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.
So, how does your theory of GW hating and forbidding kit bashes hold up to actual kit bashes being in 9th edition publications, including codices?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/12/23 14:43:39
7 Ork facts people always get wrong: Ragnar did not win against Thrakka, but suffered two crushing defeats within a few days of each other. A lasgun is powerful enough to sever an ork's appendage or head in a single, well aimed shot. Orks meks have a better understanding of electrics and mechanics than most Tech Priests. Orks actually do not think that purple makes them harder to see. The joke was made canon by Alex Stewart's Caphias Cain books. Gharkull Blackfang did not even come close to killing the emperor. Orks can be corrupted by chaos, but few of them have any interest in what chaos offers. Orks do not have the power of believe.
Jidmah wrote: So, how does your theory of GW hating and forbidding kit bashes hold up to actual kit bashes being in 9th edition publications, including codices?
When GW stores and sanctioned events do not allow it, it acts as a disincentive for players to actually make the effort. that does not mean people who never go to those things do not still do it (hell i do it, ever seen a techmarine on a bike with a conversion beamer? i have one made out of mechanicus and space marine attack bike parts).
Don't be coy, you have been playing long enough to know that it was once something they actively encouraged in codexes, in the main rule book in WD in the bits order catalog etc... Then it became something they did not encourage. what was the old rule 70% had to be made up of GW parts or green stuff but the other 30 could be from non-GW kits? then it went to 100%, then it went to not allowed. that is why there are 16 primaris LTs.
GAMES-DUST1947/infinity/B5 wars/epic 40K/5th ed 40K/victory at sea/warmachine/battle tactics/monpoc/battletech/battlefleet gothic/castles in the sky,/heavy gear/MCP
Which far as I know applies only to Warhammer World.
Meanwhile most events don't stick to the conversion limit of only GW models; nor the paint scheme one where you must use the subfaction of the army that you painted them in (and in all truth that is mostly a rule just for Space Marines - most other armies have less special rule variations for sub-factions than there are words in this post).
Jidmah wrote: So, how does your theory of GW hating and forbidding kit bashes hold up to actual kit bashes being in 9th edition publications, including codices?
When GW stores and sanctioned events do not allow it, it acts as a disincentive for players to actually make the effort.
Yeah, that's not a thing. If you are not a regular customer and at the same time using obviously pirated models (recast, 3d printed or otherwise), your army has no or almost no GW models, a GW store clerk might ask you to not bring those next time around. Outside of that, they really don't seem to care as long as you aren't actively advertising this stuff.
Warhammer World has those super strict rules in place, but it's essentially a museum showcasing GW stuff. Anything else is just your local manager enacting his freedom to enforce whatever rules they see fit in their store.
Don't be coy, you have been playing long enough to know that it was once something they actively encouraged in codexes, in the main rule book in WD in the bits order catalog etc... Then it became something they did not encourage. what was the old rule 70% had to be made up of GW parts or green stuff but the other 30 could be from non-GW kits? then it went to 100%, then it went to not allowed. that is why there are 16 primaris LTs.
That's not a rule, and kit bashing is still actively encouraged. Also, using non-GW parts isn't actually related to kit bashing, so I'd kindly ask you to leave the goalpost where they are.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/12/23 17:52:26
7 Ork facts people always get wrong: Ragnar did not win against Thrakka, but suffered two crushing defeats within a few days of each other. A lasgun is powerful enough to sever an ork's appendage or head in a single, well aimed shot. Orks meks have a better understanding of electrics and mechanics than most Tech Priests. Orks actually do not think that purple makes them harder to see. The joke was made canon by Alex Stewart's Caphias Cain books. Gharkull Blackfang did not even come close to killing the emperor. Orks can be corrupted by chaos, but few of them have any interest in what chaos offers. Orks do not have the power of believe.
Kit bashing not only used to be a thing it was actively supported by GW, my 3rd ED CA also has the deodorant hover tank kit in it. currently thanks to no kit no model rules they not only actively discourage it, but they also actually prohibit it from what i have seen.
I dunno. Firstly that was what? Twenty? Thirty years ago? Things move on.
I see these as separate things. 'No models no rules' is harsh but I understand it from their pov.
