in the same reality unless specifically linked in some way. If a character from Warmachine all of a sudden appears as a Warhammer character, I would find this weird and it would break my immersion. If GW published Darth Vader as a new Space Marine hero, I'd be very dubious. If Frodo and Gandalf are named characters in the next Warhammer book, I would wonder what GW has been smoking. Separate franchises are separate realities, and mixing them detracts from the suspension of disbelief and related enjoyment I get from the settings.

Am I alone in this view? Clearly GW does disagree with me to some extent, since they are on record as (apparently) having published Dredd rules for 40k and BB rules for WHQ. I still stand by my viewpoint though, and I don't think my view of the hobby needs to match GW's view of the hobby in every way to be valid (topical since the discussion is about GW vs non-GW models).


While I agree with the sentiment, I still think that there's more to it than just personal preference, and everyone having the right to enjoy the hobby their own way, because I feel that the attitude that alternative miniatures shouldn't be used excludes people, and/or limits people's choice and is in general bad for the hobby. I think it should be discouraged rather than just regarded as an equally legitimate point of view.

I see what you mean, but I think it's a grey area. I agree that excluding people is bad, and nobody should ever tell someone else "you aren't allowed to do X". But I also think people are allowed to have personal preferences about what they do and don't enjoy. It's the same as with the "should models be painted?" argument. Saying that games are more fun when models are painted excludes and stigmatises people who don't paint. Does that mean that we all have to train ourselves to not enjoy painted models, and to feel that painted and unpainted models are the same? Similarly, why need models at all? Shouldn't we all just agree that playing with cardboard cutouts is just as much fun as playing with miniatures, and have cardboard tournaments?

There is obviously nothing wrong with cardboard tournaments. However, there is nothing wrong with prefering painted plastic miniatures over cardboard either. Similarly, there is nothing wrong with using non-GW models. But there also isn't anything wrong with preferring GW models. I don't see any moral basis for discouraging people's preferences. That's my view anyway.

talthar
13-05-2013, 10:59
I know that the answer to the question of GW vs non-GW for each individual player comes down to that "do what thou wilt will be the whole of the law" chestnut. It's been interesting to see people get very worked up over the subject, though. I think I've seen less cantankerous debates over abortion.

I hate to admit it but I think my attitude about someone playing non-GW models against me would be based more on the person than their models. If you're a dick I'm not gonna cut you a lot of slack, so get that pretty and expensive FW crap off the table, because it's my choice to let you play that stuff. On the other hand, if you're laid back and just in it to play a game and have a good time, go ahead and use that garden gnome as a Titan.

effbomber
13-05-2013, 20:17
I see what you mean, but I think it's a grey area. I agree that excluding people is bad, and nobody should ever tell someone else "you aren't allowed to do X". But I also think people are allowed to have personal preferences about what they do and don't enjoy. It's the same as with the "should models be painted?" argument. Saying that games are more fun when models are painted excludes and stigmatises people who don't paint. Does that mean that we all have to train ourselves to not enjoy painted models, and to feel that painted and unpainted models are the same? Similarly, why need models at all? Shouldn't we all just agree that playing with cardboard cutouts is just as much fun as playing with miniatures, and have cardboard tournaments?

There is obviously nothing wrong with cardboard tournaments. However, there is nothing wrong with prefering painted plastic miniatures over cardboard either. Similarly, there is nothing wrong with using non-GW models. But there also isn't anything wrong with preferring GW models. I don't see any moral basis for discouraging people's preferences. That's my view anyway.

Yeah, I think I agree with you by and large. Certainly there is nothing wrong with saying 'I prefer GW models' or even 'I prefer to play against GW models'. I find myself asking why, and I don't think the explanations people have offered make much sense, but ho hum. Doesn't mean I think you're a bad person. Just that I don't get where you're coming from.

However when that changes to 'I won't play against none GW models' I think that probably is a pretty toolish thing to say because its such a negative, definitive blanket statement, with no room for tolerance or a bit of give.

If it changes to 'you shouldn't use none GW models' (and that has been the position of some people in this thread), that definitely is not on.

