Is kitbashing dead? "Your little guys" and the Horus Heresy debacle

What recent developments in the worlds of 30k and 40k mean for kibtashing, converting, and "your little guys"

I will start this article off by saying that I am, likely, to be biased in my conclusions. I love kitbashing. It is, perhaps, my favourite aspect of the Warhammer hobby.

More than painting beautifully, or playing the perfect game, it is in creating something unique from kits that shouldn't have any business being married together into new and intriguing forms. I am always on the prowl for the perfect bit, pondering new ways to create something for my armies to make my opponents pause and say, "wait, what is that?"

But I've noticed in recent times a trend to move the games of Games Workshop away from the slightly esoteric, creative game that I love to an out-of-the-box, more tightly controlled set of models where conformity and not imagination is prioritised.

Is that slightly harsh? Perhaps. But what does GW's move towards uniformity, mean for wargaming, creativity and "your little guys" in 2025? What impact has it had on GW's most recent launch? And why does the question of intellectual property mean for it all?

Kibtashing in 2025: the state of play

At the risk of sounding painfully old, back in my day, kitbashing wasn't a nice to have. It was a rite of passage. A huge range of units and characters in warhammer's hazy past had rules, but never actually made the leap into plastic (or metal).

Nowadays - particularly in 40k - a need for standardisation; for balance - in the 40k tournament scene has seen this alter significantly. 10th edition has prioritised "built from the box" units. Yes, kitbashing is allowed (as long as you clear it with a tournament organiser) but it has never felt especially encouraged to me in this latest iteration of the game.

A description I find particularly apt is placing 40k as more akin to a card game, than a tabletop game. 10th edition is a different beast to the 40k of old: a more sterile, competitive experience, where list building is more of a clean cut "deck" builder than the occasionally wonky, but far more flavourful list creation of prior editions. One where the meta of the game, rather than the creativity of players, guides the nature of armies.

"40k is more akin to a card game, than a tabletop game... One where the meta of the game, rather than the creativity of players, guides the nature of armies."

The standardisation of armies, reinforced, I think, through a simpler, non-modular list building model and a need for clarity for a competitive opponent, pushes this forward. In actual codex options, a variety of fun, thematic upgrades have been retired throughout the course of 10th edition - I lament the loss of Bloodbrides, Trueborn and Haemoxytes for the Drukhari keenly. Yes, they can still be used as generic versions of those units in game, but lacking distinct capabilities for my tailored elite bodyguards is somewhat disappointing.

One of the biggest reactions to this came with the release of the recent Astra Militarum codex, in which the basic guard infantry squad has received its military pension. A small point, you might argue, but one that has caused much condemnation amongst the guard player base. You see, now your soldiers are not technically not from your planet anymore. They're from Cadia; Catachan; Krieg. Of course, you can still name them after whatever your particular homeworld might be, but when you produce a list on the Warhammer app, they will be listed as one of the three major worlds and not a generic entry you can layer on top of. That might be seen as nitpicking; but it is a sore point, particularly for a fanbase often more pre-occupied with creating unique and storied regiments of renown than what is at the peak of competitiveness.

But perhaps the biggest indicator of this isn't in the 41st millenium, but 10,000 years And that brings us, in a round-about way, to the latest furore in GW's long history of fan uprisings...

The Horus Heresy, and the rules-drop massacre.

It's a catchy title for an event that I think is likely to go down as something a storm in a teacup.* In essence, the launch of Horus Heresy 3.0 saw a raft of unit options and alternative builds cut from the core rulebooks. Anything (or at least, mostly everything) that isn't sold in-box, direct on the GW webstore, is gone. Or, at least, relegated to a supported "legacies" PDF, free for download at some point following the game launch.

The reaction to this was as well-considered as you might imagine. Armies were threatened with burning. Protests were planned, if not perhaps actually staged. The internet echo-chamber doom-spiralled into self-destruction as the launch of a game which, by all accounts, is an excellent set of rules was declared dead on arrival.

Perhaps, with reflection, some of this might not have been handled in the most grown-up of manners. But it's not my purpose to throw stones.

