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.

When I started Wargaming, Do-It-Yourself was a core part of the experience. Buildings, Terrain, Rules, even Miniatures were not widely available. Therefore, if you want to play a wargame, you had to build it all. If you look at the RT books, you see kit-bashes, homemade stuff, and other stuff. There were books and tools for how to Do-It-Yourself as products. Now-a-days, you can literally buy everything you need. Buildings, terrain, variant models, game mats, bases, etc.

So, is wargaming still PUNK? Does it encourage DIY still or is it commodified to a point where DIY has been pushed out? Has the new age of 3D printing enhanced or reduced the DIY? Is it culturally still acceptable in wargaming circles and clubs to have a lot of DIY materials in their games?

What do you think?

It's there as much as it ever was. The difference between then and now is that because now has a LOT more "off the shelf" and the quality of that is great, there is more off the shelf stuff on the tables.


So instead of a sheet of green felt over a few books making hills you've now got loads of product choices including making them yourself.

Plus you've got vast amounts of quality books, videos, websites, streamers and more all making content and showing you how to make it. The information is so so much more accessible than in the past.



So I'd say its changed from being a nessessity to an option and that the overall quality and diversity of what's on offer both as products and as DIY has gone up by a huge huge margin.




3D printing has blown the doors open wide too; you can get SO much now that's printable or you can learn to design yourself so its a whole other tool in the bag.



So its different, but its still very much there. I think the biggest difference people harp on about is that Games Workshop don't talk about it as much as they used too; or that its not as essential because GW now makes a kit for it. That's honestly the only real change; but if your measure is just 1 firm's marketing then that's not a huge measuring stick these days.

As I said you can find guides and tutorials being made all the time. Heck I've got Mel Bose's book on terrain on the shelf and it blows GW's old terrain book out of the water with quality and what it shows.

even within GW's ouvre, DIY can still be a big part of the game. 40k, AOS, and their associated skirmish games are much more structure, but HH, TOW, and Necromunda all have a lot of kitbashing going on with them. the option for DIY is very much still there; like Overread said, the difference is that now you can choose how much you want to do yourself. i think that's a much healthier place for the hobby to be

I agree. Everyone dips into the hobby in their own way and some go all in learning to sculpt with greenstuff; learning to 3D print and design; how to build dioramas and terrain and everything.

Others don't want too or don't have the time/inclination to devote to that approach. But they still want a good looking table and models to play with.



Heck whilst I dislike some of GW's approach to it (eg cutting out twin devourer armed Winged Hive Tyrants) the whole "no model no rules" is a good policy for anyone who doesn't want to be forced to convert or proxy.

I recall back in the 4-6th edition era of 40K GW got very much into the habbit of adding weapons and lots of unique units and models and then never making models for them and then adding more the next edition.


It's one thing to encourage proxies and conversions; but its another to require it as part of the game. Esp when WYSIWYG is pushed quite heavily in general within the game/community at large.

Being in the position where you can choose is fantastic.

I'd say we are in a world where there can be practically zero difference in quality between a DIY project and a commercially made one. So in that sense, the line between the two is more blurred than ever..

But the overall global trends are ones where everything is off the self and DIY is becoming a very niche thing.. almost a lost art in a way? Building things from the ground up is seen as a thing for weirdos/hikikomori, most people are content on reskinning existing stuff a bit to give a stamp of themselves to the things, and that is enough

Its quite ironic tbh. Now that we have the technology, we have lost the will to use it..

I often fantasize what sort of madness would ensue if Rogue Trader came out today, with all the stuff thats available now in plastic.. but often feel like I'm the only one in our gaming group who is into this sort of thinking (to be fair, I'm the oldest of the bunch too )

Even back in the "golden era" the number who could and would do custom DIY stuff that was worth looking at was fewer.

Another aspect might be age. "Golden Age" for most of us is when we were teens and couldn't afford stuff and the club was the school club or friends group of similar teens. Or a GW store that has always had well build stuff.


Today we are adults in adult groups and social circles. So it could just be that the teens are still doing all the custom stuff because they can't afford it all; whlist the adults who are more devoted and have more disposable income, but possibly less time; are all saving that time by buying off the shelf.

the "golden age" is always going to be whenever you were in middle or high school, i think. my favorite sets in MTG all happened to come out 2010-2014, and by sheer coincidence, that's when i was in school. if i had gotten into warhammer at the same time as MTG, 5th and 6th editions would probably be my favorites

also, if RT came out today, it would be a flop. the game sat awkwardly between a wargame and a TTRPG, and it wasn't until the supplements that it picked a side. the game was very rough at the time. it would have fans, definitely, but the rough state of the rules alone would be a major issue

Core part? Not anymore in the grand scheme of things.