Wishing
13-05-2013, 23:17
Yeah, I think I agree with you by and large. Certainly there is nothing wrong with saying 'I prefer GW models' or even 'I prefer to play against GW models'. I find myself asking why, and I don't think the explanations people have offered make much sense, but ho hum. Doesn't mean I think you're a bad person. Just that I don't get where you're coming from.

That's the same for everyone I guess. When there are opinions I don't understand, I argue against them. That I personally think that their explanations don't make sense doesn't mean that they don't make sense to other people though. Different perspectives generate different explanations which lead to different opinions.


However when that changes to 'I won't play against none GW models' I think that probably is a pretty toolish thing to say because its such a negative, definitive blanket statement, with no room for tolerance or a bit of give.

If it changes to 'you shouldn't use none GW models' (and that has been the position of some people in this thread), that definitely is not on.

It is also in the nature of opinions that most people feel that their own opinion is the best one, and that very easily leads to a feeling that "everyone should do what I do, otherwise they are idiots". I agree that forcing your opinions on others is definitely a bad route to go down. Sharing opinions = good. Forcing opinions = bad.

Menthak
14-05-2013, 18:20
It is also in the nature of opinions that most people feel that their own opinion is the best one, and that very easily leads to a feeling that "everyone should do what I do, otherwise they are idiots". I agree that forcing your opinions on others is definitely a bad route to go down. Sharing opinions = good. Forcing opinions = bad.

The only problem is that standing your ground on an issue and forcing your opinion is often seen as the same thing, if you were to hypothetically challenge me to a game in a independent games club with 3rd party minis, and I declines, saying that I don't play 40k against people who use non games-workshop minis, would you consider that forcing an opinion? Perhaps, some people would, some wouldn't

Aluinn
14-05-2013, 21:50
After reading all the arguments, allow me to try to summarize this thread thus far:

A) The brand of the model in itself can't really matter unless you're playing in a GW store or a store that for some reason decides to enforce the same rules (incomprehensible as it would be to me for an independent retailer to do such a thing, and note I've never once seen it happen). It seems that most people agree with that. Thus, from a purely technical point of view, most posters here have no problem with using non-GW minis.

B) Some people have a problem with using minis that don't fit what they view to be the "40K aesthetic" (or the "Warhammer aesthetic" if we're to include Fantasy), but the brand of those models, i.e. their manufacturer, doesn't really matter.

C) WYSIWYG issues--There are different standards for this, but it all boils down to the idea that opponents should be able to tell with either one short briefing ("these rifles are lasguns/autoguns"), or just by looking (depending on how strict you are, which is subjective) what is armed with what, and what is counting as what. If the average opponent is likely to constantly forget and have to be reminded repeatedly during a game because the model is such an unusual choice or a distant departure from what the "official" mini would be, it's probably not a good idea to use it, because then it demonstrably detracts from the game.

So as far as we can derive any advice from this for players wondering if they can/should use non-GW minis in GW games:

1. If you're primarily playing in a GW store (not that I'm sure why you would do that but for lack of options), then no--one manager might be loosey-goosey about it, but he may be replaced by some corporate brownshirt at any time and it's probably too risky considering the time and money investments we're talking about with these games.

2. Otherwise, go for it, BUT consider that it's important to some players that your army "looks 40K"--this is subjective, but there are certain clear aesthetic elements when it comes to e.g. the Imperium that you can incorporate to make it less debatable--and they may refuse you a game if it looks like you just took models that belong in another universe and plopped them onto a 40K table. You can do that, but if someone is put off, don't take it personally, and find an opponent who just doesn't care.

At the end I'd have to say that anyone who thinks brand matters in and of itself is being absurd. They're entitled to that opinion but if something looks like it fits in the game, is the right size, is on the right base, and is clearly recognizable as what it's supposed to be rules-wise to the point that it doesn't even require a "counts-as explanation" (e.g. you converted your bodged-together historicals with Imperial symbols and actual lasguns to make Guardsmen), I don't find it reasonable to complain, because then the only basis would be that it comes from the "wrong" manufacturer. That is kind of silly unless you're somehow personally invested in the model manufacturing business.

jackers
14-05-2013, 23:31
1. If you're primarily playing in a GW store (not that I'm sure why you would do that but for lack of options), then no--one manager might be loosey-goosey about it, but he may be replaced by some corporate brownshirt at any time and it's probably too risky considering the time and money investments we're talking about with these games.