Ad Not allowing kitbashes of models that currently don't exist in the game is not the same as not allowing kitbashes and its a totally different story for kitbashing shall we say, 'legitimate' units/loadouts.
Gw are not privateer press. Now there is a company that was hostile to converting.
techsoldaten wrote: No one was saying kitbashing was a thing of the past. Just that it's less common.
Yet the evidence provided thus far would refute that statement. Both official GW channels and hobbyists on social media/forums are clearly still very much into kitbashing/converting models and what Blackie actually seemed to be saying wasn't "kitbashing is not popular anymore" but rather "I can't spam loadouts anymore", which is an entirely different thing.
That's not a rule, and kit bashing is still actively encouraged.
Also, using non-GW parts isn't actually related to kit bashing, so I'd kindly ask you to leave the goalpost where they are.
It's very related. Kitbashing is encouraged if you're kitbashing with other GW kits, but that's the extent of it. GW does not like to remind people that products outside the the GW product line exist. (Such as other kits to kitbash with.)
You play in GW stores, you do it by GW's rules. Don't like it, seek out an FLGS. Perfectly sensible arrangement.
That aside, however, I feel Gert is in the right. There's no conspiracy to de-emphasize kitbashing. Pete the Wargamer is a fairly prolific converter/kitbasher, and what's this?
AN OFFICIAL GW TUTORIAL FROM THE LAST 4 YEARS ON HOW TO KITBASH? Shock! Shock!
The thing about 40k is that no one person can grasp the fullness of it.
techsoldaten wrote: No one was saying kitbashing was a thing of the past. Just that it's less common.
Yet the evidence provided thus far would refute that statement. Both official GW channels and hobbyists on social media/forums are clearly still very much into kitbashing/converting models and what Blackie actually seemed to be saying wasn't "kitbashing is not popular anymore" but rather "I can't spam loadouts anymore", which is an entirely different thing.
Uh... it's far less common.
Been a long time since every army had a minimum of one or two scratchbuilt models. When I started playing, there were rules for units without models. You had to build them from parts from other kits or whatever supplies you had. Also, papercraft was a thing.
So I guess I would need to understand what you mean by popular. This certainly doesn't happen at the scale it once did.
RaptorusRex wrote: You play in GW stores, you do it by GW's rules. Don't like it, seek out an FLGS. Perfectly sensible arrangement.
That aside, however, I feel Gert is in the right. There's no conspiracy to de-emphasize kitbashing. Pete the Wargamer is a fairly prolific converter/kitbasher, and what's this?
AN OFFICIAL GW TUTORIAL FROM THE LAST 4 YEARS ON HOW TO KITBASH? Shock! Shock!
There's no shock in GW encouraging you to buy more than one GW kit to make one model :p
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/12/23 21:07:22
Been a long time since every army had a minimum of one or two scratchbuilt models. When I started playing, there were rules for units without models. You had to build them from parts from other kits or whatever supplies you had. Also, papercraft was a thing.
So I guess I would need to understand what you mean by popular. This certainly doesn't happen at the scale it once did.
All you're saying is "It's [kitbashing] less popular" without anything to back up your statement. I've shown evidence from this forum that people still do it consistently, I've talked about the WarCom articles, the monthlyWD articles, and the featuring of kitbashed minis on "HoaH" and other platforms. I'm not even talking about just basic head or arm swaps, I'm talking about people like Pegastyx, Kirioth, and Rhubard who are doing stuff like this:
Spoiler:
Spoiler:
All you're doing is whinging about something that you have absolutely no evidence to suggest is true.
Been a long time since every army had a minimum of one or two scratchbuilt models. When I started playing, there were rules for units without models. You had to build them from parts from other kits or whatever supplies you had. Also, papercraft was a thing.
So I guess I would need to understand what you mean by popular. This certainly doesn't happen at the scale it once did.
All you're saying is "It's [kitbashing] less popular" without anything to back up your statement.
No that's not "all" that's being said.
Other things that are said are "There were rules for units without models." and more anecdotally "every army had a minimum of one or two scratchbuilt models"
To which I'll add: "GW published rules encouraging you to use non-GW kits in your own conversions to play with." in the glorious Vehicle Design Rules which specifically mentions using historical tank models, Transformers and deoderant bottles.