As mentioned earlier by Overread, in the early days DIY was a fairly necessary part. Manufacturers were still establishing, and efforts were on infantry and small vehicles.

But overtime? GW in particular have ranges which largely remove the need for DIY. After all, if you can produce commercial kits for tanks, do so over providing nets and conversion guides in White Dwarf.

As such, those who got started in the past couple of decades just haven’t had to convert and scratch build those who’ve been here forever once did.

Depending on which game you play, DIY can be huge, or not-at-all.
40k has so many options, whether 3rd party alternatives, 3d versions, and so much official stuff, do as you want or can afford.
Lots of new games are self-made models, whether downloadble card standees with 3d printables, or 'use someone else's models'.
For terrain, it'll depend what you can get, as opposed to what you want.

I think the main thing is just that its a lot easier to turn DIY into what appears to be an actual business these days. A lot of gaming "companies" are like 2-3 guys relying on the grand scope of the internet to reach a few hundred or so people needed to make their hobby profitable. It's less that DIY doesn't exist so much as the tools of modern DIY are close enough to professional and the internet has made it so much easier to sell a product that the line between DIY and professional has become too blurry to define.

 StudentOfEtherium wrote:
the "golden age" is always going to be whenever you were in middle or high school, i think. my favorite sets in MTG all happened to come out 2010-2014, and by sheer coincidence, that's when i was in school. if i had gotten into warhammer at the same time as MTG, 5th and 6th editions would probably be my favorites

You think wrong.
Why? Because not everyone starts playing X game when they're in middle or high school.
Plenty pick up games as adults.

When I was finishing high school?
●MTG was YEARS in the future. And my favorite MTG sets are separated by nearly a decade.
●RT? Had barely debuted - and it'd be several years, well into college, before I gave it a try (right at the tail end of RT. 2e would arrive within 6 months) It's NOT my golden era of 40k. That'd be 3e/4e & now 9th/10th editions....

As for the DiY aspect?
Yes, early on in my mini gaming years I had to learn the skills to make decent terrain.
And to work with the flaws/limitations inherent to metal & resin models. Or to solve the problem of an option that didn't exist as a kit.....
And I put those skills to plenty of use.

Nowadays? I still have those skills. And I've improved them. But I'm also (despite becoming recently retired) seemingly bussier than ever.....
So if I just need hill's, buildings, trees, rivers, etc? I'm fine with off-the-shelf.
For minis? My skills still apply even if the medium has changed to mostly plastic. And I'll convert/scratchbuild as I deem necessary (especially for my Orks).
And 3d printing means that almost anything is available (thank God, I don't really have time to scratch build all the missing units for Legion Imperialis - but I can easily find files for them & send to a friend with a very nice printer setup 😀)
For terrain? I'll still put my skills to use when I want something specific/unique (usually for our D&D game).

"Core" is rather dependent on individual gamers.

Let's start with substituting "Essential".

It's been a long time since DIY was an essential part of wargaming. Even in the 90's -when GW was publishing the red terrain book and sites like Terragenesis were active- there were still alot of good options for buying your terrain models from companies like Armorcast.

For miniatures in the GW hobby specifically, it's true that they've narrowed their ranges and rules to the point where kitbashing and customizing is not really necessary, but that's been the case for well over a decade now.

So DIY hasn't been an essential part of wargaming for some time now.

Now, how about "Core"

That said, for many players, DIY (whatever you define that as) is still a "Core" part of their hobby. I know for our little game club, DIY/Kitbashed/toybashed terrain is still a big part of our hobby and heavily customized miniatures abound. We even DIY the way we interact with the hobby: Choosing and combining miniature lines, lore and rulesets often spanning decades and based on our desires rather than a proscribed one-company approach.

Further, even in the more "big company" spaces of our hobby, I still see almost nothing but respect for DIY miniatures and terrain.

As for the "Golden Age", it has felt to me like every year I've been in the hobby (since about 1994) has been better than the one before. Right now is a great time to be involved in the hobby. Miniatures (other than the big names) are cheaper, more varied and more widely available. Hobby resources, tutorials, online communities and supplies are plentiful and ready to support anyone from the buy-it-painted-already to the hardest-core scratchbuilder. Not everything is great. I still bemoan the shrinking forum experience, but that's one aspect of an overall picture that is quite rosy.

Heck just look at the average quality and detailing of models and the variety we get today. The market is saturated with fantastic models of all different kinds. 3D printing has even made 75mm and Busts a lot more popular than they were before.

