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.

macluvin wrote:
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.

Dakka loves arguing over nothing, you should see some of the dumb stuff that gets argued with in some of the rules threads.

 Gert wrote:

 techsoldaten wrote:

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.

I've been playing since 2nd edition.

 Gert wrote:

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.

You're using a sample size of 5 people plus some magazine articles to assert kitbashing is "popular" in a community numbering millions. Then telling other people they don't engage properly.

The only thing you have demonstrated is lunatic assertions / idiotic representations / dumb attempts at gatekeeping are more popular than kitbashes.

Deadnight wrote:
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.

There is nothing to understand. Every time this or a similar topic comes up, people will repeatedly redefine the term until they end up with absurd definition like "kit bashing is changing a model in any way to alter its rules" to make it look like they are right instead of admitting when they missed the point.

Kit bashing is bashing two or more kits together. No more, no less, and for anyone who isn't GW, it doesn't even matter who made these kits.
It's the technique of combining parts of different kits to build a model. Modeling, converting and scratch building is not kit bashing, but can be combined with it.

The reasons to do this used to be creating units that didn't have models, having more powerful loadouts for existing units and having cooler models.
The first reason disappeared because chapterhouse started making models for units that didn't exist and GW didn't like it, tried to sue them and lost.
The second reasons started to disappear because many new kits follow the "no model, no rules" mantra, only allowing for options that come with the model. This is GW's monkey's paw response to people whishing for all options to be in the box.
The third reason is as valid as it has ever been, and is still openly supported by GW.

That's all there is to it. The TL;DR: of all these complaints is that people are still (rightfully) pissed about GW taking beloved units and options away that used to be only available through kit-bashing.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
Even the orks have lost most of their vibrant kitbash it community after the redesigns of their vehicles.

No, they didn't?
Model-wise, buggies are pretty awesome for kit bashes, and there are tons of great ones out there. Outside of the unique hull of the scrapjet, all other buggies can swap parts rather freely among each other as well as with old kits.

That ork buggies are less flexible than the good old trukk is mostly an urban myth that constantly gets repeated by certain people here on dakka which haven't build a buggy in their life.

 Jidmah wrote:

Stuff

Thank you.

And exalted.

 Jidmah wrote:

The TL;DR: of all these complaints is that people are still (rightfully) pissed about GW taking beloved units and options away that used to be only available through kit-bashing.

Not quite.

That is part (important part) of it, but still not all of it. GW also used to have articles about making stuff (like terrain) that didn't just involve putting the part of several 60$ GW (tm) kits together. Such as the Gorkamorka rocks example, or pattern to make bunkers (or baneblades) out of cardstock. And published rules to re-fit other non-GW things into 40K in the form of the Vehicle Design Rules.

Imo there's
Kitbashing (with GW products)
Kitbashing (involving non GW products)
Scratch building using "found objects" and materials like insulation foam and plasticard.

GW used to do all of it, but now appears to just do the first. "How to build something by buying even more GW." Which is particularly less accessible for a crowd that's either younger, or just not looking to drop $200 on terrain, etc.

They're not just taking away options that were only available via kit-bashing.

I mean just look at Skitarii units. You can't include duplicate special weapons unless you get to very big squad sizes. You can't take 2-3 of the same weapon in a standard squad anymore.

And if someone calls taking a normal part from one Skitarii kit and giving it to... another Skitarii "kit bashing" because you have bought two kits (even though they're the same kit), well, that's stretching the definition a bit.

Did GW remove the option for duplicates for certain units because they hate you or because those options were being abused by players/feared that new rules would make them abusable?
You are correct with regards to the definition of kitbashing though, using the same kit on a duplicate of itself is not kitbashing.

Also Insectum, GW giving hobbyists advice on using tin cans and egg cartons as a basis for homemade terrain is not the company suggesting or encouraging the use of non-Gw products. If anything it's just fancy recycling. At no point has GW said to use other companies' miniatures or model kits to create units for their systems.