I'd be curious to know how much (if any) custom terrain information is published by GW. Most of the terrain I see from them is their own purchasable products and supplies, rather than "Here's how to take rocks from your yard and make them into sweet Gorkamorka terrain."
You're going back nearly 30years for the Deodorant bottle tank. Back to when GW was vastly smaller and didn't offer half as much as they do now for their games. When their terrain line was a few hills and mostly flock to decorate your own with.
Their marketing certainly has changed as they've increased their own internal portfolio. That's just common sense - they don't need deodorant tanks - they've got dozens of their own.
However GW does NOT exist in a vacuum - perhaps they are putting out less; but the community puts out VAST amounts of home made content on the internet every single day.
I'd be curious to know how much (if any) custom terrain information is published by GW. Most of the terrain I see from them is their own purchasable products and supplies, rather than "Here's how to take rocks from your yard and make them into sweet Gorkamorka terrain."
I don't follow.
Does 'making home made terrain' count as kit bashing now?
So it seems there's a difference in the two sides' definitions. Because when you say GW isn't promoting kitbashing or it isn't popular, you don't mean "combining two different kits together", you mean what I'd call scratchbuilding. Correct?
The thing about 40k is that no one person can grasp the fullness of it.
Overread wrote: You're going back nearly 30years for the Deodorant bottle tank.
I'm going back to 2004, which is 17 years ago. In the 2004 publication they just happen to also reference the famous deoderant tank, along with Transformers and WWII tanks. They provide rules for the deoderant tank using the VEhicle Design Rules.
I do understand that there's a pretty big online community of people doing that stuff. But I do see it less in stores, which makes me wonder if the percentage of hobbyists doing it has gone down.
I'd be curious to know how much (if any) custom terrain information is published by GW. Most of the terrain I see from them is their own purchasable products and supplies, rather than "Here's how to take rocks from your yard and make them into sweet Gorkamorka terrain."
I don't follow.
Does 'making home made terrain' count as kit bashing now?
It could. Are you using model kits to do it?
Kitbashing is part of a larger hobbyist engagement around "making your own stuff". Kitbashing is just the tip of the iceberg. Making your own terrain from found objects and hardware store supplies is part of the same hobby, and used to be something that GW published more about.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
RaptorusRex wrote: So it seems there's a difference in the two sides' definitions. Because when you say GW isn't promoting kitbashing or it isn't popular, you don't mean "combining two different kits together", you mean what I'd call scratchbuilding. Correct?
I think of "scratchbuilding" as getting into making custom shapes from plasticard and what not. But they're close. Like my brother made a "Sratchbuilt" Ork "Battlemansion", which is probably 90% plasticard and small pins for rivets. But taking parts of different kits and sticking them together would be more of a "kitbash".
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/12/23 22:42:03
Gert wrote: All you're saying is "It's [kitbashing] less popular" without anything to back up your statement. I've shown evidence from this forum that people still do it consistently, I've talked about the WarCom articles, the monthlyWD articles, and the featuring of kitbashed minis on "HoaH" and other platforms. I'm not even talking about just basic head or arm swaps, I'm talking about people like Pegastyx, Kirioth, and Rhubard who are doing stuff like this:
...
All you're doing is whinging about something that you have absolutely no evidence to suggest is true.
The difference is night and day for anyone who's been involved with the hobby going back more than a few editions. Been a while since I saw a truly unique army, especially for Chaos.
Sorry it's hard for you to understand the perspective of long time players. This used to be common, now it's not.
Curious why you think a Games Workshop publication and a few social media accounts means the community widely embraces kitbashing. Thus far, you've presented a sample size of about 5, which represents less than a percent of a percent of 40k enthusiasts.
If you can't quantify your assertion about the popularity of kitbashing, dismissing other people's anecdotes makes you sound silly. The quality of your evidence actually proves other people's points.
This is purely anecdotal but I can say that I used to love converting and kitbashing models but recent editions/codices have gradually drained my enthusiasm.
I don't know if I'm a bit strange in this aspect, but when I convert a model I want to be able to actually field it on the table. And in a manner that doesn't render all the converting/kitbashing utterly pointless ("Yeah, this model is an Archon, just ignore the wings it can't have, the melee weapon it can't have, the ranged weapon it can't have, and basically every single aspect other than the fact that it has two arms and two legs.").