I do more DIY now than years ago, especially in the realm of rules designing for myself. I also make a lot more terrain than I used to, and of much better quality. I always made terrain, but it was often pretty basic and now I make stuff I'm really proud of.

But I think in general, wanting to do DIY is something that's not that widespread in the hobby as a whole. People get into these games for a lot of reasons - some for love of the history or fiction, some for love of the miniatures, either modelling them or painting them, and some for the love of the games themselves. If there's an aspect of the hobby you don't want to "DIY" you don't have to now, because there are commercial options to fill in every single part of the process.

So where before, people might have been forced into DIY even though they didn't really enjoy it, just to do the parts they did enjoy, now they can avoid all that and just get what they need from the market.

On the whole, as long as people don't get too narrow minded about taking the "official" line from the various companies, I think this is a good thing.

The only reason I'm going the way I am is because I want things a very particular way, and I happen to be fairly evenly interested in all aspects of the hobby (though I am certainly not the greatest kitbasher or painter!)

My little grain of salt but let's keep in mind I have the view of a french countryside man to it.

DIY was a trend like 5 years ago or so. But now it is not really anymore, I mean, broadly. What I see is that the mindset of most people is that they don't really want to bother making it, firstly because unless you're making trash built terrain as I do, it's not necessarily that economical. In France, even the modelling store web is thin and prices quite high even on materials.

Secondly, even with the good tools, it will require some trial and error, some finesse, and a lot of time. People don't necessarily want to spent all this time, possibly getting in trouble with the learning curve it implies.

Thirdly, and that's in my opinion also why non GW games have got an even harder time to shine outside WW2 ones, why bother when you can get everything off the shelf with very good quality?

I don't mean it negatively at all. What I think is that the odds stack up against DIY as a useful tool or cost saving measures, and therefore, it is only worth the effort for people like me who'll sink 15 hours turning ice cream boxes into landing barges for giggles. DIY is a not a necessity but more of a hobby within a hobby, in my view.

 Overread wrote:
Heck whilst I dislike some of GW's approach to it (eg cutting out twin devourer armed Winged Hive Tyrants) the whole "no model no rules" is a good policy for anyone who doesn't want to be forced to convert or proxy.

I recall back in the 4-6th edition era of 40K GW got very much into the habbit of adding weapons and lots of unique units and models and then never making models for them and then adding more the next edition.

I can partially agree on this - I think not including entries for whole units or characters you're not planning on producing is one thing, though I'd note that it was a practice that had been going on since the first Codex released, not something new to 4th-6th ed, at least in terms of special characters, and even units by the 2nd ed Eldar 'dex (Exodites, Vyper fighting platforms).

I strongly disagree that removing weapon options from units when you produce said weapon options in other kits in the same line is a good move, especially if your kits are designed for cross-compatibility (as they generally were as we left 6th - unfortunately, this has become less of a thing recently). A lot of the weapon option complaints could've been resolved by GW producing - even as Direct Only items - sprues/boxes of weapons like we've seen them do for HH 2.0.

Or adding more bits to kits as they're redesigned, whichever.

 Dysartes wrote:

 Overread wrote:
Heck whilst I dislike some of GW's approach to it (eg cutting out twin devourer armed Winged Hive Tyrants) the whole "no model no rules" is a good policy for anyone who doesn't want to be forced to convert or proxy.

I recall back in the 4-6th edition era of 40K GW got very much into the habbit of adding weapons and lots of unique units and models and then never making models for them and then adding more the next edition.

I can partially agree on this - I think not including entries for whole units or characters you're not planning on producing is one thing, though I'd note that it was a practice that had been going on since the first Codex released, not something new to 4th-6th ed, at least in terms of special characters, and even units by the 2nd ed Eldar 'dex (Exodites, Vyper fighting platforms).

I strongly disagree that removing weapon options from units when you produce said weapon options in other kits in the same line is a good move, especially if your kits are designed for cross-compatibility (as they generally were as we left 6th - unfortunately, this has become less of a thing recently). A lot of the weapon option complaints could've been resolved by GW producing - even as Direct Only items - sprues/boxes of weapons like we've seen them do for HH 2.0.

Or adding more bits to kits as they're redesigned, whichever.

Yep I'm right there with you disliking the change to some of the weapon options where they were cross-kit compatible.

And you are right, heck the Deamonette kits for Slaanesh are a fantastic example. The seekers swap between the chariots and the riders; the deamonetts can swap heads and arms and even the human riders can swap bits around too.

I suspect we won't see its like again since more dynamic poses tend to make the cuts on models much more complicated and GW clearly has removed the policy of cross-kit compatibility being a desirable thing for them in the design phase.

I

I think the decision is that miniatures have to look amazing in close up photography, functionality as gaming pieces and hobby items is secondary.

