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.

 unmercifulconker wrote:
People complain about the 'toyish' look of new models, GW decides to make something even more toyish.

Fix'd.

The Skulldozer looks kinda silly, but so did epic Lord of Battle. New one certainly looks way better, it is just that the whole tank-centaur thing looks daft no matter how you do it. Parts look good, I just think they'd look better as a separate walker and a separate giant tank, instead of combining the two.

Necron stuff looks boring as usual.

Geez! You guys need to quit complaining! Nobody is forcing you to buy this miniature.

If only if only someone could take more pics of the WD.

Maybe this is where that Tyranid Dominatrix rumour will resurface?

 MetalOxide wrote:
Geez! You guys need to quit complaining! Nobody is forcing you to buy this miniature.

Ok. We'll stop putting forward any form of criticism and just replace it all with blind praise.

When are people going to stop equating "criticism" with "complaining/whining/hate".

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 MetalOxide wrote:
Geez! You guys need to quit complaining! Nobody is forcing you to buy this miniature.

Ok. We'll stop putting forward any form of criticism and just replace it all with blind praise.

When are people going to stop equating "criticism" with "complaining/whining/hate".

When are people going to stop judging a GW miniature based on GW's poor excuse of a paint job and photograph.

Honestly, the only part I'm not fond of based on this pic is the actual torso part. I think messing around with an alternative for the torso, or maybe converting it a bit to make it a tad less static, could make it look pretty cool. The tank part looks pretty cool to me, from what we can see. I'm really interested to see the Necron vehicles.

P.S. The paint on that model look sub-par at best, so that could have something to do with it. A lot of the paint jobs on the bigger models are pretty gakky.

 MetalOxide wrote:
When are people going to stop judging a GW miniature based on GW's poor excuse of a paint job and photograph.

The only poor excuse here is the one you just gave. That Helknight picture is as clear as day.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 MetalOxide wrote:
When are people going to stop judging a GW miniature based on GW's poor excuse of a paint job and photograph.

The only poor excuse here is the one you just gave. That Helknight picture is as clear as day.

Yea, I'm pretty sure the Khorneblower there isn't being "hurt" by the paintjob or the photograph.

It's painted like a Khornate vehicle. What's your point?

But, Khorneblower. LOL!

Monoliths look great, but the Chaos thing, ehhh...

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
It's painted like a Khornate vehicle. What's your point?

But, Khorneblower. LOL!

Just echoing your sentiment.

It's not the paint or the photo that makes that thing look like a joke.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 unmercifulconker wrote:
People complain about the 'toyish' look of new models, GW decides to make something even more toyish.

Fix'd.

Oh no! Plastic toys look toyish... shock horror!

 Ahtman wrote:

 unmercifulconker wrote:
People complain about the 'toyish' look of new models, GW decides to create something from the past, changing it to look like a badly designed toy, and people complain, internet 101.

There, fixed it for you. They didn't just go to the past, they went to the past and then made it look stupid. It wasn't exactly kingly to begin with, but it looked far better then the abomination on the WD cover.

I don't share the extreme derision for the new Khorn thing. It isn't as silly as the maulerfiend or dreadknight. Although I think the "skulldozer" label is going to stick. On the other hand, those Necron ???oliths look pretty damned sweet.

 MetalOxide wrote:
Oh no! Plastic toys look toyish... shock horror!

Toys are a lot cheaper, and GW isn't in the toy business either.

TBH I dont know how much you can make the khorne thing not look blocky or make it look more dynamic,

The combination of the VERY white face, without much visible shading, and slightly blurry pic make it hard to make out any real detail in the face. Looks very washed out to me. I HOPE that there's more detail there to redeem it. Not that it really matters to me as a consumer, though, I don't do Khorne or Nurgle, so wouldn't be buying it anyway.

 Ahtman wrote:
Toys are a lot cheaper, and GW isn't in the toy business either.

Point of information: Yes they are. The CEO even said it himself - "... selling toys to children...".

 Breotan wrote:
I don't share the extreme derision for the new Khorn thing.