Hence, the diminishing of wargear - either because of no model no rules or because some asshat on the design team decided to turn some into stratagems to pad them out - also diminishes my interest in conversions because I'm left with so little to actually convert. Oh man, can't wait to convert a unique model for the monopose dude with 0 wargear options.
It's especially depressing when it happens with models I'd want to run multiples of. Previously, I'd have fun converting at least one (to have one very different from the standard model) or even all of them. But when the elaborate conversion is forced to be identical (in terms of equipment and such) to the standard model, then what's even the point?
Again, this is just anecdotal and I'm open to it being down to me being weird. But FWIF I can honestly say that recent choices by GW have severely drained my enthusiasm for conversions.
blood reaper wrote: I will respect human rights and trans people but I will never under any circumstances use the phrase 'folks' or 'ya'll'. I would rather be killed by firing squad.
the_scotsman wrote: Yeah, when i read the small novel that is the Death Guard unit options and think about resolving the attacks from a melee-oriented min size death guard squad, the thing that springs to mind is "Accessible!"
Argive wrote: GW seems to have a crystal ball and just pulls hairbrained ideas out of their backside for the most part.
You're not. If you're worried about your opponent using 'fake' rules, you're having fun the wrong way. This hobby isn't about rules. It's about buying Citadel miniatures.
Please report to your nearest GW store for attitude readjustment. Take your wallet.
vipoid wrote: But when the elaborate conversion is forced to be identical (in terms of equipment and such) to the standard model, then what's even the point?
What's the point of painting your models? Or -- much worse -- what's the point of painting your models nicely?
vipoid wrote: But when the elaborate conversion is forced to be identical (in terms of equipment and such) to the standard model, then what's even the point?
What's the point of painting your models? Or -- much worse -- what's the point of painting your models nicely?
Immersion. I want my models to look like my imagination says they should. In the case of painting that's great, I can do that. If my imagination disagrees with the picture on the box, yay, go ahead, do your own thing. In the case of modeling if my imagination disagrees with the picture on the box I now have to have a long argument about WYSIWYG and modelling for advantage because GW has elected to make strict rules about what I can and can't do on the modelling front to a degree that they've left alone on the painting front.
I'd be curious to know how much (if any) custom terrain information is published by GW. Most of the terrain I see from them is their own purchasable products and supplies, rather than "Here's how to take rocks from your yard and make them into sweet Gorkamorka terrain."
I don't follow.
Does 'making home made terrain' count as kit bashing now?
It could. Are you using model kits to do it?
Kitbashing is part of a larger hobbyist engagement around "making your own stuff". Kitbashing is just the tip of the iceberg. Making your own terrain from found objects and hardware store supplies is part of the same hobby, and used to be something that GW published more about.
I still dont understand.
Per the original point i quoted about using rocks from your garden as an example of the lessening of 'kitbashing', because gw produce terrain kits now, is using rocks from your garden an example of 'kitbashing'? People seem to be conflating two different aspects of hobbying.
If we are conflating kitbashing with scratchbuilding and 'making your own stuff' now as well? That's so nebulous it's almost worthless for nailing stuff down in terms of 'do people Still kitbash'.
I thought specifically, kitbashing was 'just' mixing different elements of kits together to make more unique models. I see plenty of it. Plenty 40k converters groups on fb. I see a lit of it in kill team and necromunda.
The difference is night and day for anyone who's been involved with the hobby going back more than a few editions. Been a while since I saw a truly unique army, especially for Chaos.
Sorry it's hard for you to understand the perspective of long time players. This used to be common, now it's not.
Define long-term. Would you say being in the hobby since the start of 5th Ed is "Long Term"? I guess it's easier to just assume that everyone who disagrees with you is some newstart who's only played 8th or 9th right? Because surely nobody could disagree with you if they'd been in the hobby for ages.
Curious why you think a Games Workshop publication and a few social media accounts means the community widely embraces kitbashing. Thus far, you've presented a sample size of about 5, which represents less than a percent of a percent of 40k enthusiasts.
