If anyone was worrying that the Devastators would be a rehash of the metal parts in plastic with four mismatched metal heavy weapons troopers; dont worry. The new Devastator boxset has a lot to offer, even if the price is not exactly right.

You get a sergeant with parts to show him directing fire and wearing communications gear (such as helmet antenna).

You get four ordinary 'tactical' trooper bbodies and eight heavy weapons. I call them tacticals because the heavy weapons have their own arms packs etc and are enough that you can add all eight to any tactical marines you want. Thus you get a lot more than is offered on the box.

Heavy weapons breakdown is reasonable:

two lascannon

two heavy bolters

two plasma cannon (why! - Dark Angels like them I suppose).

one missile launcher

and one multi-melta.

A couple of boxes should be enough to outfit any marine army, minimaxers might be unhappy that you dont get all lascannon, but this is not at least a terminator-box-with-one-assault-cannon ommission.

 

I wish this kit had come out years ago... Metal Lascannon Marines want nothing more than to fall on their idiot faces. And to break.

Hell, my Dark Angels still have metal Plasma Guns. Does that count as "old school" in the compressed timeline of the modern day teenager?

Interesting. That's at least a good spread o' guns. Not worth $45 to me, but a good spread.

What remains to see, is how the sprues break down. I have to assume that the Plasma Cannon, Lascannon and H Bolter are all on the same Sprue, otherwise there wouldn't be two of each.

In any case, the way the sprue breaks down has a lot of influence on the value of a kit. If you could buy just the Lascannon and H Bolter on one little sprue, for some low price, that'd be a great deal.

What's interesting to me (and is clearly an outgrowth of their bits service) is that so much of GW's 'value' is based on the secondary market. In other words, the value is not in the boxed set itself, but how easily/cheaply one can get the components from that boxed set, either from Mail Order or someplace like BWB (please don't let this turn into a flame war and shut down because I mentioned BWB)...

Methinks GW wants to get away from bits sales and go to full box sales instead. For better or worse, places like BWBits are going to be the new GW Mail Order... at least for plastic bits. Too bad there's no Heavy Flamer there. I really don't want to have to wait for a Salamanders army to be released to get one.

$45?????????

What moron is steering this ship?

And let me guess, as soon as these hit the shelves, all of the metal weapons in blisters disappear, right?

Mauleed, don't forget that those plastic devastators will provide you "endless hours of entertainment".

Priceless, isn't it?

Just kidding...

Posted By Orlanth on 02/06/2007 2:25 PM

 

one missile launcher

Couldn't see that one coming...

Wow.
It was really important that those devastators get done alright.
I mean, they haven't been re-done in what? 6 or 7 years.
Good thing GW has their prioraties straight resources wise.
*Brain Haemoragges from trying to hold back built up fury over lack of attention to non-space marine model ranges*
So yeah. Glad they're so interchangeable.

@ Mauleed

Exactly. GW has been phasing out the blister packs over the course of the year. This will be one more boxed set that wil replace the blister version.

O.K., lets see how much we really are getting the shaft.

I will use my friends former Ultramarines shooty army as an example, he had a core of 4 6-man Las/Plas Squads and 2 6-man Devestator Squads (3 Missle Launchers and 3 Heavy Bolters)

Now, I won't count the Missle Launchers as they come in Tactical Boxes. In order for him to equip his army, he needs to buy 4 Lascannons and 3 Heavy Bolter Bilsters, at 10.00 a pop he is spending 70.00 dollars minimum. In the plastics, he would have to buy two devestator sets netting him 90.00 dollars. So for him to build the list he wants, the cost of his army went up 20.00 dollars, however, he would still have one heavy bolters, two plasma cannons ,and one multi-melta.

So even though he is spending more, he is getting more, though it can be argued that spending money on uneccesary items is unfair, but what do you expect from a sprue of heavy weapons, somebody isn't getting the absolute efficient money to heavy weapons ratio.

Let's look at some numbers, these are the prices for the current metal heavy weapons (if you where to bits order the part):

Lascannon = 7.00 Dollars (10.00 in a Blister)

Heavy Bolter = 7.00 Dollars (10.00 in a Blister)

Plasma Cannon = 7.00 Dollars (10.00 in a Blister)

Multi-Melta = 7.00 Dollars (10.00 in a Blister)

So to get the contents in metal (excluding the missle launcher) you are spending 49.00 Dollars, 70.00 if you buy them all in blisters. And you still need to find a Missle Launcher!

You can safely say that this is the first time that Plastic from Games Workshop has actually net you a savings.

Though I do bemoan the loss of Blisters. I believe that that is most definately a stupid idea.

Why the hell did they put a missile launcher in the Dev sprue? Is there a shortage of them somewhere that I don't know about?

Ah, you know if they hadn't there'd be people going "WTF?Where are the missile launchers, eh?"

Posted By Mahu on 02/07/2007 7:34 AM
O.K., lets see how much we really are getting the shaft.

I will use my friends former Ultramarines shooty army as an example, he had a core of 4 6-man Las/Plas Squads and 2 6-man Devestator Squads (3 Missle Launchers and 3 Heavy Bolters)

Now, I won't count the Missle Launchers as they come in Tactical Boxes. In order for him to equip his army, he needs to buy 4 Lascannons and 3 Heavy Bolter Bilsters, at 10.00 a pop he is spending 70.00 dollars minimum. In the plastics, he would have to buy two devestator sets netting him 90.00 dollars. So for him to build the list he wants, the cost of his army went up 20.00 dollars, however, he would still have one heavy bolters, two plasma cannons ,and one multi-melta.

So even though he is spending more, he is getting more, though it can be argued that spending money on uneccesary items is unfair, but what do you expect from a sprue of heavy weapons, somebody isn't getting the absolute efficient money to heavy weapons ratio.

Let's look at some numbers, these are the prices for the current metal heavy weapons (if you where to bits order the part):

Lascannon = 7.00 Dollars (10.00 in a Blister)

Heavy Bolter = 7.00 Dollars (10.00 in a Blister)

Plasma Cannon = 7.00 Dollars (10.00 in a Blister)

Multi-Melta = 7.00 Dollars (10.00 in a Blister)

So to get the contents in metal (excluding the missle launcher) you are spending 49.00 Dollars, 70.00 if you buy them all in blisters. And you still need to find a Missle Launcher!

You can safely say that this is the first time that Plastic from Games Workshop has actually net you a savings.

Though I do bemoan the loss of Blisters. I believe that that is most definately a stupid idea.

Incorrect. What you fail to calculate is the space marines to carry the weapon.

What they should do in this instance, is simply not sel the space marines in the box, but only the dev sprue. The inlcusion of the missile launceher on the dev sprue was stupid, as tacs already come with those. but fo the sake of argument, well say that if you buy a tac squad and a dev sprue, you have enough to field 2 lascannons, 2 ML, 2 heavy bolters, 2 Plasma, 1 multimelta.

that would cost you around $55-60 for 9 marines who all have weapons, plus a guy left over, or you could pay $90 for 10 marines in two dev boxes wielding any combination derived from 4 LC, 4HB, 2ML, 4PC, 2MM.

I can already do that cheaper than $90 if I buy two dev sprues and a tac squad. That doesnt even include discounts for tac squads from online retailers. Plus, I get another ML into the final quota.

Ofcourse GW is going to pull a GW and make the marine bodies as par of the dev sprue, to truly burn you for cash.

But youre really not saving money as you still need marines to fill those unused heavy weapons that youre saying are such a deal.

If GW sticks to its standard practice, the Dev sprues won't be immediately available for bitz order. Also, to my knowledge, GW hasn't released any information on the price of those sprues - which means it might be priced to discourage consumers from doing what you suggested.

However, when the information becomes available, I'll be sure to post my "WTF?! OMFG!" comments on the ensuing thread.

ra ra ra
GW are so evil
pffft

ok, what does the current dev sqad cost?
http://store.us.games-workshop.com/storefront/store.us?do=List_Models&code=302206&orignav=300866&ParentID=255013&GameNav=10
oh look, it's $45

so, I'm getting twice as many heavy weapons, and ALL of them (multimelta) for the same price as 4 of the old tippy ones.
geeze, what a rip off, I hate getting more stuff for less money.

Right, that is why I calculated on the bitz ordered metal weapons.

To get the bare metal marineless heavy weapons without the missile launcher wil still cost you 49 dollars.

Or you can spend 45 for the exact same thing and get a Missle Launcher and five marines to carry your weapons on top of that.

Current versus new devestators is a price drop no matter how you look at it.

The downside of the loss of blisters and not able to pick and choose you heavy weapons could lead you to have to spend more money on multiple Devestator box sets and that is wrong, but you can't possible argue that the Devestator box set, for what you get, is over priced.

Yeah the dev squad box is actually an ok deal (well in the current OOT pricing scheme that GW has). The problem isn't the box itself but the eventual removal of the heavy weapon blisters. That dev box is only a decent deal if you're just creating a marine army and need a shed load of heavies. But what if your Joe shmo veteran player that just needs one heavy weapon? He's probably SOL unless he's got friends with extra bits (or he's willing to brave the interent bits trade).

It's similair to how they handled terminators.  before the new plastics, one had no problem buying individual terminators with a setup of choice.  Then came the plastic terminators and you no longer had that option.  You had to either buy a whole fricken box or an overpriced sprue with stuff you didn't need.

I for one am happy with the Devastators. Sadly I didnt get to see the sprues, just the assembled devs, I got the weapons breakdown from the blueshirt - but as it was the blueshirt that assembled the box it should be accurate.

All the Devs get a good chunky ammo backpack ammo feeds etc. The packs are slightly bigger, but as they are plastic they wont have the top heavy problems. The plasma cannon was in two pieces, so it had a hollow barrel.

