Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Well the Heresy one was depressingly cis (I mean did they forget which god Fully's in with? C'mon), so I'm kind of relieved there'll be a (rumoured) 40k version which'll hopefully be properly genderfluid.

I think you are confusing demon Prince fulgrim with various keepers of secrets. I’ve never seen fulgrim depicted as gender fluid. Not that I’d be against that.

I think the 40K fulgrim is much serpentine rather than a snake centaur - if you follow me. I also think he has purple skin

Not Online!!! wrote:
Probably internal bickering between HH and 40k teams.

I have no idea what's going on internally at GW at this point. This Fulgrim model not having rules for 40k is bonkers, and the recent "forgeworld 40k rules apocalypse" is just baffling. They have a new plastic contemptor and leviathan don't they? Why lock yourself out of 80%+ of the warhammer mark with stupid rules decisions that could be fixed by 1 dude in about 10 minutes? They should be trying to make as much of the 30k range usable in 40k as possible....but they aren't. Just baffling.

 catbarf wrote:

 Grimtuff wrote:

BrianDavion wrote:

ccs wrote:


Not only that, but they've brainwashed these people into thinking that the only valid version of a model is the newest one.

the only time that should ever be a case is when the size has signficigently changed, things like the new greater deamons I can see why people might prefer you to use something the size of one of the newer models.

Oh boy, that's where you're wrong. I see many a thread on Reddit (where else), where people are convinced they can use any old model so long as it is on the correct base. I see this "fact" is particularly egregious in the AoS community. No, you can't put a 4th ed Verminlord or Nagash on the current model's base and call it a day (I'd say building up the base with terrain to match roughly the height of the current one is a good compromise). That is quite literally MFA...

I don't see anything in the rules stating that the most recent version of a model is the only one allowed for play, or even what base size is required. Putting a legacy model on a newer base is a courtesy.

Unless you're willing to personally re-buy and re-paint all the older models in your opponent's army so that they can have the modern equivalents because GW insists on writing rules that make 'modeling for advantage' a thing, you really don't have a leg to stand on here.

I agree, to an extent- however I used those specific examples as the size disparity is just too much, and also looks ridiculous putting an old Nagash on as 100mm(? not sure what base he is on. I know it's a big one) base, where he is just drowned out be the base itself.

Now, all of this is moot if AoS uses a "magic cylinder" rule, where it is irrelevant how a model is posed and the base size is what matter, but I am not 100% familiar enough with AoS. Is that a thing? Though to me, it is just as rude to say you can use an ancient model using its current stats. Want to use a RT Avatar? Sure, but you ain't using it as as Avatar when there are perfectly good Autarch or Farseer rules there that are more appropriate to its scale. Same for the old Greater Daemons from 5th ed WHFB. You can either bump it up to roughly the same height as the current one using a scenic base or it is now a DP.

Problem is, 40k absolutely uses TLOS, so using an older, much smaller model is straight up MFA. It's the "crouching Wraithlord" of old all over again.

I don't see the problem with this. It's pretty much like asking "Why haven't they bought back 2 primarchs within 6 months"? which, if that happened would be a odd. They're meant to be a big deal with a whole thing building up to them, an accompanying campaign/narrative/lore at the end of an edition.

mrFickle wrote:
I think you are confusing demon Prince fulgrim with various keepers of secrets. I’ve never seen fulgrim depicted as gender fluid. Not that I’d be against that.

No, I know Fully's never(*) been portrayed as anything but masculine, I just feel like they should. Everyone in Slaanesh's panoply gets a boob - Slaanesh has a boob, Keepers of Secrets have a boob, daemonettes have a boob, steeds and fiends have an abundance of boobs (and even nipples, I guess that's okay so long as they're animal-type daemons rather than people-type daemons? Not sure on the logic of that but never mind), even at least one of the original metal renegade marines had a boob (I desperately wanna ebay that one day) - it's not really a sophisticated interpretation of genderfluidity but it sends a pretty consistent message.

(* Except in the original Index Astartes Emperor's Children, where the whole arc of Fulgrim's character is built around the conceit that she's a trans woman in a society that had no concept that trans people exist - certainly not one of the Emperor's own precious 'sons' - suffering gender dysphoria without realising it, chasing excellence in a vain quest for validation when all she really needed was for someone to acknowledge the real her, until - tragically - the one who finally did (having been given a heads-up by Slaanesh) was Horus, exploiting Fulgrim's euphoria to manipulate her. But that was subtext because you can't get that into White Dwarf in 2001 if you say it out loud, and I'm not really surprised GW's ignored it ever since, if they even picked up on it to begin with. So I wouldn't say it's 'canon' in any real sense, but some kind of genderfluid Fulgrim would be nice to see, in that light, besides how it just makes sense given everything we know about Slaanesh.)

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
This is Fulgrim in the early days of Daemonhood.

I presume his inevitable 40K model will not only be plastic, but considerably more demonic and less human in aspect, as the 10,000 years of corruption take their toll.

and 10,000 years of gratuitous drugs, same sex daemon relations, gakky makeup, post-ferrus depression, and too many ring piercings.
(not even gonna mention the warp dust, the amount of guardsmen he's taken in a fight but knowing fulgrim he could take on a lot in the other way too, and probably not cleaning his schlong in milennia)

honestly I don't think many people could stomach a lore accurate 40k model of Fulgrim