A monthly publication that includes multiple articles about kitbashing and converting, consistent features on WarCom including contribution articles from community members, multiple pages from this very forum, and I provided some kitbashers who make some of the wilder conversions that despite not even looking like actual GW models in many cases are still kitbashed from GW kits. Pegastyx has even had their custom FW included in-universe in the latest Admech Codex. I wasn't providing you with every single kitbasher and converter on the internet because that would literally take me years to do. How about Nick Bayton, Chris Peach, and other presenters all being avid kitbashers and regularly showing their models on the WH TV streams?
The original argument I was disagreeing with stated that GW was actively repressing and removing kitbashing/converting from the hobby and by the evidence I and others have provided, that's clearly not true.
Your unwillingness to engage properly and actually bring anything to this discussion has been very disappointing.
Immersion. I want my models to look like my imagination says they should. In the case of painting that's great, I can do that. If my imagination disagrees with the picture on the box, yay, go ahead, do your own thing. In the case of modeling if my imagination disagrees with the picture on the box I now have to have a long argument about WYSIWYG and modelling for advantage because GW has elected to make strict rules about what I can and can't do on the modelling front to a degree that they've left alone on the painting front.
GW really hasn't done this. For example, if you don't want to use the Obliterator models because you don't like the fleshy bits, then there's plenty other things to use like the Centurions or even Ambots, both of which work perfectly well with minimal conversion work. The only things people are actively going to argue with is if you have one weapon/model and try to pass it off as something else, i.e. the Bolter with the blue casing is actually a Plasma Gun or this red Whirlwind is a Predator but the blue one is still a Whirlwind.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2021/12/24 11:56:41
Yet the evidence provided thus far would refute that statement. Both official GW channels and hobbyists on social media/forums are clearly still very much into kitbashing/converting models and what Blackie actually seemed to be saying wasn't "kitbashing is not popular anymore" but rather "I can't spam loadouts anymore", which is an entirely different thing.
In my perspective they're very close to be the same thing actually.
Kitbashing for fun purposes or just to save money still exist. As I said in an earlier post I've kitbashed lots of stuff that had existing models just because I wanted better looking ones and/or cheaper ones. But that's something that a very selected array of the playerbase actually do. Most of the times people kitbashed stuff was to get options/models that weren't available by getting a single box.
In my experience it was far more common to have drukhari players that kitbashed trueborn, archons or scourges in order to give them the desired loadout that was impossible to model out the box, rather than having head/arms/body swaps between the kits just for making the models look cooler or more unique. Some units were flat out impossible to field outside kitbashing since they had no official model, like pretty much the vast majority of the biker characters.
Now taking away some of the reasons why people used to kitbash, and I'd say the most common reasons, definitely reduced the practise of kitbashing, that can't be denied. There's very little "need" to kitbash now compared to old editions, since most of the options that were available only through kitbashing have been removed and new kits are desinged to satisfy all the combinations just out of the box, or at least the vast majority of them. That's my point.
I'd be curious to know how much (if any) custom terrain information is published by GW. Most of the terrain I see from them is their own purchasable products and supplies, rather than "Here's how to take rocks from your yard and make them into sweet Gorkamorka terrain."
I don't follow.
Does 'making home made terrain' count as kit bashing now?
It could. Are you using model kits to do it?
Kitbashing is part of a larger hobbyist engagement around "making your own stuff". Kitbashing is just the tip of the iceberg. Making your own terrain from found objects and hardware store supplies is part of the same hobby, and used to be something that GW published more about.
I still dont understand.
Per the original point i quoted about using rocks from your garden as an example of the lessening of 'kitbashing', because gw produce terrain kits now, is using rocks from your garden an example of 'kitbashing'? People seem to be conflating two different aspects of hobbying.
If we are conflating kitbashing with scratchbuilding and 'making your own stuff' now as well? That's so nebulous it's almost worthless for nailing stuff down in terms of 'do people Still kitbash'.
I thought specifically, kitbashing was 'just' mixing different elements of kits together to make more unique models. I see plenty of it. Plenty 40k converters groups on fb. I see a lit of it in kill team and necromunda.
Scratchbuilding and kitbashing are "so nebulous" and yet "two different aspects of the hobby" at the same time? It's no wonder you don't understand. You're trying really hard not to.
1: Does GW publish anything modeling related nvolving non-GW products? Because they used to.
2: Does GW make rules for units without models? Maybe? Certainly not nearly as much as they used to.
