Playing with non-gw models

[Col.Gravis]

I'm gonna make a it of an iffy statement on those Praetorians here, while it's impossible to basicly prove, I'm gonna bet if I took those same Colonial and did something with them, using the same basic conversion idea of Cadian arms and/or weapon swaps, but working to the best of my [URL="http://colgravis.blogspot.com/search/label/Colonel%20Ackland"]abilities[/URL] they'd get few, if any, complaints - at least compaired to what this individual is being subject too.

I think we all love to play against a well painted and modelled army, and most of us who are in the hobby for more then just the game would strive to own such armies ourselves, the problem is we all have to start somewhere, which may well not be winning demons. In our own personal quests to achieve that some people stick GW, some people scratch build, and some people use models from other ranges*, the results won't always meet with applase as in this case but it's someone taking steps on that path. Cristism is good, without exception, but only if it is constructive, how the models or ideas could be improved upon.

* I'd make the exception if no effort has been made at all to convert them appropriately.

[vman]

A line has to be drawn somewhere... Often i see a wikkid mini on CMON and i think hey that would make an excellent figure in an army but its not GW related.

I think if it fits in well then its fine, but if it sticks out like a sore thumb then I wouldnt be too happy about it

[Lord Sandwich]

Well, I guess it depends. If someone's put in time and effort to paint them, AND they look like what they represent somewhat, then we're fine. If the opponent throws down a pre-painted AT-ST and calls it a Sentinel, then there's something wrong there.

[Nedark]

The first time we (my friends and I) went to the new GW store about five miles out, our 'nid player was working on converting a fake giant beetle he found in his basement into a Hierodule (I think). We walked in and started setting up. He pulled out what he had so far (a semi-painted fake beetle and a cardboard base) and set it up. Not long after, the manager came up to us and said that we shouldn't use that model. When we asked why and told him what it was supposed to be, he told that all conversions had to be 50% GW pieces. He went on to say that since this is the first time we had been to this GW and brought a conversion like this, he would let us use this time. We shrugged our shoulders and started. Halfway through the first turn, the manager walked out of the back room with a well painted store-owned hierodule (or carnifex. Can't remember). He walked over to our nid player and asked him if he wanted to use that instead. He happily put away the beetle and put the GW model in its place. I'm not sure if he is still working on the beetle though...

I personally am fine with converted models or models from a different game if it resembles the actual model somewhat. And before a game, (like a week before) the person who wants to use a non-standard model describes it (or shows us it) and asks if he can use it. We only say no if they don't intend to make the model at a later date or if it is absolutely ridiculous (Ork for a reaver titan). I remember during a game held out the 'nid player's house, another friend was using orks. Since this was an apocalypse battle, we agreed a while before the game to let him use an ork flying fortress the 'nid player was making. However, the flying fortress wasn't ready by then (he still had to attach the flying base and since the model was huge we couldn't set it on the table. So, we quickly found a tin bucket that we let him use as a flying fortress. However, had we known that the actual model wasn't going to be ready by then, we would have told him to have it in his army list.

[MrGiggles]

Much like I don't see an issue with playing against partially painted or even unpainted armies, I don't really have a problem with playing against non-GW models. There are some fantastic models out there form other companies and honestly, I don't see a good reason to exclude them from a game. Now, this is also contingent on my being able to tell things apart and the like. If it's going to confuse the daylights out of things, then somebody needs to bust out the post it notes or something.

In terms of what's allowed in individual tourneys and stores, well, that's up to the organizers and owners. It's their prerogative to place specs on exactly what folks can bring in.

[SoulFire]

I can understand why the stores dont want non-GW models being used in-store. Its like walking into macdonalds with a burger king meal in ur hand and sitting down to eat it. I think one or two alternative models are fine, IF they are awesome. but army men? If u put time, money and effort into your army, you dont want your opponent to break out a cheap army that took him an hour to paint. If they really hated the prices that mush I'd lend them an army.

[chromedog]

I don't have a problem with NOt using GW minis.
I hark back to RT. There were some things back then you had to source from elsewhere. I still use my original kitbashed vindicator and whirlwind (from before there were kits for them). The base vehicle is GW, but not necessarily the rest.

Those WF redcoats make fine praetorians with a little work. My own IG in progress army involves both them and GW cadians (I'm using spare heads off the WF set on cadian bodies and spare lasguns shaped to fit the WF arms). They don't actually look that bad when DONE WELL.

I'd prefer to see them across the table than an unpainted grey tide, or bare bases (both of which I've seen at my club).
I've never played with a group that enforced a "no GW minis" or"must be xx% GW minis" policy - we've always had clubs here that I've played in, generally started by DBA/M or other ancients/napoleonics/ww2 players who let the 'new punks' in.
(It was generally let them in or die from declining numbers.) - for at least the last 20 years.

[Pinky Narfanek]

I see these topics pop up pretty frequently, and I've got to say that it saddens me a great deal. Hell, it even makes me mad.

Think about this: How would you like it if your kids weren't allowed to play sports at the local playground because their equipment was Bauer or Majestic instead of Nike or Reebok? Or because their "uniforms" were kids in the same color t-shirts instead of custom printed/sewn jerseys? Or because the equipment was second hand or mis-matched?

[Mindless-Focus]

personally, i have no problem whatsoever. Infact, i have aften thought of using Hasslefree Miniatures' Grymn as Squats but just using SM rules. Everything in Kev White's line looks close enough to represent what you would need it to be. But for me, thats only for casual/club games. Yeah, i can see where tourniments can be different. IDK, i still may do those Hasslefree Grymn...

[Asymmetrical Xeno]

eh, I prefer it when people convert/sculpt or use other figures to represent more individual and unique armies. As long as I know what the rules for them are beforehand I have no problem and actively encourage more people to do this.

If anything its the stock-models and "template" armies that are making 40k less and less interesting for me (I dont play in shops or tournaments because I find the same boring established craftworld/chapter/chaos legion/orkwarband paintschemes boring to look/play against).

My Tzeentch Daemons use non-gw mdoels because I utterly f**king hate and despise some of the Tzeentch models that exist (i.e. the Greater Daemon..oh wait that is just the only model I hate) and used RAFM Call of Cthulhu stuff instead for the Greater daemon, daemon prince and other things like heralds. I dont know why I should have to use a model I dont like just to make a few people not feel "cheated". I have zero interest in tournaments or playing in the shop though, friendly house games only for me.

I've also seen people do awesome things with Hasslefree, Troll Forged and a host of other smaller companies, its a breath of fresh air and creativity for me and ill happily play against armies like that.