Jump to content

Your thoughts on third-party models for AOS


wayniac

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 61
  • Created
  • Last Reply
2 hours ago, Veterannoob said:

essentially, pay where you play (if GW store, respect and buy/use theirs; your FLGS get what you like; if no store then rule of cool runs throughout all optionsB|) and as long as game play runs smoothly, all good.

While I normally agree with this to a point, most stores don't carry things like Scibor/Mierce/Avatars of War miniatures anyways, so this becomes an implied restriction due to "I can't buy this local" which I often find to be self-defeating for any serious club, as you indirectly limit yourself to what a store can stock (which is often in and of itself limited to a tiny handful of what's available)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

More choices is more fun.  I've said it at great length in other threads, but I strongly recommend worrying more about what you do with your own stuff, and a lot less about what the other guy is doing with his stuff.  If that's not how you feel currently, I recommend making a deliberate attempt to adjust. 

If what the other guy is doing can ruin your immersion to the point where you're not enjoying the hobby, that says a lot more about you than it does about him...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Criti said:

Why?

What's the justification?

They usually do not have the same look as GW models. But that is not entirely true since GW models have changed over time but I think you just should have the proper models for the game. :)

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, wayniac said:

While I normally agree with this to a point, most stores don't carry things like Scibor/Mierce/Avatars of War miniatures anyways, so this becomes an implied restriction due to "I can't buy this local" which I often find to be self-defeating for any serious club, as you indirectly limit yourself to what a store can stock (which is often in and of itself limited to a tiny handful of what's available)

If you give them a chance,  at least,  that's enough. You might be surprised how many shops CAN get those through sellers.   Sometimed they don't even know until they check. 

But I think you should always try local first.   If the shop CAN'T accommodate,  do what you need to do

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In the "If you play GW games you should use GW models" I think that this its not binary.

If you have a 400 € army and 300 € are from GW and 100€ are from other companys... really is that a bad thing?

The people tha says that you only should play GW games with GW models thinks (And more important, apply) the same criteria the other way?

Did you only play Kings of War with Mantic models? Deadzone with Mantic? Infinity with Corvus Belli Models? Etc...

 

I bought miniatures because I love how they look. I have a box of the enforcer starter set of Mantic and I don't even play Deadzone! I have used them to Roleplay, in Warhammer40k and in Infinity! And at the same time I have a big Tau Army of GW models, a PanOceania and a Combined Army for Infinity and manuals for Roleplay. 

Should I only use oficial Pathfinder miniatures to play roleplay games of Pathfinder? I bought their books. I think we should be more flexibles in this.

EDIT: In the "Only use products the shop carry and sell" ... did you use GW web-only miniatures in LFGS? Or only the boxes they phisically carry and sell? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are two main things that can scupper the use of 3rd Party in my opinion.

Number one is scale. Does the model have the same size dimensions as the one being replaced. I remember a game of 40k where the player (and I had been warned, he was 'that guy') had converted a big group of Eldar jetbikes using the surf board things the dark Eldar used, as 'he didn't like the models'. In practice, this meant he could bunch up a hell of a lot more, and hide easier from line of sight and in cover. In any true light of sight game, this is an issue.

Number two is recognition. Does the model look like it's the right one. I saw discussion about this in the Sheffield Slaughter, regarding Sayl. The player had said he didn't like the model, hence the conversion. But without the tentacles and the viper staff, it's not really Sayl. I think you have to make the effort, especially for a named character, to get the representation right. Don't like him? Don't use him. If you want to model a sorcerer with a tentacled arm, and a similar staff, then fair play. I appreciate it's easier when it's a more generic swap, like a daemon prince or lord, but that's the game. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have always enjoyed third party miniatures, especially during the times GW would release rules without models.

Nowadays though, I do tend to mostly stick with GW if I'm doing a project from a new release. I really like their plastics (and I was one of those guys who for years hated all but metal minis) and they always have a full range of miniatures available to complement the rules.

There are a couple of further factors that make me more likely to stick with GW, such as each of magnetising plastic models into really useful boxes for transport and also the consideration that I may wish to play at a Warhammer World event.

We've also seen the SCGT put in their pack that they'd like to see all GW miniatures. This is an interesting development and perhaps a different discussion, but with Warhammer TV likely in attendance, you're only going to get on the stream with a GW army.

I do think GW are the best out there, but there are plenty of others doing nice models - so why not go for them if you're not playing in a GW store?