Even allowing for the hamfisted modelling and painting skills of our stores local blueshirts (chimps could do better) I am fairly impressed with the miniatures. Yes I will be buying a box.

The way I look at it:

Two tactical boxset plus one Devastator boxset yields:

One Dev squad with Devastator sgt, three missile launchers and two tacticals.
Two Tactical squads with lascannon, plasma gun and four tacticals
Two Tactical squads with Tactical sergeant, heavy bolter, flamer, and three tacticals

Add a second Devastator boxset:

One Dev squad with Devastator sgt, three missile launchers and two tacticals.
One Dev squad with Devastator sgt, three heavy bolters and two tacticals.
Two Tactical squads with lascannon, plasma gun and four tacticals
Two Tactical squads with Tactical sergeant, lascannon, and four tacticals

What is short here is the plasma, not the heavy weapons.

Posted By Mahu on 02/07/2007 10:25 AM
Current versus new devestators is a price drop no matter how you look at it.

Give 'em time.  I'm sure they'll realize their mistake soon enough.

Something else I should have mentioned, I asked about the Devastators again today. There are other 'bits' on the sprues - as expected probably seals, banners etc. But the only thing that came to mind was that you do get one extra set of kneeling legs, though just the one.

Not exactly... He also gets the Sarge with the Devs, which is a model he'll need for his army, and which he'd normally have to pay for. Actually, he'd end up with the parts for three extra Marines, since the Dev boxes have five guys in them.

Not really worth $20, but just wanted to be clear.

This may have already been said, but I can't follow half of the other posts sprue mix and match.



I'd hope that you have them laying around if you're a veteran.

I fail to see the error.

According to the first poster you get:

2 Lascannons
2 Heavy Boilters
2 Plasma Cannons
1 Multi-melta
1 Missile Launcher

Break down of buying them in metal without the space marine, I.E. if you Bitz ordered just the metal pieces:

2 Lascannons @ 7.00 per Lascannon = 14.00
2 Heavy Boilters @ 7.00 per HEavy Bolter = 14.00
2 Plasma Cannons @ 7.00 per Plasma Cannon = 14.00
1 Multi-melta @ 7.00 per Multi-melta = 7.00
1 Missile Launcher (N.A.)

14 + 14 = 28 + 14 = 42 + 7 = 49.00 Dollars. The same price I quoted before.

So with the new box set you get the 2 Lascannons, 2 Heavy Boilters, 2 Plasma Cannons, 1 Multi-melta in plastic, as well as an additional Missle Launcher and 5 Space Marines for 3 dollars less.

And please Mauleed, unless you want to support your post with a fact instead of a random insult, even if I did make a mistake, you still look stupid.

The boxset is good new for anyone who doesnt minimax. You get plenty of heavy weapons. For players who believe tactical heavy weapon = lascannon and nothing else it is going to get expensive.

What we arent looked at yet are the conversion opportunities. the plasma cannon miniature is very similar to the lascannon miniature, excepting only the weapon itself, the feed and charge pack are comperable. There are plenty of ways to get lascannon barrels, two for every Razorback sprue for instance. With the miniatures being plastic conversion should be easy. Just cut down the lascannon barrel to a man portable size, cut away most of the plasma cannon gun leaving only the stock and power feed and away you go.
I would stop short on using Russ lascannon barrels though.

I am assuming you dont want plasma cannon in your squads...

I have a strange feeling that the Blue Shirt that assembled these received an extra Heavy Weapon sprue by mistake. Similar packaging errors have happened quite often in the past. I myself received enough parts to assemble two complete Rhinos in a single box once. Not to mention spare arms and bases in several blister packs.

It'd be most excellent if each Dev box does indeed include 8 heavy weapons, but that just seems more and more unlikely the more I think about it.

Only time will tell I suppose.

Pretty much every piece of data supports the 8 (or is it 9) HW per Dev box. Including the few GW sites where it's listed as a pre-order. I didn't think that it was even up for debate anymore.

So it's highly LIKELY at this point.

Ah, they're not up on the US preorder page yet. I see that the UK one confirms the contents.


Ignore me.

Posted By mauleed on 02/07/2007 4:47 AM
And let me guess, as soon as these hit the shelves, all of the metal weapons in blisters disappear, right?

Already disappeared actually (except for the Multi-melta). At least from the GW webstore. You can still bitz order the metal stuff, but I guarantee that once the plastic set comes out, those bitz will go the way of the dodo too. This is how GW gets "back to basics".

Mahu, you're so bad at math, you don't even see it.

First hint: your calculations include a reasonable person buying a multimelta devestator. Obviously all of your calculations go out the window after that.

Mauleed, yours fail to take into account Salamanders players.

 

Both of them.

I planned on making my marines Salamanders, but never got around to painting them before their fluff was eradicated. Thank the Emperor I was too lazy not to use plain grey plastic.

Actually I would have prefered to see two multi meltas and one plasma cannon. Multi meltas are good for the job, same price as a missile launcher now (Sallies used to pay 15pts) and the zone of fear 12" radius even one of these has against players with tank armies is worth missing S9 for.

Ok you are stuffed at Avatar sniping, but multi-meltas were not intended as a complete replacement of las/plas

You actually intend to field walking marines with Multi-meltas?

No point in continuing the debate further.

I bet your car has the dealer installed undercoating, and you felt it was a good deal too.

If I didn't have undercoating on my car, the fumes from the confarbulose in the asphalt would rustify it.

Mauleed, have you been even reading my posts?

Your whole arguement against me is "a reasonable person wouldn't buy a Multi-melta"? Are you stupid?

All my comments where about the value of what you are getting now versus what the Devestator Box set gives you. Which, as pointed out, is a deal. What you get versus paying for it now is a drop. There is no other way to see it. The math doesn't lie.

I even stated the downsides in my initial posts. Yes, people are getting extranious heavy wepons, and yes the loss of the heavy weapon blister is stupid.

But is a strict value of what you get in the box set, you can't leave heavy weapons that are "useless" out. Forget the game for a second and actually look at what you are getting.

And just because a foot mounted Multi-melta is useless, doesn't mean people aren't going to use it. Hell, I have seen lists that include one or two of them do real well in GT's and RTT's. I wouldn't field it, but that doesn't mean some people don't fit them into their play style won't ever find a use for them.

And beside, even if you only get 2 Lascannons, 2 Heavy Bolters, and 1 Missle Launcher out of the deal that's still roughly 50 dollars worth of heavy weapons for 45.

Look, if you can't even fully express your arguement, I don't know why anybody would take you seriously in this matter.

Mahu, you are responding to textbook Mauleed baiting. Let it go.

Am I the only one going to buy this set? I can now make a dev squad, and kit out my two tac squads with heavy bolters. Sounds alright to me.

How many vets have lascannons and heavy bolters lying around?

I would definitely buy it if I didn't already have two Marine armies. Should Space Wolves rules come out that I like, I'll probably buy some then.



I dunno, maybe not many? I used to just order the bitz for making them in sets of five or so. Then I'd use the ones I needed, and have others laying around. I figured other people had spare parts. I just find that with all the Marines I've built over the years, I have tons of extra bitz.

I have a question, and two quick points.

Can you build all five devs to hold heavys, or is the sergeant solely a sergeant? It's minor, but getting five heavies out of the box is, of course, better than merely having four.

Point 1: has anybody every considered using plasma cannons and multi-meltas as plasma guns and meltas? It wouldn't be strictly wysiwyg, but it'd look cool, and those bitz are bound to be incredibly cheap. Obviously you woulnd't want to mix the two types in one army, but it still seems like one possible use for the models.

Point 2: while math of course includes the gathering of data and the decision making rubric of what numbers to use, I think most people associate math most directly to arithmetic.

I haven't checked Mahu's arithmatic, but if he made a mistake, it's in his premises (which are essential to logic, and those, techincally math.) Deriding his math skills would be an overly broad statement.

IMO, the box presents to about 90% of gamers the followings value: 2 lascannon devs, 2 heavy bolter devs, and one sgt/Missile launcher dev, plus some interesting but essentially valueless bitz. Given a current cost of roughly $45 for that lineup with current blisters, plus a sgt or ML from a tac squad, the new box is essentially no net savings. In essence, we're trading flexibility for a minor/no savings and some new bitz. As others have pointed out, this box set is great for somebody building a complete army, but it is less good for a veteran gamer adding a single heavy weapon to an old army.

While this is certianly yet another decision by GW to favor "new" gamers over "veterans," I would wager that very few veterans depend on GW stores or mail order for their purchases. I'd further state that between online retailers, FLGS, battlewagon, and the booming secondary market, not to mention old fashioned bitz trading, Vets will have little to now difficulty gaining the exact model they want. I'll certianly miss having the blister on the wall, much like I miss the old assault weapon marine blister, but I'll roll with it heartily.

Mahu, your math sucks because you didn't compare it to just buying what you actually needed in blisters. Sure, this box is better than the crappy present devestator box. But who was buying that anyway? The same people that think multimeltas on their marines are a good idea, right?

To me the value is not in how many heavy weapons you get for the $ (even then the math is close enough that it is a non-issue), but in that they are PLASTIC.

Well it's tough to argue with that.

I redid some of my heavy weapons, and for the lascannons I used the guard ones. Ridiculously expensive, but who cares about money, right?

I don't want to put words in Maueed's mouth, but perhaps this is the point he's trying to make:
"While the Dev box may be a deal to you for its "value", it is not a "value" to me because it eliminates choice and gives me things I simply doesn't use or need."

Even free crap is still crap.

Then the problem isn't in my math, it's your opinion of what the boxed set has to offer.

