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.

A bit of a vague question I know, and perhaps a bit silly, but let me explain...

I get that the older rhinos, land raiders, & beakie marines are seen as older patterns of machines/equipment in the current game, but when they create a new range of models for an army, does that retcon what the original model looks like in the lore?

An example would be like the 2nd edition Tyranids vs the ones of today. Are both forms cannon in lore, or if you were to depict what a tyranid is (such as in a game/book/film/etc) would they have to follow the modern example? Another example I guess would be the chaos daemons. There's loads of different interpretations of daemonettes, horrors, bloodletters, and their greater counterparts. Are they all equally valid?

Finally, if you take the older metal chaos dreadnought, original obliterators, and the old rogue trader & 2nd ed. metal chaos marines, do those older appearances still exist? Or does the modern concept of chaos kinda reset what they look like?


My personal interpretation is that all of these exists in the same universe, but just at different areas and times. But I'm curious if there's an official stance or etiquette on this.

Yes and no.

It's basically not very well defined and also highly variable based on a few things

1) Remember that its a Galaxy that the game plays out over. Some variations might not be new or old just from different regions of space. A lot of the Imperial guard got alternate world based groups back when metal was the main material (because moulds were cheaper than for plastic).These older models weren't so much new or old equipment or designs but where simply guard from different planet systems.

2) For some factions, like Tyranids, the lore has changed over time, sometimes slightly sometimes dramatically. In addition they are described as hyper evolvers and varied swarm to swarm. So some of the alternate forms are simply showing evolution within the swarm or even variation between hive fleets - interestingly many major tyranid releases of models (and thus new designs) often come iwth the lore giving them a new major hive fleet making a massive incursion into the galaxy

3) Sometimes its replacing the old, such as titans. Huge behemoths that are built to ancient designs which are not supposed to change over time (It's why Adepticus Titanicus can be set in the era of the great civil war in the Imperium, but also advance to the 41st millennium to allow for xenos titans without any need to change the Imperial ones).
In those cases the new designs are supposed to replace the old.

4) Scale creep happens too, the original Hive Tyrant is tiny compared to its current form. The new Greater Demons are the same. Of course sometimes this actually brings the models closer to the original lore rather than further away from it as the smaler models were simply a limitation of materials, technology, price etc..

The Tyranid's case is particular in itself, in that neither the minis, nor the rules, and nor the lore in many ways accurately represents the sheer number of different species that composes a hive fleet :

There are currently around 40 playable Tyranid units in the TT game, with about just as many corresponding minis, then add the Epic range to add several more. We hear about a few more in the lore. Let's round it up/down at 60.

Yet the Tyranids are an ever-changing, hyper-evolutive and constantly biologically-adapting predatory race. therefore, even counting things such as Gaunts and all their subspecides, or all variants of Carnifexes as one "type" of Tyranids, there should still be hundreds, thousands (if not even much more than that) of broad, different types in a single fleet. And I'm not even counting the micro-organism such as bacterias that the Hive-Mind is most probably designing.

As such, every medium we have gives us a somewhat inaccurate idea of what Tyranids are at a detailed level, even though obviously the broad descriptions work really well, but are ultimately very general.

But I don't see that as a problem, at worst it is a bit restricted, since 40K actually is about "Your Dudes" in essence.

Chaos "suffers" from that problem a bit more, mostly with the Demons : Even the demons from a single specific god are supposed to be incredibly diverse in shapes and concepts, yet we're limited to the Lesser/Greater/Beast package with no real tool to expand on that (unlike the Tyranids which had during 3rd Edition real customization possibilites in the codex and in the White Dwarf). The HH novels as well as the Daemons of the Ruinstorm army list from FW do a much better job at conveying that sheer multitude of forms chaotic beings .

EDIT : I realise, having finished my rant, that most of it probably is off-topic in this thread, sorry about that D:

Tyranids are probably safe (barring potential size differences on the tabletop. You'll need to discuss with your opponent!).

See, the original ones had bio-weapons that were entirely separate from the main being. So a Fleshborer could, in theory, be picked up and used by another being.

In the background, it was postulated that this was a direct result of this new feeding ground having troops armed with ranged weapons.

Overtime, the weapons have become ever more symbiotic, growing into, and possibly as part of at the point of conception, the host.

I may wildly misremember this, but if I recall back when one of the newer predator models got released GW explained the dfference between it and the older model as the newer being modeled after a "higher quality picture". Kinda playing with the idea that the media we get is filtered through an in-universe second hand.

Then again my mind maybe playing tricks on me.

some of the older space marine weapons could be explained as relics of the chapter and/or made on a different forgeworld using a different STC pattern.

A predator or rhino likewise is an older pattern chapter relic vs the more modern ones readily available to space marine chapters.

this already exists in game in certain forgeworld models like contemptors with conversion beamer cannons etc.

yeah keep in miond that GW explains this to a degree as it is with equipment patterns. on table top a rhino is a rhino is a rhino. but the differing looks of rhinos for example is explained with them being differant patterns. the original rhino from 1999 was a Demios pattern.



notable by the circular door.

the replacement Rhino is a Mars pattern.



now the real intreasting things is GW is returning to the Demios pattern with their upcoming sisters of battle rhinos so we'll be going full circle.

Forge World BTW also makes Demios rhinos and a whole host of modern reimagings of the classic old school marine tanks.

Fear to Tread features a Keeper of Secrets that is clearly based on the old bull design; since that character is Chaos, I think that's alright. In terms of other armies, I think there is enough continuity over time to explain different model designs as regional variants, Chapter decisions, different Ork clan traditions, etc.