Aside from my above comments, I recently made my Venetian Court, an army made up almost entirely of non GW miniatures I've been collecting from a range of mainstream and boutique manufacturers over the last few years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The main point of further discussion was that we don't want to see people proxying entire armies (the example given was using Mantic's "Empire of Dust" as Tomb Kings) with third party models.  Conversion parts and even the occasional 100% third party hero/monster I feel should be fine, provided that they look approximately close to what they are meant to be and are the same size, but I do agree to a point there has to be a limit on what is acceptable or not, especially in a tournament, to minimize arguments that come up when things aren't exactly right.  I feel in AOS for example you can have more leeway because often a warscroll only has a couple of weapon options, so if the warscroll says they are armed with swords does it really matter if your models have axes instead since they will count as swords anyways since that's all the unit has, but it's open to abuse.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To me, if a unit only has a weapon option, or only a meele or ranged weapon option, to me its irrelevant the weapon they use. If my unit can only use Swords as their meele weapons, the use axes, lances or twohanded swords is really relevant? Or even a mixture.

Chaos Chosen is an example. They use "Chaos greataxes". Its really relevant that they are axes, swords, etc? Chaos Chosen can only wear one weapon.

I think that if its clear the unit they are, nobody should have a problem. But as I say in other posts, I'm a filthy narrative casual. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah for casual play, you're looking at a whole extra level of exclusion if you're introducing hard limits.  If someone is excited to play with some toys, it's pretty heartless to start dropping the GTFO bomb on them when it's all just for fun anyway.

I mean, at an event you've paid to attend (it's not the money, it's the symbolic agreement between TO and attendees that is the important part - this would be equally true at a free but organized event), there are standards of presentation laid out that are a higher bar to cross - the standards demand a certain level of dedication, effort, and compromise from everyone.

But at the club/garage for fun?  What do you lose out on, if you let your mate play an entirely 3rd party army?  Or a proxy army?  Or bits of paper bluetacked to bases?  I mean, if that last one is a long-term plan, then maybe your mate's expectations for Age of Sigmar are very very far from normal and maybe the two of you aren't fated for a lasting gaming relationship, but the first one?  I mean... I've been around a while, but I haven't held too many Skeleton models in my hands.  If my opponent had a horde of Skeletons that looked like skeletons from 3 feet away...  a) how do I even know whether they are GW ones or not and b) why should I care?  They're Skeletons!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, wayniac said:

The main point of further discussion was that we don't want to see people proxying entire armies (the example given was using Mantic's "Empire of Dust" as Tomb Kings) with third party models.  

Again... why not?

Do they not represent the Tomb Kings scrolls adequately in terms of armament and feel?

Do Mantic Salamanders not do a good job representing Seraphon?

Stretching it further, if I wanted to run PP Trollbloods as Ironjawz, why should that be a problem?  They have an appropriate base.  They have an appropriate stature.  There are models in that line that have appropriate weaponry. 

I can see the argument if I was like "this bro with the gun represents a bro with a 2 handed axe," but I fail to see the issue if I say "these bros with 2 hande swords represent the bros who wield 2 handed swords."

ESPECIALLY in an independent shop. I guarantee the shop won't tell someone "don't buy that army of Trolls because the AoS guys want you to play GW models only. "  No.   They're going to be happy to sell another army of the shelf. 

I personally take more issue with zero effort "counts as" minis.

Trollbloods, continuing the example, could be Ironjawz with zero conversion.  They don't look like anything from AoS, so being Ironjawz is as simple as telling the opponent they are Ironjawz.

Using a Troll Hag that has been painted green and calling it a Gret Unclean One with no conversion?  That's more problematic for me.  Now you're using a GW model to be another GW model.  That hurts the ability to "recognize at a glance" than a whole army that is armed correctly and/or heavily converted with its own unique look. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Criti said:

ESPECIALLY in an independent shop. I guarantee the shop won't tell someone "don't buy that army of Trolls because the AoS guys want you to play GW models only. "  No.   They're going to be happy to sell another army of the shelf. 

I agree with what you're saying here, as long as the shop carries the proxy models you're using. For instance, my FLGS, where I play on a weekly basis, doesn't stock non-GW models. So while I could probably talk the owner into ordering Mantic models for me, he'd much rather see me playing models that he actively stocks. That way any spectators that wander through and like the models I'm playing with can get them on the spot. For what it's worth, the shop owner has the same (understandable) preference for GW terrain versus homemade terrain on his tables.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The main thing to do for a small club or gathering is to decide on priorities right from the outset.

Is the group just for you and your current buddies to hang out and play games, or do you want it to have the potential to grow?

If the former, you can make the tightest/strictest ruleset you like that you and your buddies can all meet already.  If the latter, you have to make concessions and compromises - the more you concede, the wider a net you can cast for new people.

Is the group an explicit marketing arm for the venue, or is it more loosely affiliated?