Some of it is hyperbole to be sure; a natural reaction at seeing such a goofy looking kit.

 Breotan wrote:
Although I think the "skulldozer" label is going to stick.

I think Khorneblower may have some legs to it.

No love for Lord Skullington?



From their Facebook page:

Games Workshop Fulchester wrote:Yes, the "coming soon" Khorne Lord of Battle / Bloodknight model is meant to look like a midget squatting on a wheelchair. It's a deliberate design choice; midgets are cool.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Ahtman wrote:
Toys are a lot cheaper, and GW isn't in the toy business either.

Point of information: Yes they are. The CEO even said it himself - "... selling toys to children...".

I thought they were an 'hobby gaming industry', and were for 'elites'. Of course it seems I hear different things coming out of them all the time that seem contradictory on how they want their company viewed, so who knows. I still contend that actual toys are cheaper. It also will come down to how broadly or narrowly we define 'toy' as well. I tend to see toys as being something for children to play with, whereas I would not let a child play with these things for a myriad of reasons.

 Ahtman wrote:
I think Khorneblower may have some legs to it.

Once a wise man said... "She's gone from suck to blow!"

This is really all we can get today? Conker sad.

 Ahtman wrote:
I thought they were an 'hobby gaming industry', and were for 'elites'. Of course it seems I hear different things coming out of them all the time that seem contradictory on how they want their company viewed, so who knows. I still contend that actual toys are cheaper. It also will come down to how broadly or narrowly we define 'toy' as well. I tend to see toys as being something for children to play with, whereas I would not let a child play with these things for a myriad of reasons.

I wouldn't classify a miniature as a toy.

 unmercifulconker wrote:
This is really all we can get today? Conker sad.

I'm really quite surprised that we got this much, right on the heels of the Eldar release. I didn't expect much in the way of substantial rumors for another couple weeks.

 Ahtman wrote:

 MetalOxide wrote:
Oh no! Plastic toys look toyish... shock horror!

Toys are a lot cheaper, and GW isn't in the toy business either.

Not sure what version of English you speak buuuuut models and miniatures are toys. You play with toys, it is okay.

The fact that the daemonic centaur tank from the 41st make believe millennium looks silly seems par for the the course over these past 15 years I have been playing. Might be just me but nothing in 40k isn't silly and ridiculous. Especially if you use the new if GW made it I hate it and here is why point of view. Go ahead try it right now. Look at your current collection and find something that isn't silly and looks like a toy.

shade1313 wrote:

 unmercifulconker wrote:
This is really all we can get today? Conker sad.

I'm really quite surprised that we got this much, right on the heels of the Eldar release. I didn't expect much in the way of substantial rumors for another couple weeks.

Indeed, super grateful for whoever brought us this, but you cant help thinking, where are those other pages?

Toy

noun
1. an object, often a small representation of something familiar, as an animal or person, for children or others to play with; plaything. (Ok, they got us here)

2. a thing or matter of little or no value or importance; a trifle. (Missed us here)

3. something that serves for or as if for diversion, rather than for serious practical use. (Ok, they got us here)

4. a small article of little value but prized as a souvenir or for some other special reason; trinket; knickknack; bauble. (Missed us here)

5. something diminutive, especially in comparison with like objects. (Ok, they got us here)

3/5 for Toy I guess

All Hail The Khorneblower!

 BrotherGecko wrote:

 Ahtman wrote:

 MetalOxide wrote:
Oh no! Plastic toys look toyish... shock horror!

Toys are a lot cheaper, and GW isn't in the toy business either.

Not sure what version of English you speak buuuuut models and miniatures are toys. You play with toys, it is okay.

I have no issue admitting to playing with toys or not, but I don't categorize these things as toys. Again, it will depend on how broadly or narrowly you define toy, or if you want to use it as slang for 'anything you like*' or as a pejorative to try and insult someones maturity level.



*Someone calling a truck, or boat, a 'big boy toy' still wouldn't classify it as a toy, for example.