I already said almost everthing you have been saying, just I wanted to actually compare the value of the box set itself. Something that you would rather dismiss, because it doesn't fit into your opinion of what you want out of it.

Besides, count all the Heavy Weapon Marines you have in your Army currently and compare how much it would cost if you built your army with the blisters or if you built it with the new Devestator box set and see what happens.

But I agree, the loss of blisters has to be the single dumbest thing that GW is moving towards. I bet the majority of money I wasted towards GW has been one-off blister purchases that I thought was just cool.

But the concept of the Devestator boxed set, and the loss of blisters are two different subjects. Though one may lead to another, is there any proof that the Heavy Weapon blisters are going the way of the dodo, or is that an assumption. I know it has been documented that GW is moving away from blisters but has it been confirmed in this situation.

I personally like the Devestator Boxed Set. I am one that goes from one army to another, so when I get around to starting a new Space Marine Army, I know that the majority of my heavy weapons purchases come down to two boxed sets.

Well I care enough that I will carry on just fine with all the metal ones I have currently. If (when) I ever start over, again, plastic all the way dog!

Posted By mauleed on 02/08/2007 6:32 AM

You actually intend to field walking marines with Multi-meltas?

No point in continuing the debate further.

i thought Mahu was your victim today Mauleed, well if he doesnt taste nice and you want to try chew something else...

1. Didn't I mention the army was to be Salamanders (it isnt now)..

2. Didn't I mention that Multi meltas are NOT a replacemernt for las/plas in general.

That aside an army with multi-melta tacticals doesnt 'suck' it just doesn't squeeze every last drop of point effectiveness. you seem to forget that their is room between the two. A marine army could afford a bit of variety without destroying its chances of winning, swapping out a lascannon for a multi-melta somewhere does not equate to doom.

Playing devils advocate here, yes you do get +d6 at short range, Ap1 and a 5pt discount, but S9 and 36" range make up for that. Back in V3.0 it was a real sacrifce to have to use multi-meltas for Sallie tacticals, but the pill has become much sweeter since with auto penetrating and the price drop.

Regardless, I would rather field three lascannon tacticals and a multi-melta than four lascannon, and probably would even if the price went back to 15pts. Because I hate boring munch two tone armies.

I think the plasma cannon models look cool too, but I draw the line on adding them to an army. Were I advocating using them you would have a valid window of complaint - and I would deserve what I get. But multi-meltas do ok by me.

Posted By Polonius on 02/08/2007 8:58 AM
I have a question, and two quick points.

Can you build all five devs to hold heavys, or is the sergeant solely a sergeant? It's minor, but getting five heavies out of the box is, of course, better than merely having four.

Point 1: has anybody every considered using plasma cannons and multi-meltas as plasma guns and meltas? It wouldn't be strictly wysiwyg, but it'd look cool, and those bitz are bound to be incredibly cheap. Obviously you woulnd't want to mix the two types in one army, but it still seems like one possible use for the models.

Think of it like a standard marine boxset. You have five marine bodies, and six pairs of legs - the extra pair are kneeling. Then you get enough shoulders and heads for the entire unit of five.

Which arms and armament you add to which is up to you. You clould make them all standard bolter tacticals (if you got the bolters that are left over from every other boxset and equip another eight marines with the weapons provided.

Assault marines have a different pose to the rest and reinforced 'harness' chestpieces. But the other power armour plastic multipose kits: Commander, tactical squad, command squad, combat squad and devastator squad boxsets are fully interchangeable.

On Point 1 - Not recommended, hough combi weapons are a good choice for this, and nobody wants to use them.

Posted By Orlanth on 02/08/2007 1:20 PM

Playing devils advocate here, yes you do get +d6 at short range, Ap1 and a 5pt discount, but S9 and 36" range make up for that. Back in V3.0 it was a real sacrifce to have to use multi-meltas for Sallie tacticals, but the pill has become much sweeter since with auto penetrating and the price drop.

Um, I'm confused. Multi-Meltas are S8 with a 24" range. When used by footsloggers, they're incredibly easy to either avoid or to eliminate from range without fear of reprisal shots. No vehicle will allow you to get into range unless your opponent is stoned or deviates badly when deepstriking/podding.

They can serve somewhat as area denial if you infiltrate them into cover, but that's about it.

Posted By blue loki on 02/08/2007 1:45 PM

Um, I'm confused. Multi-Meltas are S8 with a 24" range. When used by footsloggers, they're incredibly easy to either avoid or to eliminate from range without fear of reprisal shots. No vehicle will allow you to get into range unless your opponent is stoned or deviates badly when deepstriking/podding.

They can serve somewhat as area denial if you infiltrate them into cover, but that's about it.

Basically true but...If the paper range of 48" was the difference between shooting and not shooting noone would pay extra for 24" plasma guns. If we argue that plasma guns are anti-infantry firepower with two/three quality shots, you get the same with a multi-melta. The very way las/plas is deployed speaks against you here.

This is the essential 'truth' that makes multi-melta acceptable.

The main problem is not so much 24" range, but S8. Whicle it is technically S9 as you get the same chance to penetrate you lose the extra 1:6 glancing hit.

Short range firepower overcomes this to some extent buit as you have pointed out noone will get within 12" of a multi-melta by choice unless they have a monolith or eldar. You can play on that - which was my original point on the previous page.  The real downside to this is that most armies no longer have heavy vehicles that cross the board. Defilers sometimes try, and Land Raiders (which are rare due to their stupid price tag). Thats about it really. So a multi-melta doesnt get to play scary very often.

The other trouble is that Multi-Meltas are near useless against tough targets like Monoliths and not very good against Falcons. The stuff you'd want them against, you can't use them against.

All very interesting, but game stuff aside how about this:

Plastic is easier to work with than metal!

Yay! That alone makes me want them, just like the terminators. Furthermore: new designs are more refined than old ones, I like the precision of plastic die cut kits better than sculpted ones anyway, it makes the figures have a better proportion and standardized look. Plastic figures also travel better and wear better too.

Face it, it's a better product, be happy!

I don't care what they cost, $40, $45, $50, whatever, hobbies are expensive.

Don't underestimate the value here. The other day I was playing Tau against Marines, and the other guy had a Crusader get immobilized in a forest. Even though it wasn't going anywhere, it had a 12" radius around it, in which my Hammerheads just couldn't go. Due to the arrangement of the terrain, I really had no way of getting after his army with that two foot wide circle there.

There's no question that a Lascannon is the Marines simplest and most flexible way to kill armor, but a Multi-Melta that hits pretty much always Penetrates (or at least rolls a Pen that gets downgraded).

I don't think I'd take a MM on a Tactical squad, but it's not that far from consideration. If the rules or costs shifted somewhat, as the DA Codex does, the MM could be a useful weapon in a hurry. Think about 5 Marines sitting in a forest, assuring that you can't bring a tank within 12" of it, and probably shouldn't come within 24"?  Drop them 12" up, using one of the 35 point Rhinos, so no need to Infiltrate.

Not as good as Las/Plas, sure, but when the rules prohibit you from taking Las/Plas...

www.warseer.com/forums/showthread.php

Sprue pictures up on warseer.

Even better thasn I had hoped. Servo skulls - and all the best stuff on one sprue.

Wow folks. They put the Multi-melta and the Missile Launcher (the two HWs people need the least) on one sprue, and the Lascannons and Heavy Bolters (and oh yeah, the Plasma Cannons) on the other one. Very nice.


And even if they discontinue the blisters of HW troopers, you'd still be able to mail order them (albeit at an increased price).

And a Power Fist...

Not bad GW. Ed may not be impressed, but I am. If only you'd released this years ago.

I have to admit, that's a sharp looking kit. After the scouts I was starting to worry about GW plastics, but these are really pretty sweet. Why on earth anybody would need two plasma cannons is beyond me, but they'll make great conversion fodder (a topic that seems to have gone unmentioned.) You could build a DIY demolisher now, with plenty of MM and PC bitz for magnetized sponsons. They'll look great as battlefield rubble, and every ork player (both of them left....) have to be excited about new weapons to look. I'm going to miss the flexibility, but this is a sharp new kit.

Color me not impressed either. What is up with all the split barrels? To make them hollow? Do people no know how to use a pin vise to drill the barrels out? This kind of poor kit engineering is what baffles me. This makes me glad to have bitz ordered the LC & HB bitz I wanted instead of waiting for this... kit to come out.

I do like the extra bitz and wut nots on the ML/MM sprue, but not enough to get over a) the sticker shock b) craptacular multi part gun barrels (wtf?) c) that it's GW plastic riddled with unsightly injection pins and poor molding. d) death of being able to order exactly what you want instead of paying for extra options you never asked for.

Posted By nyarlathotep667 on 02/08/2007 10:04 PM
Color me not impressed either. What is up with all the split barrels? To make them hollow? Do people no know how to use a pin vise to drill the barrels out? This kind of poor kit engineering is what baffles me. This makes me glad to have bitz ordered the LC & HB bitz I wanted instead of waiting for this... kit to come out.

I do like the extra bitz and wut nots on the ML/MM sprue, but not enough to get over a) the sticker shock b) craptacular multi part gun barrels (wtf?) c) that it's GW plastic riddled with unsightly injection pins and poor molding. d) death of being able to order exactly what you want instead of paying for extra options you never asked for.

You're complaining about having to glue barrels together? I'm sorry but IMO that seems pretty trite. Yes, they could have included them as a single piece without a hollow barrel, but why not do them this way so we don't *have* to drill them out (plastic moulding requires separate pieces if you want an interior hollow area)? I think its a whole lot easier to glue to pieces together than it is to drill out a barrel.