Why the GW hate? I play most of my games in my local GW because it is a very welcoming and friendly environment with great staff members and nice players. I can understand if you don't like your local GW store, but to imply that all GW stores are awful is going rather too far IMO.

On topic: I don't mind people using non-GW minis, especially if it can be seen that the player has put in alot of effort to make the model(s) look unique/cool. One of my friends has a clan moulder Skaven army where almost every figure has been converted/re-modelled in some way, and the army looks incredible on the table.

Obviously, if they are trying to pass off civil war minis as power armour space marines I would raise an eyebrow, but tbh I would probably still play them after a careful explanation of what everything is meant to be.

Wishing
15-05-2013, 00:09
The only problem is that standing your ground on an issue and forcing your opinion is often seen as the same thing, if you were to hypothetically challenge me to a game in a independent games club with 3rd party minis, and I declines, saying that I don't play 40k against people who use non games-workshop minis, would you consider that forcing an opinion? Perhaps, some people would, some wouldn't

I don't think declining a game is in itself forcing an opinion on others, no. It depends on how you present it. If you answer "sorry, your army looks cool and all, but I don't tend to enjoy playing GW games so much when they feature non-GW models", then you're just stating a preference. If you answer "what's wrong with you? playing GW games using non-GW models is horrible, everyone knows that! only idiots play GW games with non-GW models", then you would be trying to push your opinion as the only correct one.

Menthak
15-05-2013, 16:26
I don't think declining a game is in itself forcing an opinion on others, no. It depends on how you present it. If you answer "sorry, your army looks cool and all, but I don't tend to enjoy playing GW games so much when they feature non-GW models", then you're just stating a preference. If you answer "what's wrong with you? playing GW games using non-GW models is horrible, everyone knows that! only idiots play GW games with non-GW models", then you would be trying to push your opinion as the only correct one.

I've said the first before and faced a torrent of abuse >.< but I accept what you're saying

Aluinn
18-05-2013, 00:35
Why the GW hate? I play most of my games in my local GW because it is a very welcoming and friendly environment with great staff members and nice players. I can understand if you don't like your local GW store, but to imply that all GW stores are awful is going rather too far IMO.

On topic: I don't mind people using non-GW minis, especially if it can be seen that the player has put in alot of effort to make the model(s) look unique/cool. One of my friends has a clan moulder Skaven army where almost every figure has been converted/re-modelled in some way, and the army looks incredible on the table.

Obviously, if they are trying to pass off civil war minis as power armour space marines I would raise an eyebrow, but tbh I would probably still play them after a careful explanation of what everything is meant to be.

It's not hate so much as that they seem to have high turnover; all I'm saying is that if you use non-GW parts/minis at one and they're accepting, that might not be the case next month. Even if the manager isn't replaced he/she might get a message from on high that they need to crack down on it or some such. The general thing is just that they have rules against it, technically, which may be enforced or not, but could start being enforced and leave you with no real excuse because they were there all along.

If you meant my aside ("I'm not sure why you would"), I've personally always found it easier to find good independent LGSs (not to mention silly rules like the above and a few other policy things, and the emphasis on "hard" sales i.e. directly soliciting you to buy things rather than simply putting them out there and maybe mentioning when you have new stuff), but that's just me/my experience, and beside the point anyway.


I've said the first before and faced a torrent of abuse >.< but I accept what you're saying

I won't throw out any abuse but I just don't understand how, in a literal sense, the manufacturer of the plastic parts you're using could matter. If I made something from non-GW parts that looked 90% identical to, I don't know, a Vostroyan Guardsmen, on the proper base in the proper scale etc. etc., including purity seals, Imperial aquilas and whatnot, would you nix it because it "wasn't GW"?