And besides, even if the culling was mostly rectified by the legacies PDF, the reaction was not without merit. Horus Heresy has long been touted as a game for modelers and painters, rather than purely for players. Its soul can be found in meticulously crafted legion armies, featuring bespoke characters and a raft of upgrades to make every unit and model truly unique.

To callously announce the removal of a vast array of options that hobbyists have devoted significant time and money into crafting leaves an undeniable bad taste. Relegating a huge part of the Heresy range, in essence, to a PDF - even if that PDF is well-maintained and supported - doesn't leave a good impression to your core player-base. Without keeping them mostly onside, the game is a much harder sell for coveted first-time players, whose interest the slim-lined model range was likely first established to catch.

The question of IP

So why do it? Why enact a programme of phase-outs and legends(es) in the first place? At least part of the reason behind recent decisions can be routed in intellectual property (IP) and its importance to GW's business model.

As someone who has a professional interest in IP and a die-hard fascination with Warhammer, this is a topic that fascinates me (and one I will almost certainly write more extensively about in the near future).

Arbitor Ian (who remains the best of the lore-folk on YouTube, unquestionably in my view), has a fantastic video explaining exactly this, in relation to the recent Horus Heresy furore.

It's a fantastic video essay, and well worth a watch. To surmise for the purposes of this article, however: as GW's model ranges have grown and a need to protect their increasingly valuable intellectual property has become more pressing - as well as to make the games it sells more accessible to newcomers - the firm has reduced the support it provides for models it doesn't explicitly sell directly to customers. Providing main-line rules for units that it no longer produces (or never did) is actively counter-intuitive as it takes a more aggressive stance to protecting its property.

"Providing main-line rules for units that it no longer produces (or never did) is actively counter-intuitive as it takes a more aggressive stance to protecting its property."

The Horus Heresy is just the latest - and perhaps the most egregious - example of a practice which has been going on for quite some time, since the move from GW from cottage(ish) industry to significant, international manufacturer. With the growing importance of IP to GW's business model in light of recent successful video game tie-ins and a burgeoning dramatic universe through the partnership with Amazon, this trend is unlikely to change.

A surprisingly outlier: rules without models in the Old World

There is one significant outlier to this model, however: the Old World.

The Old World as a system seems to be taking a very different approach to kitbashing. The arcane journals that have accompanied the return of the various armies of Warhammer Fantasy. For units that don't physically exist in plastic or metal, the arcane journals provide little call-out boxes for those units describing what they might look like, to give you some indication of how to go about creating your own version of them. To take the High Elves Arcane Journal as an example I'm currently very invested in, the entries for Chracian Woodsmen and Lion Guard provide a neat bit of context as to how best to create your own.

That creative space is hugely welcome to me; indeed, its a good portion as to why I'm currently working on a White Lion-themed High Elf army of my own. I don't care if the Lion Guard aren't good - I'm having them, because creating my own unique version of these herculean warriors is completely why I enjoy doing this hobby.

Conclusions

Where does that leave us? In a way, kitbashing and customising your forces to be unique to you has never been as easy. The breadth of components available through GW and the myriad of resin-printed accouterments online with which to accentuate the unique character of your own little guys has never been more accessible. With a little imagination - or a little inspiration - you can create incredible looking armies, models and dioramas, all in plastic that are the rival of professionally designed sculpts.

But there is a melancholy, for me, that, as Games Workshop grows into a true gaming goliath, some of that original spirit of the hobby will be left behind. A need to protect the hugely valuable intellectual property upon which GW's monumental rise is intrinsically based, as well as catering to an audience seeking a tighter, more competitive game - a tabletop video game; magic the gathering with miniatures - will cause change. And the upshot of that may mean less support for the more creative parts of the game.

I think, even in a more focused and competitive world, it would be a shame to lose sight of the sometimes brilliant, sometimes wild creativity that makes Warhammer unique. Even if it's just a cute weapon or head swap for a nameless tournament-bound captain, having a model that is yours and yours alone is always something to take immense pride in.

Losing that sense of individuality entirely - that ultimately, these are not just game pieces but in some way your own, unique models - would be a crying shame

---

Until next time,

Alex

*Cue lots of anguish on the internet.