 Gert wrote:
At no point has GW said to use other companies' miniatures or model kits to create units for their systems.

Well that's simply untrue.
Here's two examples (although both old & older)
1) In my WHFB 3e book there's a Ral Partha wraith clearly shown in one of the pics of a army/game.
OK. They didn't TELL you to use some other companies stuff. But if they dont mind photographing it in use....
2) More recently (somewhere around 2005) we have another WHFB ex. That summer in the Generals Handbook they gave rules for an all dinosaur army. Sure, the showcased using the various dinos from the Lizardman kits. But for some entries? They explicitly you that any suitably sized rubber Dino from a local stores toy aisle would suffice.

ccs wrote:

 Gert wrote:
At no point has GW said to use other companies' miniatures or model kits to create units for their systems.

Well that's simply untrue.
Here's two examples (although both old & older)
1) In my WHFB 3e book there's a Ral Partha wraith clearly shown in one of the pics of a army/game.
OK. They didn't TELL you to use some other companies stuff. But if they dont mind photographing it in use....
2) More recently (somewhere around 2005) we have another WHFB ex. That summer in the Generals Handbook they gave rules for an all dinosaur army. Sure, the showcased using the various dinos from the Lizardman kits. But for some entries? They explicitly you that any suitably sized rubber Dino from a local stores toy aisle would suffice.

From around the same time(ish) there is also the random truck that showed up in various Inquisitor battle reports, which is clearly made from a toy, or even more obvious was the converted Star Wars AAT Droid tank that also showed up on occasion. Just slap a few 40k bits on it and no one will ever know, right?

ccs wrote:

 Gert wrote:
At no point has GW said to use other companies' miniatures or model kits to create units for their systems.

Well that's simply untrue.
Here's two examples (although both old & older)
1) In my WHFB 3e book there's a Ral Partha wraith clearly shown in one of the pics of a army/game.
OK. They didn't TELL you to use some other companies stuff. But if they dont mind photographing it in use....

To be fair, I've seen pp models in gw publications (everblight spell martyr in white dwarf) but the caveat must be added that it wasn't a studio army or an official guide - it was a non-studio affiliated players personal army for a battle report. Is it gw 'permission' or a guest players thing that they 'missed'? And in fairness there was no text suggesting the origin of the model or where/how to get it. Or that this was a recommended way to fold a model corresponding to an ^appropriate gw codex entry^.

My personal take is its a ^shrug, this stuff happens, you can't really stop it, just don't bring attention to it ^ kind of thing.

 Gert wrote:
Did GW remove the option for duplicates for certain units because they hate you or because those options were being abused by players/feared that new rules would make them abusable?

Neither. It appears that they removed options because a kit only had one such weapon, rather than the two (or more) that were previously allowed.

 Gert wrote:
Also Insectum, GW giving hobbyists advice on using tin cans and egg cartons as a basis for homemade terrain is not the company suggesting or encouraging the use of non-Gw products. If anything it's just fancy recycling. At no point has GW said to use other companies' miniatures or model kits to create units for their systems.

As I wrote in a previous response to you:

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 can take a picture if you want.

 Insectum7 wrote:

As I wrote in a previous response to you:

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 can take a picture if you want.

You mean this bit?

See that there says that people did it in the past, not that you should go out and buy another companies products to convert into 40k units. Jervis is saying that prior to GW releasing their own vehicle kits, that's what people often resorted to, and of the examples given, only the deodorant speeder isn't made from GW products. Again, using items that were destined for the bin i.e. tin cans, egg cartons, or cardboard tubes, is not kitbashing.

See phrase: "Return to those heady days"

 Insectum7 wrote:
See phrase: "Return to those heady days"

You need the full quote there chief.
"It will also, I hope, herald a return to those heady days when WD featured articles showing you how to scratch build and convert new models for your army, and where most players had a vehicle or two that had started life as a Transformer, World War Two rank, or even a deodorant bottle."
That's Jervis expressing hope for kitbashing and converting to make a return, not Jervis encouraging hobbyists to buy competitor products. Do you really think it would have made it to print if Jervis was explicitly telling people not to buy GW products?