Makes sense, since close up photographs of miniatures are the primary medium for communication about the hobby online.

I dunno - it took GW 30-40 years of making Hormagaunts to design ones that would actually stand up on their own on a table without filling the base with metal. Heck the first generation ones had zero chance of standing up on their own.

Slaanesh Whips are old but insanely impractical, esp when you consider that they came from an era before the idea of magnetic bases for cases was commonplace and everyone was using foam.

It does surprise me a little when GW has impractical designs because they've such a great amount of resources that I'd presume internal training, teaching, onboarding and design elements would result in a process that could create game-suitable designs.


AT the same time chances are they do push things - I'd argue that Khinerai from the Daughters of Khaine are an example where they've pushed the flexibility of plastics to create very dynamic flying models that wobble in a light breeze.

Of course it could also be that when you're a model maker and designer working with models all day, every day you end up developing handling skills and tricks that just means that you sometimes don't see some of the issues because you're so familiar with handling things in a careful way.

To me it's more about the proliferation of monopose plastic in very dynamic poses, which looks worse in a large unit on a table than less dynamic poses but looks better in a close up photo. But that's been going on for a long time, much more than a decade, it's just becoming more and more the baseline.

I think there's still a lot of DIY in certain communities.
For example I love making display boards for my Kings of War armies.

I'm going to assume some significant use of magnets there, Ashitaka.

 Da Boss wrote:
To me it's more about the proliferation of monopose plastic in very dynamic poses, which looks worse in a large unit on a table than less dynamic poses but looks better in a close up photo. But that's been going on for a long time, much more than a decade, it's just becoming more and more the baseline.

Possible counter argument, based solely on my own experience and that.

I painted 120 MkVI Heresy Marines. With just 5 distinct poses, that was 24 of each pose. Rather than repetitive, I found it beneficial, as I adopted certain brushstrokes and hand positions for each, allowing me to get up to a really decent pace after the first couple of instances. I learned which I’d have to do the elbow of the under suit on, where I’d be able to get to certain details, and how to give each an interesting mix of colours.

This isn’t to say “therefore loss of multipose good”. Just a benefit which didn’t occur or become apparent to me until I painted a load of stuff.

Don't wanna derail, but yeah, I don't mind monopose - I love the monopose LOTR plastics for example. My only problem is when the poses for said monopose figures are overly dramatic, making it really obvious at tabletop distance that they're not different people in a fairly neutral pose but clones of the same person in a crazy pose. I just think the visual effect is a bit unfortunate. Looks great for a single unit picture in a close up shot, but not so good when you've got a whole unit of people somersaulting off a tactical rock.

I think GW could put a few more arm positions into kits to break up some of the monopose elements; but in general I think once you leave mechs and tanks and you're dealing with 28-32mm it becomes harder and harder to do proper multi-pose without just creating vast amounts of alternate arms and bodies and so forth.

Mechs can do it (just look at what Pipermakes does) but they have a lot of options for ball and socket or simple connection points to hide the joins in the model; organic things don't really have that unless they are like Tyranids.

There's always been a degree of monopose to minis. What breaks it up is rotation that alters the silhouette. Kits that have swappable arms and heads are a lot easier to make distinct while still having a lot of the dynamic quality their going for with the monopose direction.

Heck lets not forget a large amount of other wargames have fully monopose models without even optional weapons or heads or anything. Or if they do its a simple arm swap for a different weapon

Do it yourself will always be a major part of the hobby. Part of the reason why it might not seem so as much now is due to the fact that the big boy on the block, GW, doesn't really promote it as much anymore.

Now the reason for that is mostly due to the fact that they decided to just, make all that stuff themselves to sell it. Given GW's market share in the miniature gaming space it and the fact we dont really see hobby articles on it anymore it FEELS like its not a core part of the experience. Get outside the GW bubble and it is still very present.

And honestly you don't have to step far outside - youtube is utterly loaded with custom model stuff! From big and small creators.

I'd say yes, especially for those of us who take pride in having non-fully GW boards. I give GW credit - some of their terrain kits are amazing. But they're also incredibly expensive for something I can often mimic using foamcore, insulation foam, or plasticard. Yes, those materials cost money, but I can get a lot more for my money and make something that doesn't look like everyone else's table. As someone who does terrain commissions, half of it is for my own fun just as much as it is making some side money.

Everyone likes having something that they can say is there own design and work. It definitely takes time and ability to improve your skills, but the internet in this case helps guide certain skills that can move you from beginner to above average pretty quickly.

In short - DIY will always be around, so long as people want something unique, or want to spend their money on minis rather than terrain.

Just my 2 cents.