It's become pretty clear that you're so jaded with GW at this point they'd have to send a Thai hooker over to your house along with the new box set for you to be impressed by it.

(High GW price aside) I personally think this is a fantastic new release for Marine players.

 

Posted By Cpl_Saint on 02/08/2007 4:53 AM

Mauleed, yours fail to take into account Salamanders players.

Why would a Salamanders player take a multi-melta instead of a meltagun?  To make it easier to not blow up tanks?

Posted By Mahu on 02/08/2007 7:12 AM
But is a strict value of what you get in the box set, you can't leave heavy weapons that are "useless" out.

Why not?  Suppose I sell turds for $10 per lb.  I also sell cookies for $1 each.  But now I stop selling them separately and only sell cookie-turd combo box sets (2 lbs of turds and 5 cookies) for $20 each.  That's a savings of $5 (20% off)!  What a deal!!!!

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that this box set isn't a (relatively) good deal IF you need 2 lascannons, 2 heavy bolters, and a missile launcher - just that your argument is dumb.  What's the difference between paying $X for something completely useless and losing $X?

Of course I fully expected this box set to include just 1 lascannon, 1 heavy bolter, 1 plasma cannon, and 1 multi-melta for $50, so this is certainly a pleasant surprise.  And they didn't even try any shenanigans with the arms to make it impossible to combine the extra heavy weapons with the tac squad box - I'm impressed.  Maybe they've finally decided that, though it might be fun, constantly searching for new and innovative ways to treat their customers like crap is not good business?

Posted By Polonius on 02/08/2007 9:57 PM
Why on earth anybody would need two plasma cannons is beyond me, but they'll make great conversion fodder (a topic that seems to have gone unmentioned.)

 

Unmentioned. Are you sure?

Posted By yakface on 02/08/2007 10:23 PM

You're complaining about having to glue barrels together? I'm sorry but IMO that seems pretty trite. Yes, they could have included them as a single piece without a hollow barrel, but why not do them this way so we don't *have* to drill them out (plastic moulding requires separate pieces if you want an interior hollow area)? I think its a whole lot easier to glue to pieces together than it is to drill out a barrel.

It's become pretty clear that you're so jaded with GW at this point they'd have to send a Thai hooker over to your house along with the new box set for you to be impressed by it.

(High GW price aside) I personally think this is a fantastic new release for Marine players.

 

Excuse me? Yes, I am complaining about having to glue barrels together: it creates a seams that look like crap, are a pain the arse to sand so the barrels look round, and add yet another peice that has to have GW's excessive flash and mold lines cleaned off. It's unnecessary, poorly designed and, in my opinion, utter crap. The metal ones, for all their flaws, will still be easier to clean, pin and assemble than these, and cheaper! (to get what you want, at least).

And yeah, I'm so jaded I'd need a Thai hooker to be impressed. Please get over yourself Yak, tossing out insults is rather unbecoming of you.
 

That split barrel would have to cause the most difficult seam in the world to file to become more difficult to work with than the old metal devastators. If you prefer to work with the metal, that's fine, but I'm guessing the vast majority of gamers are going to have an easier time working with the plastic than with the old metals, which had to be pinned, puttied, and still looked cock-eyed or tipped over half the time. Clearly, if you have a preference, you have a preference and that's fine.

To Orlanth: I wasn't sure, and if it was mentioned than my bad. Of course, "but you can do crazy conversions to your Speed Freak army" shoudln't be the major selling point to a new kit, it's not a factor you can ignore. Look at the new IG heavy weapon boxes: people use those heavy weapons for tons of stuff these days. Bitz, even intiially useless ones, have a positive value to the hobby in general, even if not to every buyer of the kit.

It seems that reaction to the box set has split neatly into two lines:
1) While I'm not wild about the price, the box set seems to have a good enough mix of content and sculpt quality to make it a useful kit for space marine players.

2) Those who dread losing the flexibility of buying single heavy weapons, and not being roped into buying what they see as an unneccassary $45 kit.

I was in the second camp, but I came around when I actually saw the kit (which exceeded my admittedly low expections.) I recognize your guys point though, and I think it's valid; however I think it's going to be easier to work around than we think. A quick search on ebay will usually pull up all kinds of OOP blisters, I don't thinke marine Lascannons are going to disappear.

I think that is a poor example, and an over reaction opinion.

The value of the object is usually the components of it. What you are essentially argueing is that a 6-pack has an unfair price because you only need 4 cans of beer. Sure, if you really needed 4 cans of beer, you are better off with a system that allows you to purchase Beer individually. But that doesn't affect the value and relative worth of the Six pack.

Exxentially, your opinion of what is useful out of the kit should have no bearing to an arguement of what you get from the kit for the price it costs.



If you where assembling your weapons by throwing the relative bits into a bag with the glue and shaking real hard, you may have a point.

Most of the Plastic Kits that are availible, nobody have any problems with situations like this. It takes one second of patience to make sure you glue the pieces together acurately. GW is good at creating matching groves to make alinement easy enough. With the Metal Heavy Weapons, you had to go through a lot of metal to get hollow barrells. Something that most players don't even care about doing.



The way a lot of people have been posting in this thread, I tend to agree with Yakface.

You almost expect Games Workshop to come out with a kit just for your exact needs at half the price with the Thai hooker, you you will still complain about her hair color.

Posted By nyarlathotep667 on 02/09/2007 12:28 AM

Excuse me? Yes, I am complaining about having to glue barrels together: it creates a seams that look like crap, are a pain the arse to sand so the barrels look round, and add yet another peice that has to have GW's excessive flash and mold lines cleaned off. It's unnecessary, poorly designed and, in my opinion, utter crap. The metal ones, for all their flaws, will still be easier to clean, pin and assemble than these, and cheaper! (to get what you want, at least).

Nyarly has a point about split barrels.  I had lots of trouble getting my earthshaker barrel to line up without using gobs of plastic glue and a lot of filing, so god knows what it  would be like on something small and fiddy.

On the other hand, I perfer the plastic bits to the metal ones for gameplay (due to non tipping)and transport concerns.

Plastic kits - even GW's highly touted "advanced process" generally produce an inferior offering compared to metal due to having larger, less fine detail and lack of undercuts.  I was looking at the new "Ranger" plastic LOTR kit and it is clearly inferior in every way to the metal ones (except price - obviously).  While this is no an issue for Marines (or most of the 40k releases), this seems to be a bad trend for Fantasy and LOTR.

-edit- Yak... while you're giving out Thai hookers... can you send one this way? 

We all remember these aren't real, right? Whereas Thai hookers, while uncommon in Washington DC, are a staple of Cantonese cuisine.

Wait, what?

From a modeling perspective, I'm not a fan of split barrels. You get alignment problems very easily, especially if the sprue's been warped (not necessarily from the factory; could be from whatever outrageous fortunes the sprue encounters before being chopped up into lovely dollies). There's a reason that model kit builders often turn to turned/milled white metal gun barrels for their scale tanks; it saves them endless filing, filling and sanding to get something that looks 'meh'. Especially disappointing since the IG HW sprues had solid weapon barrels (for the most part).

Perhaps a minor point, and there are plenty of other greebles to make people happy, but with an army like SMs, where I'm going to have a relatively low model count, I want each of my figs to look good, and I'd rather not spend hours cleaning up unnecessary roughness...

split barrels = bad.
But it just means more time having to file and scrape, the drudgery of which is something I am all to familar with. In GW's defense though, I think they did that so the customer can have predrilled bores in the barrels, a thing customers have been complaing about for years.

A minor thing to drill them out yourself, true, but it does show a little initiative.

All in all, I would have preffered non split barrels.

The best news to me is that the good sprue is seperate from the crap sprue. I dont think I need to say which is which.

That just means making this thing even cheaper to do right by buying that sprue seperatly.

I must admit though that there are some really nifty gubbinz on the crap sprue though. I am in love with the haloed servo skulls. Plus, GW finally made a hopper for the missiles of the missile launcher.

I just wish GW had invested in slide moulding when they updated their plastics-making process. Then this debate would be moot and we'd get hollowed-out barrels in one-piece weapons.

In my experience it's not that hard to sand, and there would be a mold line in the same place that would need sanding anyway if it wasn't a two piece. For example, the Falcons I just finished have a seam all along the top and bottome of the of the Pulse Laser which had to be cleaned up.

I've certainly built kits that were shoddy enough that these sorts of joins would be a major pain, but none of them were GW kits. I've found the fit of GW plastic kits to be pretty universally good.



I dunno... The metal ones are the hardest infantry kits to deal with in GW's line, as far as I've seen. They never fit together right, they invariably require pinning, green stuff, and they're still fragile.



Maybe the problem is that you're using gobs of plastic glue? Use liquid glue, use it sparingly, use clamps if you need to, and everything GW makes will go together smoothly (in my experience). If you can get a little beaded seamline of plastic to form, and you let it dry for a day, it will sand down perfectly smooth with a little hand file.

Sometimes it helps to anchor it with some super glue inside and out of sight. This is more useful inside the hull of vehicles though.

OK, after having seen the pictures of the sprue, and from 20 years of modeling experience, I have to say...

They are  incredible! Put the Bilaterally divided barrel issue to bed gentlemen.

There is a reason to do the bilaterally divided barrel that is clever.  It allows for a hollowed out barrel when divided in two like that, with nothing more than casual assembly, competative modeleres have always drilled the barrels.  Furthermore, the entire length of the las cannon is NOT bilaterally divided!  Making it clever, even a modeler who does a poor job of cleaning the mold lines will be able to have an atractive figure, and they wont even have to drill the ends out.

For the record, drilling the ends out of large bore barrels is harder than lining up bilaterally symetric divided barrels.

It is a very clever well desinged kit sprue!