BrianDavion wrote:
yeah keep in miond that GW explains this to a degree as it is with equipment patterns. on table top a rhino is a rhino is a rhino. but the differing looks of rhinos for example is explained with them being differant patterns. the original rhino from 1999 was a Demios pattern.

Deimos.

 ArcaneHorror wrote:
Fear to Tread features a Keeper of Secrets that is clearly based on the old bull design; since that character is Chaos, I think that's alright. In terms of other armies, I think there is enough continuity over time to explain different model designs as regional variants, Chapter decisions, different Ork clan traditions, etc.

Daemons can change appearance all the time. That KoS could simply have decided to go with some more bovine features in that incarnation of them in the mortal realms.

Short answer to Are older depictions of models still cannon?

Yes.

Cheers,

CB

Captain Brown wrote:
Short answer to Are older depictions of models still cannon?

Yes.

Cheers,

CB

Some are, some aren’t. The retcons are strong with 40K.

You still get beakie bits in the Tactical box.

 Insectum7 wrote:
You still get beakie bits in the Tactical box.

another good example of "thats an older pattern that's fallen out of favor"

Short answer. Yes.

Long answer. It's "Canon" not "cannon".

Unless you are speaking of the big guns used by the ministorum. Which would be the Canon's cannons.

 chromedog wrote:
Short answer. Yes.

Long answer. It's "Canon" not "cannon".

Unless you are speaking of the big guns used by the ministorum. Which would be the Canon's cannons.

Fixed the typo in the title
-------

Ok, so what I'm understanding is that unless GW explicitly states otherwise, pretty much all models are valid interpretations within the lore, regardless if they're being used/sold in the modern game.

 Handsomer_Dan wrote:

 chromedog wrote:
Short answer. Yes.

Long answer. It's "Canon" not "cannon".

Unless you are speaking of the big guns used by the ministorum. Which would be the Canon's cannons.

Fixed the typo in the title
-------

Ok, so what I'm understanding is that unless GW explicitly states otherwise, pretty much all models are valid interpretations within the lore, regardless if they're being used/sold in the modern game.

yup, its like my (i will admit i may be crazy for owning them all) 4 Avatar models. I got the metal with round base first, then the finecast when it came out, then bought the forgeworld one because it looked awesome and got a square based older metal one in a batch of eldar i picked up on ebay. the metal ones and finecast. the metal looks a little different from the finecast and the forgeworld is very different even in size. but they function the same on the tabel top , it is jsut an avatar,

The metal and finecast ones are identical. They’re the same model just made in different materials.

It’s such an open hobby the idea of a model not being usable to represent something is just silly. Somewhere in the whole universe there will be a mid that looks like the 1st edition ones or a rhino that does.

And the word canon just means belong to a body of work of literature. So for something to be canon in 40k it just needs to have been published as 40k by GW. The company them selves have no rules about background replacing other back ground. It’s not like rules where you are told to use the most up to date data sheet.

In the fluff there is always a reason for a contradiction to be valid, like perspective, deception evolution etc.

 Grimtuff wrote:
The metal and finecast ones are identical. They’re the same model just made in different materials.

Although there is also an older (RT-era) metal one that is about the size of a modern space marine.

 insaniak wrote:

 Grimtuff wrote:
The metal and finecast ones are identical. They’re the same model just made in different materials.

Although there is also an older (RT-era) metal one that is about the size of a modern space marine.

Maybe it's just further away

Nah, he's just not as hot... Metal shrinks as it cools

 Flinty wrote:

 insaniak wrote:

 Grimtuff wrote:
The metal and finecast ones are identical. They’re the same model just made in different materials.

Although there is also an older (RT-era) metal one that is about the size of a modern space marine.

Maybe it's just further away

Calm down Ted.

 Grimtuff wrote:
The metal and finecast ones are identical. They’re the same model just made in different materials.

its the OG metal one, its pretty tiny.

Are there any examples of models that are no longer valid, where they have newer counterparts?

OR are there any units or models that have been removed entirely from the game? I understand Squats, Slaan and Zoanthropes (I think that was the weird Tyranid Centaur thing?) have gone now.

Lets say from 2nd Edition onward, as there were lots of things in Rogue Trader days (Warp Hounds, Enslavers etc) that don't exist and may not have even had models in the first place.

There's loads of old models that have no modern equivalent or where the concept jumped to a different army. Of course quite a few can easily double as something else today - eg there's a load of old named Chaos mages and characters who can easily be used as generic lords and mages today.

The most iconic would be the greater demon changes where the new models are significantly bigger. Though a few heroes like the Everqueen have also changed dramatically (speaking of which the old Orion has no real counterpart today)


Also its zoats you're thinking of, the zoanthropes are still around, they just changed from a two legged with big claws brain bug into a floating long tailed brain bug with few tiny claws.

TarkinLarson wrote:
Are there any examples of models that are no longer valid, where they have newer counterparts?

There used to be “Chaos Hounds” that weren’t flesh hounds.
There used to be mounted horses as an option for Chaos.
There used to exist a model called the Blood Slaughterer (it’s in the 1993 catalog).

There's still a Blood Slaughterer, it's just a Forgeworld model and considerably larger and different looking.

one model I can think of that's been totally retconned... rogue trader era Custodes.

I believe dark elves also had a beast-trainer with hounds which has been gone for a very very long time (I seem to recall coming across one or two examples in ebay a long while back).