Because it would certainly look perfectly 40K in that case by the definition that GW themselves set, so ... I think aside from a few jerks, it's more that it's hard to understand the reasoning behind your position. And, while you're perfectly entitled to hold opinions "just because", this is a forum--there's no point in sharing them with the world if they amount to "I don't like bananas".

Bobthemime
18-05-2013, 01:08
If I made something from non-GW parts that looked 90% identical to, I don't know, a Vostroyan Guardsmen

you may have to, now the metal minis are becoming more OoP...

infamousme
18-05-2013, 03:21
If someone hassles you about not using GW models to play, don't play against them as they most likely wont be fun to play against anyway...... IMO :)

starlight
18-05-2013, 07:33
Never cared what people use, likely never will. As long as it's is clear what represents what on the table, I'm cool with it. :)

jackers
18-05-2013, 08:24
It's not hate so much as that they seem to have high turnover; all I'm saying is that if you use non-GW parts/minis at one and they're accepting, that might not be the case next month. Even if the manager isn't replaced he/she might get a message from on high that they need to crack down on it or some such. The general thing is just that they have rules against it, technically, which may be enforced or not, but could start being enforced and leave you with no real excuse because they were there all along.

If you meant my aside ("I'm not sure why you would"), I've personally always found it easier to find good independent LGSs (not to mention silly rules like the above and a few other policy things, and the emphasis on "hard" sales i.e. directly soliciting you to buy things rather than simply putting them out there and maybe mentioning when you have new stuff), but that's just me/my experience, and beside the point anyway.

That's totally fair enough :) and I can understand where you are coming from, it just came across as a bit of a sweeping statement, that's all. I don't have the option of going to an LGS as there aren't any near where I live, so until I get to know some 40k players that go to GW a bit better, playing at the local GW is my only option to get some games.

Wishing
18-05-2013, 08:41
If I made something from non-GW parts that looked 90% identical to, I don't know, a Vostroyan Guardsmen, on the proper base in the proper scale etc. etc., including purity seals, Imperial aquilas and whatnot, would you nix it because it "wasn't GW"?

Because it would certainly look perfectly 40K in that case by the definition that GW themselves set, so ...

Whether something coming from the outside looks the part for what it is used as or not isn't something you can claim some sort of technical evaluation of though. Again, look at Warmachine. There, you have to use the correct approved model for everything you field. A named character in one pose will have different rules to the same named character in a different pose, therefore, the only models that are legal to use are *exactly* the right ones.

While 40k is different and much more lax when it comes to models, you can apply the same principle really. The only models that are defined as being correct are the ones that GW have published with the appropriate title, with the idea being that the player should be able to look up in GW's catalogues exactly what each model you field is supposed to be without having to ask.

I don't think anyone actually has such a technical approach, but I think part of it is in there - people want to be able to recognise the models used in their games from GW publications, because it creates an association with the game they are playing and GW's universe. A model they've never seen and which has never been printed in WD, or built using only unfamiliar parts, will create distance rather than closeness between the army and GW's publications - even if it looks 90% like a Vostroyan in someone else's opinon.

Inquisitor Shego
18-05-2013, 09:42
http://www.ragingheroes.com/products/preying-mantis = My Daemonettes
http://www.reapermini.com/Miniatures/sophie/latest/01406 = My Daemon Prince of Slaanesh
http://www.waylandgames.co.uk/avatars-of-war/domina-of-torment/prod_17279.html = My Herald of Slaanesh

If the downside to using these beautiful models is I can't play in a GW store filled with teenage Sweaty Gomez and kids whose parents treat it as a daycare, or if I am to be deprived of 40k from a pedant, boohoo. At least my Daemonettes aren't all one-breasted replicas of post-op Matt Ward after being bitten by a radioactive lobster. Not that I blame others for liking GW's range. I just think narrowing your mindset is a silly thing to do.

TheBearminator
18-05-2013, 09:50
Support their game systems by buying their models, if even just some. Also, having Citadel miniatures ensures your opponents know what they're facing, and you can bring them to official battles/tourneys/etc.