It even contains all the best heavy weapons on a sprue, superb, and the junk on another, thats really outstanding! Every iterations of new 40k platics shows a new level in innovation and design, look at the density on the tree, lots of content, less blank tree.

Also devastator models were $10, so 5 should be $50, and a player will still get extra material for heavy weapons with this box set at a lower price point.

In summary, all the criticisms hold no water, modelers perspective, price point, or content.  It's amazing and the contrary opinions are empty bellied grumblings.

New Dev Squads are surely on the horizon! Imagine how well this will fit into HQ squads who can take a pair of heavy weapons!  A roll I have long thought under exploited by players in the marine dex, the pair in this box will be ideal! 2 Las, got it, 2 HBolter Got it, those are the best combos, excellent.

I like the split barrels. Yes, it can take work but most model companies do it. I like it better overall.

We still also don't know what GW's final scheme is. You may still be able to get the heavy weapon blisters, but have to order them from the store. We know they are trying to cut down on the space retailers have to use for GW's products, but we don't know what the final look will be. Yet again people getting bent out of shape without knowing all the information. But yes, this is the Internet....

Posted By Phryxis on 02/09/2007 8:04 AM

Maybe the problem is that you're using gobs of plastic glue? Use liquid glue, use it sparingly, use clamps if you need to, and everything GW makes will go together smoothly (in my experience). If you can get a little beaded seamline of plastic to form, and you let it dry for a day, it will sand down perfectly smooth with a little hand file.

The purpose behind "gobs" of plastic glue was to eliminate any gap filling.  Due to warpage of the earthshaker sprue, it was faster to gob up the glue and sand rather than clamp shut, then putty, then sand. 

Mabye I assume too much when I expected every competent modeller to give their model a quick once over with the sanding stick after construction to clean up joins.

Getting back on track - the sprues look pretty good.  And seeing how they go together, there shouldn't be too much effort needed to make them look good.

Posted By Augustus on 02/09/2007 8:43 AM

For the record, drilling the ends out of large bore barrels is harder than lining up bilaterally symetric divided barrels.

For the record, your still going to have to drill it out a bit so that it appears to be a hole, and not a jagged entrance.

But Ii do agree that it is difficult to drill a hole, of any size, to make sure it is centered properly. At the very least, the centering is done for you, so all you have to do is just a minior drilling to clean up and smooth out the hole.

Posted By Hellfury on 02/09/2007 7:02 AM

The best news to me is that the good sprue is seperate from the crap sprue. I dont think I need to say which is which.

That just means making this thing even cheaper to do right by buying that sprue seperatly.

I recall from another thread that GW will no longer let you order the Dreadnought arms sprue (since it would let you make interchangeable arms for your old metal or Forge World Dreads), nor will they let you order the Carnifex body sprue (since it would let you make multiple full Carnies from buying just 1 regular Carnie box).  I wouldn't plan on ordering that plastic Lascannon sprue any time soon.  Or, well, ever.

Good deal? Value? On what bizzaro world is nine dollars per unassembled, unpainted, mass produced, one-inch-tall platic sculpture a bargain? You are looking at a dollar's worth of plastic and cardboard, seeing a $45 dollar price tag. You should not be nodding favourably. You should be insulted. Living with GW's policies and prices so long has numbed you to the reality of the situation- an actual good deal is when you get the figure for less than half of that, and it's packaged in a delicious milk chocolate egg.

Sure, the new devestators kit does compare favourably in value to the old metal set when examined in a certain light. But don't pretend for one second that the new arrangement isn't a horrendous ripoff on par with designer t-shirts, printer cartridges, and disposable four-blade razors.

Why is everyone assuming the price will be $45 US?  There has not been anything out there saying that as far as I can see.  People are just going by the old price and assuming no change.  The one place that actually has a price for the new set, Game Trade #84, has it is listed at $35.

So we are looking at ten dollars less than the old set, more weapons, cooler bits including those nifty servo skulls, and all plastic weapons!  Seems like a winner all around to me.

Posted By Triggerbaby on 02/09/2007 11:26 AM
Good deal? Value? On what bizzaro world is nine dollars per unassembled, unpainted, mass produced, one-inch-tall platic sculpture a bargain? You are looking at a dollar's worth of plastic and cardboard, seeing a $45 dollar price tag. You should not be nodding favourably. You should be insulted. Living with GW's policies and prices so long has numbed you to the reality of the situation- an actual good deal is when you get the figure for less than half of that, and it's packaged in a delicious milk chocolate egg.

Sure, the new devestators kit does compare favourably in value to the old metal set when examined in a certain light. But don't pretend for one second that the new arrangement isn't a horrendous ripoff on par with designer t-shirts, printer cartridges, and disposable four-blade razors.

what?...  milk chocolate!!!  where... and how many little plastic army dudes do I get in a egg for $22.50.

Posted By jdp on 02/09/2007 11:58 AM

Why is everyone assuming the price will be $45 US?  There has not been anything out there saying that as far as I can see.  People are just going by the old price and assuming no change.  The one place that actually has a price for the new set, Game Trade #84, has it is listed at $35.

So we are looking at ten dollars less than the old set, more weapons, cooler bits including those nifty servo skulls, and all plastic weapons!  Seems like a winner all around to me.

http://uk.games-workshop.com/storefront/store.uk?do=Individual&code=99120101053&orignav=9

They're listed as £20.00 GBP on the GW UK preorder page. That currently converts to $39.33 USD, if the price does not undergo some sort of additional regional shift (as they tend to do with GW). I'm not sure where the $45 came from.

Meh... My entry path into GW games was from building scale models, so construction is the least of my concerns. Since GW's models are entirely imaginary, they tend to be easy to build. Real world vehicles have much worse fit problems in my experience.

After building model aircraft, filling the seams on the wing roots with putty, sanding with wet paper for an hour, then having to re-scribe in the panel lines that were sanded off... Well, dealing with GW kits seems very simple to me.

As far as the Earthshaker goes, I wouldn't ever use gobs of plastic cement, it just makes things harder on you in the long run. I'd suggest working on removing the warping, sanding down the pieces so they fit better, testing the fit until it's clean, then gluing with sparing amounts of liquid cement. In fact, I wouldn't use any sort of plastic cement besides the liquid, the thicker gel stuff is worthless, really. You want the join to be tight enough that the liquid will wick in on its own. If you end up with gaps, cyanoacrylate (superglue) is a good filling compound, and dries quickly, I'd recommend it over green stuff for most jobs.



Yeah, but what do you use to strip chocolate?

Posted By Phryxis on 02/09/2007 12:33 PM


Yeah, but what do you use to strip chocolate?

Your tongue.

Posted By yakface on 02/08/2007 10:23 PM

(High GW price aside) I personally think this is a fantastic new release for Marine players.

I have to agree with Yak in full here.  Two lascannons and two heavy bolters on one sprue is pretty exceptional.  Missile Launchers are common enough, and two boxes of devs will gear up a fairly routine marine army pretty effectively.  And in plastic, they're nice and easy to convert (which, as a Chaos player is great, as I loathe the metal havocs).

Posted By Phryxis on 02/09/2007 8:04 AM
Use liquid glue, use it sparingly, use clamps if you need to, and everything GW makes will go together smoothly (in my experience).

Except the current metal/plastic Marine Heavy Bolter model - the hands do not join up. The reason I will be buying a Dev Boxed set is to get two more HB models that don't have any metal in them.

BYE

Right, many of the old Dev models had this problem. I am speaking strictly about their all plastic kits, particularly vehicles.

Posted By Mahu on 02/09/2007 6:31 AM
I think that is a poor example, and an over reaction opinion.

The value of the object is usually the components of it. What you are essentially argueing is that a 6-pack has an unfair price because you only need 4 cans of beer. Sure, if you really needed 4 cans of beer, you are better off with a system that allows you to purchase Beer individually. But that doesn't affect the value and relative worth of the Six pack.

Exxentially, your opinion of what is useful out of the kit should have no bearing to an arguement of what you get from the kit for the price it costs.

I'm sorry, but that argument is insanely idiotic.  If 2 lbs of human feces is not worth $20 to me then I don't buy it.  But if I want cookies and the only way to get them is to spend $20 for $5 worth of cookies and 2 lbs of poopoo then what do I do?  I can't get my $5 of cookies unless I agree to spend an extra $15 for 2 lbs of crap that I don't want!

Your logic is flawed because you are comparing the unneccessary packaging of unrelated things (in terms of use, unless you like eating feces, I don't judge) to a customizable kit that acomplishes one thing, giving you plastic heavy weapons.

Whether or not you need every heavy weapon in the box set doesn't make those heavy weapons inherently useless. Like I said before, believe it or not but some people use Multi-meltas and Plasma Cannons. Should GW not include those heavy weapons just because you find them useless? Are you not going to buy a car with built-in powered windows because you just love to hand crank windows so much?

The bottom line is that any massed produced kit of multiples of anything will always fail to meet the exact specific needs of every consumer on the planet. That is why any arguement over what you feel is the worth of something is illogical, for the very fact that it is just based upon your opinion. Your opinion cannot be quantified so has no place in a reasonable arguement.

The real discussion of worth will be determined by overall consumer opinion of the bowed set. To say that the kit doesn't have it's benefits is ludricous. You essentially get more heavy weapons for less, said heavy weapons are easier to handle, and you increase the conversion possibilities in a multiple of line. Not to mention the fact that the quantities that you get of each heavy weapon does make building a Space Marine Army rather easy and still build said army in a competitve way.

Furthermore, nobody has confirmed that the Blisters are going away. The only thing I have seen is Mauleed's bitter first post in this thread (Mauleed is the Joseph McArther of Dakka, apparently), Now I may be proven wrong, but what if Blisters stay the same. Does that magically make this box set better?