If the former, you might demand that all of everyone's armies be comprised of models purchased directly at the venue (this is a draconian measure that no venue I've ever heard of would consider for even a second - even GW stores don't demand that all your models have been purchased at *that store*).  Or you might demand that a significant portion (up to and including all) of everyone's armies be comprised of models that are at least available for sale or order at that venue.  If the affiliation is more loose, then you can encourage your membership to shop at the venue as much as they can, but to feel free to step beyond for more... exotic purchases (this is the model we follow at my club, BTW - we all buy as much of our stuff as we can from the store we play at, but have no problems shopping elsewhere for other stuff they don't sell).

It's things like this that you have to think about.  As long as you make your decisions deliberately, with a good sense of what they all mean, then you can of course do whatever you like.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Regarding the Mantic and Privateer Press comments.

Personally, if i want to play against those models, I'll play the system they are used in. I guess the main thing in that statement is 'personally'.

What will rule is the overriding opinion. If enough people have an opinion, it ends up becoming the standard. 

We all sort of know what this all boils down to though. It's been skirted around, and someone in the proxy discussion nailed it. The use of proxies, 3rd party minis that don't really match the model. It's all behaviour that is associated with a more competitive edge. It's choosing the absolute best combination of models, and with the lack of availability for some stuff, getting anything on the table to field the list. Look at Sheffield. Lack of painting effort, several people making comment about some of the poorer armies quality wise, proxies for stuff that's been chosen simply because it's been mathhammered and found compliant.

AoS left that ultra competitive side behind somewhat, those guys went 9th age, or started KOW. Now, thanks to popularity of the game and decent coverage (kudos to facehammer, they pointed this out) we are are getting some more competitive people starting to return. Again, look at the list that won Sheffield. A load of shooting (currently the strongest strategy) with a load of disparate models that have been worked out as the most efficient. 

Personally, I'd encourage those that want to do the above to proceed. And the likes of me, that want some good games but don't want to play the mathematics teachers, I'll go and play the narrative events 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, rokapoke said:

As an assistant professor of engineering, I resent that comment...

Otherwise, I get what you're saying.

Engineer high five!

 

The mathematics teacher comment was a little flippant, but essentially i want to play competitive games against cool looking armies, and i see the shift away from that 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't get the association of third party models=ultra competitive players.

 

In my area, the ultra competitive players are the kind that just buy the newest or most OP stuff from GW, put it together (If you are lucky! and don't end fightin 3 pairs of Riptide Legs) and put it in the table.

The people that look the deepest parts of the web for the most obscure third party model that its beautiful or just fits its idea/thematic for his army to bought it, paint it and use it, its not the kind of ultra-competitive people. 

But well, I haven't much more to contribute to this discussion!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, Galas said:

I don't get the association of third party models=ultra competitive players.

I also don't get the third party = poor painting/presentation association.

My mates Scibor dwarf army puts 99% of full-GW armies to shame in both painting quality and $$$ investment.

I totally get the competitive = grey plastic/cheap count-as. Anyone who had played 40k with young kids knows it. That's the price to pay if you want your game to grow.

A tournament by definition rewards list building and playing skills, by tapping those players it's almost a given presentation standards are going to drop.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And regarding the Sheffield comment - those were GW models used as proxies, not 3rd party (if it's the particular "scandal" I"m thinking of, that is).  And even then I don't believe there was any ambiguity or confusion, just moaning about what the standards have sunk to.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, amysrevenge said:

And regarding the Sheffield comment - those were GW models used as proxies, not 3rd party (if it's the particular "scandal" I"m thinking of, that is).  And even then I don't believe there was any ambiguity or confusion, just moaning about what the standards have sunk to.

Reading back you are right, i was more trying to make the point they are one and the same thing as far as they are both seen as a symptom of a competitive people. 

I think it just boils down to what the people organising tournaments, both narrative and matched play, want to see. The rest is down to how your local scene plays, and what you want from a game.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah for sure.

Suffice to say that my experience matches @Galas - the WAACers and ultra-competitive are not flocking to 3rd party or proxies anymore in AoS - that's a memory from previous editions.  The leading edge competitive stuff in AoS these days is mostly all distinctly GW and isn't really amenable to 3rd party models, or even GW proxies (occasional exceptions, of course).

"No 3rd party" or "no proxies" just end up being yet more solutions to a problem that don't actually fix the problem and have unintended effects elsewhere.  It ends up playing out in a similar way to the antiquated "no named character" rule still dredged up for some events - the intent of the rule is to level the playing field by eliminating the handful of worst offenders among the named characters, but in actuality there are many worse non-named offenders that escape this ruling for the WAACers to flock to and meanwhile all the lovely non-offending models bear the brunt of the ban.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...