I really can't ser your point here. I like my new Ryobi power drill, but just because of that I don't pay extra for their bits and other equipment when I can get the same quality or better for less?

Personally I support the game system by buying their rule books and codices. When it comes to miniatures I buy the best looking ones. Or rather, the ones I consider best value for money, which is often the same thing. In most cases I end up buying GW models cause they are the only ones I find that resembles to what they "should" look like, but I'm quite happy supporting other creative companies so that we can enjoy some kind of competition between them, and therefore better products. If we would all do all our shopping in the GW stores without reflection the competition is lost and GW regains their monopoly. Everybody looses.

Sorry for taking this a bit far. I realize that was not what you suggested.

mark.k
18-05-2013, 10:18
i myself dont mind as long as im told what the miniatures are and are about the right size me im getting
8x warlocks
http://www.coolminiornot.com/309547?browseid=5410934
2x farseers
http://www.coolminiornot.com/309551?browseid=5410934

if gw wanted my money they should have made the models at good price

Aryllon
18-05-2013, 11:50
For me it's all down to aesthetics. So long as something is a) a nice model or conversion and b) is clearly intended to represent a 40k codex unit then I'm happy with it. I want to feel like everything is part of the 40k universe, so as long as my experience isn't broken then I feel people should have the flexibility to be creative.

For example, I've started putting together a Mekboy army using the FW list from IA8. I've used various epic-scale dreads and robots to represent grots, I use the grotbot event model as a bully, I'm using GW deff dreads and Killa Kanz, plus a FW Mega Dread and grot tanks. However, I want bionik boyz and GW currently do not make them. Kromlech on the other hand do. They are not models from a different setting which I am proxying, they are purpose-designed to represent 40k bionik orks and use standard GW ork aesthetics (they just can't be marketed as such). And they are very nice to boot. I'll always prefer GW models if available so I won't buy any from Kromlech until I have finished the rest of the project - but if at that time GW do not have a relevant kit I'll buy Kromlech, or if GW have a kit I'll buy GW.

I also have 3rd party bits buffing up my other projects, but I always aim to use GW models first and foremost. My Harlequin project uses converted Wyches as storm guardians but uses Micro Art Studio 'Elf Ranger' bits and 3D printed tridents to help me create Warlocks with singing spears. My CSM force is 99% GW but I again went to Micro Art Studio for mechanical wings to help turn my FW plague marines into raptors.

Of course, if you were bringing your stuff into a GW store or event it would be pretty disrepectful to have another company's product on show. I would definitely find that inappropriate, regardless how well it was done. It's bad manners if nothing else.

Some things are a bit more ambiguous than others of course (Beast of Nurgle is not as much of a clearly defined concept, and therefore much easier to comfortably proxy, than a Harlequin Shadowseer for example).

Calcabrina
18-05-2013, 12:25
I refuse to play with those that refuse to play against non-GW models. I refuse to play GW-model only leagues or tourneys. It's a matter of principal, despite owning an entire slaanesh CD/CSM army that would be fully legal by their standards.

madprophet
19-05-2013, 01:38
I use mostly GW models in my IG force, but I have some Reaper figs (General Drake, some NOVA security I use as military arbites, and the soviet sniper figure - I also use some of their Zombie hunter figures as "partisans" aka conscripts and some of their fantasy figures as Imperial priests). I use the little wooden trucks they sell at the craft shop as auxiliary vehicles, ambulances, staff cars, etc.

In official GW venues you can't use non-GW figures but at the FLGS they allow any figure line.

I have some swap out figures of more "modern" tanks for non-40k games too.

chromedog
21-05-2013, 03:46
Which brings up the question (which I suspect is really at the heart of these kinds of debates) of "What IS Warhammer 40K?"

40k, at its heart, is an unholy melange (see what I did there?) of the SF that they were reading in the 70s/80s, coupled with the comics they were reading, and given a hearty shake.
It takes enough from all of them that they can ALL be made to fit into it somewhere as a result.
As a ruleset, it is a clusterfeth of epic proportions. :D