Bottom line, you are either going to like the set or not. Nobody is forcing you to by them. If you really need that one Heavy Weapon, even with the loss of blisters, there are still other outlets to get one. The metal will still be availible, at the least, as a classic figure.

No, I'll second Doobie on this - your argument Mahu is inherently flawed.

But I'll fix your example Mahu, but I'll use beer rather than poop like Doobie did:

Say I like a particular type of imported premium beer. I can go to a store and buy this beer whenever I like. The only come as singles, not in cases or 6-packs, but I don't mind. Then, the company that makes the beer decides it is going to make 6-packs of this beer, but only 2 cans in there will be the beer I like. There will be another two of a different variety that I don't drink, and one each of a lower grade beer. At the same time, the company takes all the single cans off shelves, meaning that if I want my premium beer, I have to buy the other four cans to get it.

That's what GW is doing with the plastic heavy weapons. Yeah, plastic HW's is nice, but the trade off is we can never buy a singular item of what we want - we have to buy the other types of beer we don't drink to get it.

BYE

Posted By Mahu on 02/09/2007 8:20 PM
Now I may be proven wrong, but what if Blisters stay the same. Does that magically make this box set better?

Stop being intentionally obtuse Mahu. Of course keeping metal blisters makes this box better. It means that when I've equipped a Marine army by buying two Dev Boxes, and then suddenly realise that I need a 5th Lascannon, I don't have to buy another $50 boxed set to get the single Lascannon.

BYE

And you are still working on the assumption that no single heavy weapon packs will be available at all. We don't know this for sure now. What we have is a heavy weapon box for stores. They are trying to make it so stores don't have to use up as much retail space for product. It may be that we have to order singles from GW. Until we know the whole picture it is wrong to jump to these conclusions and so the argument is flawed on that very basis.

Posted By Toreador on 02/09/2007 8:51 PM
And you are still working on the assumption that no single heavy weapon packs will be available at all. We don't know this for sure now.

Of course we don't. That's why I said, right above your post Toreador, that if the blisters hang around after the box is released, then the argument is moot. The box is useful, but if you want a single Lascannon you don't have to buy the box.

My argument against Mahu's flawed beer example still stands.

BYE

In the US all of the single blisters are gone (or will soon be). The Multi Melta Devastator is the only one currently available separate from the $45 USD box set in the GWUS Online Store, though it appears the GWUK Online Store still offers the all of options in separate blisters (though who knows for how long). GWUS has a history of removing or making difficult to obtain prior metal versions of figures some plastic kit is replacing. Try finding the metal scouts on the GWUS site (hint: you can't), though GWUK still lists them in the main Space Marine section of their online store. Once released I'd bet dollars to donuts GWUS pulls all the metal figs off the live site..

As to the ridiculous concept that split barrels are better than solid cast ones... why do you think there is a huge range of aftermarket turned metal or cast gun barrels for historical kits? It sure isn't because the split barrels most kits come with are superior or easier to assemble flawlessly. Now, not only does one have the same seams to file and fill on the outside, but there are new, nigh impossible seams on the inside diameter to fill, which will require filling with putty and then drilling out with a pin vise (ie: more work).

What's more, where are you people hearing complaints about drilling out the barrels? How hard is that? It's a very, very basic modeling technique that is both simple AND easy, all you do is use a pin vise to drill 1-2mm deep... If there is a legit complaint, it resides only with the las cannon and it's angled and nested barrel, something GW could have easily made one separate piece molded perpendicular to the sprue (ie: similar how the missile launcher is done). The rest... it just baffles the mind why the heavy bolter, multi melta and plasma cannon have split barrels when a solid piece would have been much better.

Because in injection molding flatter=better. And 2 halves of a tube is much flatter than a tube!

Never mind that there is very little reason they couldn't have simply done barrels separately as a *solid* tube with an indentation at one end () rather than a full tube. "Advanced" modelers would then have a place to start drilling and newblets could just paint the inner part black.

Actually, the true reason appears to be that GW is run by partially brain dead monkeys.

Posted By Abadabadoobaddon on 02/09/2007 7:41 PM
I'm sorry, but that argument is insanely idiotic.  If 2 lbs of human feces is not worth $20 to me then I don't buy it.  But if I want cookies and the only way to get them is to spend $20 for $5 worth of cookies and 2 lbs of poopoo then what do I do?  I can't get my $5 of cookies unless I agree to spend an extra $15 for 2 lbs of crap that I don't want!

While I understand your and (Mauleeds point) by this you are hardly being fair. This boxset is hardly a load of crap with one or two good bits in, more like the other way around.

The boxset offers five marines, one sergeant and four heavy weapons. Even if we allow that you only ever wanted lascannon and heavy bolters that is what you get. The other weapons are just extra. As you will need a sergeant somewhere, even if you dont want them as Devastators there is no loss there.

So in a worst case compare the deal against four metal Devastators. Over here that would cost £16, against £20. $40 against c$45. add the sergeant and you break even.

thats your cookies.

Now for the 'poo'.

Missile launcher - if you dont have lots of tactical boxsets you might not yet have enough for a full missile launcher Dev squad.

Missile launcher loading arm. Mentioned seperately as you dont need to add it (most missile launcher troops dont have one). Personally I wouldnt use it as it would cause the other missile Devs to look incomplete and because bolter Devs seem to make sense more as loaders/ammo carriers than pure bullet shields. What the loading arm is best used for is for a techmarine conversion.

Servo skulls. You wouldnt necessarily rush off and buy them on their own, but its nice to get some.

Multi-melta. Probably fluffy Salamanders only. Howl as much as you want, I found my token multi-melta to be a decent weapon and more soulful than a boring min/max army of lascannon. I will be happy to replace my metal multi-melta that I had from my Salamanders tactical boxset. I wouldnt take more than the one.

Plasma cannon. The real problem in the list. GW is on an 'any weapon that has Ap2 blast has a lot going for it' brainfart. Somehow they believe we cannot get enough of them. Even were I to build fluffy Dark Angels I would draw a line before including one of these stupid worthless overpriced suicide guns. They belong on Demolishers.

 

My complaints over pricing are my complaints over ALL GW pricing. The whole hobby is too expensive, but if you have decided to pay for an army of Space Marines - GW are by no means especially screwing you over with this boxset. 

UNless you need a third or 5th lascannon....then shell out $50ish....instead of $10.

THey took away choice. THat is a problem.

Posted By Mahu on 02/09/2007 8:20 PM
Whether or not you need every heavy weapon in the box set doesn't make those heavy weapons inherently useless.

Actually yes, it kind of does.  I don't care if someone else finds them useful.  What good does that do me (or them)?  Afterall, I can't use them and someone else can't readily use my heavy weapons can they?  If the heavy weapons that come in my box set are useless to me, then guess what?  They're useless.

Posted By Mahu on 02/09/2007 8:20 PM
Like I said before, believe it or not but some people use Multi-meltas and Plasma Cannons. Should GW not include those heavy weapons just because you find them useless? Are you not going to buy a car with built-in powered windows because you just love to hand crank windows so much?

Well good for those people.  Unfortunately they aren't subsidising my purchase.  And even if I go through the hassle of reselling, there is fairly low demand for the bits in question so I'm not probably going to get $7 for my multi-meltas.  I guess there are other people who don't think they're worth $7 either, eh?  But if you think multi-meltas are worth $7 then does that mean you're willing to buy everyone's left-over multi-meltas?  Hell, I'm sure even if you lowered your offer to $3 per multi-melta you'd still get a lot of takers.  I'll put the word out.

And I never said that GW shouldn't include multi-meltas or plasma cannons in the box.  What I said was that "bundling" them with the other weapons forces people to buy them in order to get said other weapons.

Your cost/benefit analysis naively assumes that a every weapon has an equal inherent value since GW sets their prices equally.  But that's just not the case.  Just because GW (or you) think that a multi-melta is worth $7 doesn't make it so.  A person might value lascannons at $10 each and multi-meltas at $0 each.  While that person previously had the option of simply buying the lascannon and not buying the multi-melta, they no longer have that option.

In fact, a person might value one lascannon at $10 and an additional lascannon at $0.  But now he can't buy just one lascannon for $10.  Ultimately anyone who doesn't need lascannons, heavy bolters, plasma cannons, and multi-meltas in a 2:2:2:1 ratio is going to be left with weapons they don't want.

Posted By Mahu on 02/09/2007 8:20 PM
To say that the kit doesn't have it's benefits is ludricous. 

I never said the kit doesn't have benefits.  I just said your argument is ridiculous.

 

Posted By Toreador on 02/09/2007 8:51 PM
And you are still working on the assumption that no single heavy weapon packs will be available at all. We don't know this for sure now.

Well I'm going to go out on a limb here and make a prediction: no, they will not be available.  I base this on the following considerations:

1. The old heavy weapon blister included a plastic marine torso and legs.  But the recut the plastic tac marine sprue does not lend itself to cutting up and packaging individual plastic parts.  It's not reasonable to expect them to continue to produce the old plastic sprues in addition to the new ones just so they can continue to use them for "legacy" models.
2. After the initial investment for the dies, plastic is cheaper to produce than metal.  Why would they continue to produce metal parts when practically identical parts are available in plastic?

If the old metal parts are available at all they will be only available as loose bits.  The result?  Bits markup + "classic" model markup + shipping and handling = a lot more expensive.  And it's not certain they will bother to provide the old metal parts as bits at all since not only are the plastics similar if not identical in design, but they superior in many ways (eg, better fitting, better balanced, easier to convert).