Look I'm done with this, you and others can keep sitting here whinging every single day of the week about how much you hate GW yet still actively participate in discussions just so you can let everyone else know that you hate GW.

Riiiight. . . And the example of vehicle given is the deoderant tank, with what are probably toy guns attatched to it. The frigging VDR example is all non gw.

You can leave the discussion because the point your trying to make is ridiculous

I'll have to dig out my GH & post a photo of GW telling you buy a rubber dino...

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:

The TL;DR: of all these complaints is that people are still (rightfully) pissed about GW taking beloved units and options away that used to be only available through kit-bashing.

Not quite.

That is part (important part) of it, but still not all of it. GW also used to have articles about making stuff (like terrain) that didn't just involve putting the part of several 60$ GW (tm) kits together. Such as the Gorkamorka rocks example, or pattern to make bunkers (or baneblades) out of cardstock. And published rules to re-fit other non-GW things into 40K in the form of the Vehicle Design Rules.

Imo there's
Kitbashing (with GW products)
Kitbashing (involving non GW products)
Scratch building using "found objects" and materials like insulation foam and plasticard.

GW used to do all of it, but now appears to just do the first. "How to build something by buying even more GW." Which is particularly less accessible for a crowd that's either younger, or just not looking to drop $200 on terrain, etc.

This month’s WD has a whole article on making some terrain and dioramas for their LotR game using rocks and random components from hobby stores with before and after pics and everything?

You have:
An IKEA table
Tinfoil
Plasticard
Three types of polystyrene
Bits of tree
Sea foam moss (from model shops)
An actual spiderweb
A paper clip
Gravel and sand (which GW no longer sell)
MDF
small rocks

Obviously they have quite a few bits of GW kits as well, but that’s quite a lot of other random gubbins.

 Gert wrote:
Did GW remove the option for duplicates for certain units because they hate you or because those options were being abused by players/feared that new rules would make them abusable?

That's an absurd question that I will not even dignify with an answer...

 Gert wrote:
Did GW remove the option for duplicates for certain units because they hate you or because those options were being abused by players/feared that new rules would make them abusable?

They were removed because players repeatedly asked them to add those bitz in those kits since they believed that every kit should allow every combination out of the box. They answered by satisfying the second part.

Lord Zarkov wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:

The TL;DR: of all these complaints is that people are still (rightfully) pissed about GW taking beloved units and options away that used to be only available through kit-bashing.

Not quite.

That is part (important part) of it, but still not all of it. GW also used to have articles about making stuff (like terrain) that didn't just involve putting the part of several 60$ GW (tm) kits together. Such as the Gorkamorka rocks example, or pattern to make bunkers (or baneblades) out of cardstock. And published rules to re-fit other non-GW things into 40K in the form of the Vehicle Design Rules.

Imo there's
Kitbashing (with GW products)
Kitbashing (involving non GW products)
Scratch building using "found objects" and materials like insulation foam and plasticard.

GW used to do all of it, but now appears to just do the first. "How to build something by buying even more GW." Which is particularly less accessible for a crowd that's either younger, or just not looking to drop $200 on terrain, etc.

This month’s WD has a whole article on making some terrain and dioramas for their LotR game using rocks and random components from hobby stores with before and after pics and everything?

You have:
An IKEA table
Tinfoil
Plasticard
Three types of polystyrene
Bits of tree
Sea foam moss (from model shops)
An actual spiderweb
A paper clip
Gravel and sand (which GW no longer sell)
MDF
small rocks

Obviously they have quite a few bits of GW kits as well, but that’s quite a lot of other random gubbins.

^Awesome. Seriously, good for them. I hope they do more of that sort of thing.