The difference is night and day for anyone who's been involved with the hobby going back more than a few editions. Been a while since I saw a truly unique army, especially for Chaos.
Sorry it's hard for you to understand the perspective of long time players. This used to be common, now it's not.
Define long-term. Would you say being in the hobby since the start of 5th Ed is "Long Term"?
Vehicle Design Rules and extrememly option-oriented codexes of 4th edition.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/12/24 16:33:25
As a filthy casual and a relative late comer to the hobby, is it really worth it to argue the difference between scratch built and kitbashing and conversions? I think you should focus on the main intent.
FWIW I think that GW can generate a very mutually beneficial relationship by even giving a hint hint wink wink nudge nudge “look at how gorgeous that rotor cannon looks (that came from a 3rd party bits manufacturer) I can’t wait to see that on a table at a GW mecca.” It would do their image some good too.
Beware of the man who works hard to learn something, learns it, and finds himself no wiser than before. -Kurt Vonnegut
Scratchbuilding and kitbashing are "so nebulous" and yet "two different aspects of the hobby" at the same time?
[
People seem to be using those terms in such a nebulous fashion in this thread - eg using rocks out of your garden is 'kitbashing' apparently. Hence my initial question.
It's no wonder you don't understand. You're trying really hard not to.
[
Repeated questions indicates I am trying to understand. Youre not explaining it well. Likr above. And wow, talk about an unnecessarily snarky response to a genuine question.
1: Does GW publish anything modeling related nvolving non-GW products? Because they used to.
[
So?
What does this have to do with them not supporting kitbashing? I mean they do publish modelling guides and present converted works of gw kits and models quite often, never mind the wealth of hobbyist content. All that's changes is the materials used - gw has just brought kitbashing 'in-house'. And they have a hell of a lot more kits to play with than they did twenty years ago - they don't need to promote making dreadnoughts out of coke cans. That doesn't read as 'less' to me.
It would only do their image good for a specific and small group of people and even then it probably won't do much.
It's not going to attract anyone who's buying 3rd party over GW and it isn't going to improve the companies image with most people. 3rd parties aren't making them money because 3rd parties are not GW products and in the end that's what matters to the company.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/12/24 17:41:51
Back in 4th edition or so, converting was seen as a right of passage, and the most interesting armies were often the most converted. You’d regularly see conversions of characters or units from the fluff, such as the old chaos warrior Custodes. There were tons of sites dedicated to conversions over rules. I think two things dried them up.
1. Lack of need. More options are provided in plastic now. More of the esoteric units have minis or have more or less disappeared from the fluff. With fuller ranges and fewer options lacking official models, there’s no longer the need to convert to be a ‘serious’ hobbyist.
2. Hobby-unfriendly kits. Modern kits are a bigger pain in the ass for converters. Converting the better-sculpted Necromunda minis is not nearly as fun as converting old Cadians and Space Marines. There was an old forum that I think was called Work In Progress dedicated to IG tank conversions. When the new IG vehicle kits came out without the old wheel and tread sprues, and without the same command sprue options, the effect on IG enthusiasts was immediately obvious. Even the orks have lost most of their vibrant kitbash it community after the redesigns of their vehicles. Kitbashes and conversions are a faint shadow of what they once were, by GW’s own design.
2: Does GW make rules for units without models? Maybe? Certainly not nearly as much as they used to.
[
None, really.
Consequences of Chapterhouse, really. Doesn't mean the kitbashing of 'modelled' units isn't encouraged.
I mean, there's Legends. Not sure what percentage of that was stuff that "never had a model/model is OOP" vs. "still has a model in-stock but we're not going to keep it in production", but there's plenty of stuff in there that falls into the first category. Great kitbash/conversion fodder either way, though I've always gotten the feeling that those units are destined to be shelf queens since Legends is completely dependent on GW not waking up tomorrow and going "All Legends units are now illegal in all lists lol get rekt :^)".
You're probably right that it doesn't affect 'modelled' units either way, but I think that would be a question of how many people got into kitbashes/conversions via "no model > I have to kitbash it if I want one > I want one bad enough, better bite the bullet and...hey, this isn't so bad!" as opposed to "model > Eh, model is fine, but I wish it had a little more character > Well, it's only a few bits, let's just...hey, this isn't so bad!".