There's also the possibility that they won't provide the new heavy weapon sprue for bits orders.  They have a track record of not making high-demand sprues available for order (eg, carnifex body sprue, dreadnought sprue)

And of course this all of this is predicated on the assumption that they will continue do bits orders in general.

 

Posted By Orlanth on 02/10/2007 5:06 AM
While I understand your and (Mauleeds point) by this you are hardly being fair. This boxset is hardly a load of crap with one or two good bits in, more like the other way around.

I agree.  But that's just my personal assessment of the contents.  If all I wanted were lascannons I wouldn't feel the same way.  My point was that things like lascannons and multi-meltas have no objective inherent value.  It's the individual who decides what something is worth to them.

Does this mean GW should make lascannons available in separate blisters?  Well, that depends on which is more profitable.  If all I wanted was a purity seal then the tac marine box set would be full of absolutely useless crap.  Does that mean GW should make purity seals available in separate blisters?

Something we havent really addressed:

1. People seem satisfied with plastic tacticals so far with one of each special and a missile launcher. The missile launchers are seperated for Devastators, metal devastators were bought as tactical heavy and the excess special weapons went in the bits box.
Now manty people would not have enough plasma for their min/max tactical squads, but in all honesty we have been able to make do quite nicely for the most part.

2. Dont think of it as a Devastator box, except when buying one, or talking about it here to avoid confusion. The only Devastator miniature in the boxset is the sergeant - and even then he could just as well be a sergeant of a different squad. You should look at the box as part of the whole - directly alongside the tactical and command sprues and decide what goes where. You will soon notice just how much redundancy there is in every boxset - which should not be seen as waste, but options.

3. Remember when Dreadnoughts came out in plastic, noone was happy because there were no twin-linked autocannon. You could either have the overpriced twin-linked lascannon, or the assault cannon that every knew was totally useless. Everyone also knew noone would possibly want an assault cannon unless to field a minimum priced close combat dread (non Blood Angel style). Is this still true? Do assault canon dreads still appear worthless today?
Maybe when SM redux comes along, if it comes along, plasma cannon could be fixed. Maybe even just for space marines. They may get circuit breakers, points reduction and or the blast template rules could be changed. Who knows by next year or the year after players may be scrambling to upgrade their tac squads with new improved plasma cannon.

4. The plastic SM kits being produced today are part of a once-over that replaces in time all current SM material with plastic. Chapter specific items will be on chapter sprues added to generic kits. It IS a viable and quality way forward. Who knows where it will lead. GW have the option to make chapters very different giving them favoured weapons - and compensations if the favoured weapon is not the one you most often see.

In before lock!

What, too soon?

Posted By Orlanth on 02/10/2007 6:34 AM
3. Remember when Dreadnoughts came out in plastic, noone was happy because there were no twin-linked autocannon. You could either have the overpriced twin-linked lascannon, or the assault cannon that every knew was totally useless. Everyone also knew noone would possibly want an assault cannon unless to field a minimum priced close combat dread (non Blood Angel style). Is this still true? Do assault canon dreads still appear worthless today?
Maybe when SM redux comes along, if it comes along, plasma cannon could be fixed. Maybe even just for space marines. They may get circuit breakers, points reduction and or the blast template rules could be changed. Who knows by next year or the year after players may be scrambling to upgrade their tac squads with new improved plasma cannon.

Sadly, I think youre right.

Originally we have lots of options. Then they make a sprue that has less options. Then they redo the rules to fit in with the plastic models.

"Whoops! We didnt put it two of each weapon on the termie sprue! Whoops! We didnt put a twinlinked autocannon on the dread sprue! Whoops! Well we arent going to spend more money to retool the model molds to fit in with the rules, well just make the rules fit in with the models" etc.

It kinda makes me wonder if they can make a good ruleset when basing the rules off of models and not the other way around. But then again, this is no suprise tactic GW is doing either.

Or perhaps due to their production and design schedule, their models are made with the new rules in mind and you just don't see the new rules yet.

Posted By Wayfarer on 02/10/2007 11:28 AM
Or perhaps due to their production and design schedule, their models are made with the new rules in mind and you just don't see the new rules yet.

yeah.....I dont think so.

Do you honestly think that they made the dreadnought with the 4th ed rules in mind to be implementd 4 years later? or the termies where they make the rules, then make the models that dont fit with them, then make more rules 2 years later?


You seriously have to be *fudge*ing kidding me right?

If that were true, we would be seeing considerably tighter rules for their games. i think you give them faaaaar more credit than they could ever hope of deserving. Even game companies with airtight rules like MTG dont forsee production in terms of half of a decade.

You underestimate the power of the secret design technique named 'accident.'

No Hellfury they dont.

The biggest proof they dont comes with Razorbacks. The original oficial kit had lascannon and twin linked plasma. The latest Codex dovetailed to the sprue removed that option, thus voiding old stock.
I could image dropping turret options they never produced, but they also void options they did and no longer directly cover.

Saying that part of the attempt at getting back to basics is to include all the options you can in the plastic kits. This helps in two way. First by keeping pace with current options. Even if noone ever uses a plasma cannon from the boxset GW are keeping faith with us by not removing the option to do so through their boxsets. Second they keep their options open for future versions of the game.

I dont think there is any plan to fix plasma cannon, but they could do so. With dread arms they have painted themselves into a corner. Possibly why Dark Angel dreads have plasma cannon and multi melta arm options. Only guessing here, but maybe that sprue will not be chapter specific - Dark Angel bits might just be icons they could add on. This in turn opens up SM Redux to include those weapons back as options - and so on.

I can forgive GW if metal dreads are phased out, the company needs to head towards plastic only armies for solid financial reasons. Eventually metal parts will be reserved for characters and limited edition models. As the companies most important and lucrative line starting with Space Marines makes sense. By providing two lascannon and two heavy bolters as standard it proves that someone there is listening to the customers. Not too long ago GW would have provided just one of those weapon sprues - and we know it. However GW is a large dinosaur, while the model development teram is listening the bean counters continue to whistle away.

Posted By Orlanth on 02/10/2007 12:40 PM
No Hellfury they dont.

First of all, they dont..."what"?  What is it exactly that they dont do?

I ask because I wish to reply further, but want to know what hell tell youre talking about.

Posted By Iorek on 02/10/2007 7:11 AM
In before lock!

What, too soon?

Why would a livley conversation/debate that hasn't degenerated into name-calling be closed Iorek?

Or are you just trying to be clever?

BYE

"Do you honestly think that they made the dreadnought with the 4th ed rules in mind to be implementd 4 years later?"

"No Hellfury they dont."

But basically a comment - agreeing with you concerning your response to Wayfarer. The treatment we got over Razorbacks is the proof that the dont so much as plan ahead as cut/paste afterwards.

 Have to be careful when you joke around these parts. Everyone is itching for an argument.

Also, Pollo over at WiP posted a thread about the new DA army box with a few pics. Thought you guys would like to see it.

z11.invisionfree.com/Work_In_Progress/index.php

Posted By Wayfarer on 02/10/2007 1:47 PM

 Have to be careful when you joke around these parts. Everyone is itching for an argument.

Also, Pollo over at WiP posted a thread about the new DA army box with a few pics. Thought you guys would like to see it.

z11.invisionfree.com/Work_In_Progress/index.php

Nah bud, I got the joke after your second post, Wayfarer.

Posted By Wayfarer on 02/10/2007 1:47 PM

Also, Pollo over at WiP posted a thread about the new DA army box with a few pics. Thought you guys would like to see it.

z11.invisionfree.com/Work_In_Progress/index.php

Ugh, they really are awful, something this MM marine clearly illustrates. Clunky, flash ridden, blobbed details that will require a lot more work to bring to a high standard than the finicky metal bitz ever did. Yuck.  Thanks for the linkage tho!

I have to second the person that said the MM guy is clunky. Ugh. That backpack just doesnt look right on him at all....

Well it looks like he just rushed to tac them together and didn't bother with flash or glue, so I wouldn't be 'too' hard on the models just from that pic alone.

I think I have my Adeptus Mechanicus guys.

Posted By Orlanth on 02/10/2007 12:40 PM
By providing two lascannon and two heavy bolters as standard it proves that someone there is listening to the customers. Not too long ago GW would have provided just one of those weapon sprues - and we know it.

And then they would have waited until everyone bought multiple boxes before nerfing the lascannon.  And/or they'd have changed the rules for dev squads to allow only allow a maximum of 1 of each weapon type.

I'm actually surprised they decided to include 2 each of lascannon and heavy bolters.  Now all they have to do is make the sprue available for bits order and I'll be so astounded my butt will explode.

No, I understand that. I expect flash and stuff. what I'm saying is the backpack itself looks akward.

Everything on that MM Marine looks bad because he did a crap job of putting it together. If he took his time and assembled, glued, and cleaned up properly that MM Marine would look fine.

Uh, are you people looking at the same figure as me? I'm saying that even taking the time to properly assemble and clean it, that it is *still* going to look like crap. Without putty, there is going to be an obvious split on the inside of the MM barrels, the backpack is going to need puttying to smooth out the seams, etc... I'm not begrudging anyone for being happy that a plastic set is finally out, but it's a poorly engineered one with unavoidable defects that we are being asked to pay a premium for. No thanks.

It looks pretty typical of GW's recent plastic quality. It's not whining, but GW models do have an awful lot more flash and mould lines than they did 5 or 10 years ago.

It's not as nice as the old metal model, but when both are painted to an equal standard, you'll be hard pressed to notice a difference from the other side of the table.

No, you guys are DENSE.

I expect flash and glue and stuff. I'm saying the BACKPACK doesnt go well with eth MM. It looks akward.

Cleaned up and painted its STILL going to be an akward model....

You remind me of those commercials for the special screwdrivers or can openers that purport revolutionize the process of driving screws and opening cans. They always open with some guy trying to operate a screw driver, and a voiceover guy says something like "tired of clumsy, conventional screwdrivers?" Then the guy in the picture makes some exaggerated, clumsy motion and then grabs his wrist in pain. "All those strained wrists and battered knuckles, OUCH!"

Yeah, wow. I'm always getting severely injured when I try to operate a screwdriver. Thank GOD for the Handi-zip Roto Drive.

It's like you're willing to be totally slowed around styrene cement, just to make your point. How hard is it to assemble a plastic model correctly? Hint: Not hard.

Somehow you're a total whiz with a pin vise, and you can drill out a barrel like shooting fish in said barrel, but when it comes to getting a decent fit, flowing in a bit of liquid cement, then giving it a once over with a file, it's the most incredible trial and impossibility ever.

I can count the times I've needed putty or green stuff to assemble an uncustomized GW model on one hand, and every one of them was a metal model.

Look... Both plastic and metal are going to have mold lines and imperfections to clean. The metal seamlines are harder and more time consuming to deal with, simply because metal is harder. If you have no trouble with metal, then you have no trouble with plastic. It's the same skillset, only easier.

Edit:  I thought back, and I realized I did do some putty fills on my Devilfish/Hammerheads.

Ok...perhaps I'm completely blind.

 

But wasn't there supposed to be a set of kneeling legs on one of those sprues?  Is it there somewhere and I'm just missing it?

Posted By Phryxis on 02/11/2007 5:46 PM

It's like you're willing to be totally slowed around styrene cement, just to make your point. How hard is it to assemble a plastic model correctly? Hint: Not hard.

Somehow you're a total whiz with a pin vise, and you can drill out a barrel like shooting fish in said barrel, but when it comes to getting a decent fit, flowing in a bit of liquid cement, then giving it a once over with a file, it's the most incredible trial and impossibility ever.

I can count the times I've needed putty or green stuff to assemble an uncustomized GW model on one hand, and every one of them was a metal model.

Edit:  I thought back, and I realized I did do some putty fills on my Devilfish/Hammerheads.

Doesn't look bad at all to me. Nothing a few years of putting Tamiya tank model barrels together didn't teach me.

Posted By Phryxis on 02/11/2007 5:46 PM

I'm not begrudging anyone for being happy that a plastic set is finally out, but it's a poorly engineered one with unavoidable defects that we are being asked to pay a premium for. No thanks.

You remind me of those commercials for the special screwdrivers or can openers that purport revolutionize the process of driving screws and opening cans. They always open with some guy trying to operate a screw driver, and a voiceover guy says something like "tired of clumsy, conventional screwdrivers?" Then the guy in the picture makes some exaggerated, clumsy motion and then grabs his wrist in pain. "All those strained wrists and battered knuckles, OUCH!"

Yeah, wow. I'm always getting severely injured when I try to operate a screwdriver. Thank GOD for the Handi-zip Roto Drive.

It's like you're willing to be totally slowed around styrene cement, just to make your point. How hard is it to assemble a plastic model correctly? Hint: Not hard.

Somehow you're a total whiz with a pin vise, and you can drill out a barrel like shooting fish in said barrel, but when it comes to getting a decent fit, flowing in a bit of liquid cement, then giving it a once over with a file, it's the most incredible trial and impossibility ever.

I can count the times I've needed putty or green stuff to assemble an uncustomized GW model on one hand, and every one of them was a metal model.

Look... Both plastic and metal are going to have mold lines and imperfections to clean. The metal seamlines are harder and more time consuming to deal with, simply because metal is harder. If you have no trouble with metal, then you have no trouble with plastic. It's the same skillset, only easier.

I can count the times I've needed putty or green stuff to assemble an uncustomized GW model on one hand, and every one of them was a metal model.

Edit:  I thought back, and I realized I did do some putty fills on my Devilfish/Hammerheads.

Another steaming pile of idiocy from the forum's trolling angry incompetent! Good grief, you're like the mildly slowed guy in some slapstick movie that gets all over excited about going outside and in his exuberance runs smack dab into the door jamb/a telephone pole/some other obvious immobile object and knocks himself out.

Because, you know, you have to be a total wiz to competently use a pin vise to... drill a hole. Whoah. So hard! "RonCo, won't you make this easy for meeee! I am so incompetent at using a tinty hand held drill, can yew split the barrelz?!?! (instead of casting them in one peice?!?) ZOMG itz SO hard to drill a hole with a hand held drill!!!"

Then you go on to make retardedly easy to refute claims that you refute yourself! In addition to the Devilfish & Hammerheads see also: Land Speeders, Land Raiders, Leman Russ, Chimeras, Monolith, and many others I'm sure people have had problems with GW's poorly engineered kits. Oh, and as that MM fella illustrates (and as I already mentioned but you chose to ignore in your rush), there are cracks (on the inside diameter) where the plastic doesn't even meet, which to fix, will require puttying (and drilling out with a pin vise!).

Posted By nyarlathotep667 on 02/11/2007 10:38 PM


Then you go on to make retardedly easy to refute claims that you refute yourself! In addition to the Devilfish & Hammerheads see also: Land Speeders, Land Raiders, Leman Russ, Chimeras, Monolith, and many others I'm sure people have had problems with GW's poorly engineered kits. Oh, and as that MM fella illustrates (and as I already mentioned but you chose to ignore in your rush), there are cracks (on the inside diameter) where the plastic doesn't even meet, which to fix, will require puttying (and drilling out with a pin vise!).

Anyone who has put together a land speeder knows that you need a sharp knife, green stuff, eleastic band and a serious quantity of foul language to curse the parentage of the people who designed the moulds.

The thing that irrates me is that people defend badly designed models and general incompetance by saying "it is a modelling hobby". Yes it is, but raising my blood pressure dealing with incompetance isn't my idea of a hobby .... so why do I keep drifting back to 40k ... some deep sense of inadequacy, low self esteem and need to punish myself?  Maybe it is in the vain hope that one day I will play a game with a fully painted army and NO RULE DISPUTES!!!! Sorry, just pinched myself as punishment.

Posted By nyarlathotep667 on 02/11/2007 10:38 PM

Another steaming pile of idiocy from the forum's trolling angry incompetent! Good grief, you're like the mildly slowed guy in some slapstick movie that gets all over excited about going outside and in his exuberance runs smack dab into the door jamb/a telephone pole/some other obvious immobile object and knocks himself out.

If that isn't a case of the pot calling the kettle black, I don't know what is. There's a reason why Dakka is the laughing stock of the community, and it's got a lot to do with the brain-dead morons posting within it.

While kit quality by itself isn't really a problem, charging a premium price for the "Porsche" of miniatures which require massive amounts of work to construct is what drives the customers batty. Even the cheap Chinese BEN-DI knockoff Bandai kits don't generally need gap filling and elastic bands.

That would be like buying a BMW and then finding out that you need to do a lot of non-warranty work yourself to get the engine back to full performance.

So, let me get this straight: I have the honesty to admit to an exception to a general rule I've experienced in making GW models, and that makes me an idiot? Should I be more like you, and just spout selective vision as objective fact?

I've built hundreds, if not thousands, of plastic GW models and figures, from Space Marines to Crisis Suits, to Ork Trukks to Leman Russes, etc. etc. etc. On two of them I decided to use some squadron putty to fill in a seam. And you're gloating, and doing a cut rate impersonation of a flame...

On the first two Devilfish bodies I built, I filled a join on the side of the hull. On subsequent models, I knew it needed attention, and I was able to prep the model better and avoid the need for the fill. Somehow that totally invalidates all my claims, and makes me a dolt? No... It proves that I'm aware of the use of filler putty, I'm capable of using it when necessary, and yet I've needed it in only a tiny percentage of the builds I've done with GW models.

By comparison, I've also built many, many scale model aircraft, and I became used to filling, sanding, re-scribing panel lines. It was simply a given on every single kit, that the wing root would need work.



No, you don't. It's a very simple task, comparable to, though probably more time consuming and error prone, than doing a little file work to clean up seamlines.

I'm not saying that drilling out gun barrels is hard. It's just one of the many minor skills in building model kits. I'm simply pointing out that you're willfully obtuse when it comes to applying this skillset to plastic kits, and a total savant when it comes to metal kits. Drilling gun barrels? Why you can do that in your sleep, in a matter of picoseconds! Filing off a seamline? What a chore! How time consuming!



Is that your engineering degree speaking again? Or is that just an arrogant art history major speaking out of his depth? I wish I had some experience with the kits you're talking about... I mean, I've only built 3 Land Speeders, a Land Raider, 3 Leman Russes, 2 Chimeras and a Monolith. How would I have any idea what a struggle those kits are, having only built ten of the specific ones you're complaining about?

Do you need a winky face to understand that I'm being sarcastic?

The worst fit problems I've had were with metal on plastic kits (like the Exorcist), and Forgeworld addon kits (like the Vindicator). Even these could be taken care of with some prefitting, filing and other prep work.

Posted By nyarlathotep667 on 02/11/2007 10:38 PM

Another steaming pile of idiocy from the forum's trolling angry incompetent! Good grief, you're like the mildly slowed guy in some slapstick movie that gets all over excited about going outside and in his exuberance runs smack dab into the door jamb/a telephone pole/some other obvious immobile object and knocks himself out.

Black!  Black!  That kettle is black, I say!!!!

Posted By nyarlathotep667 on 02/11/2007 10:38 PM
In addition to the Devilfish & Hammerheads see also: Land Speeders, Land Raiders, Leman Russ, Chimeras, Monolith, and many others I'm sure people have had problems with GW's poorly engineered kits. Oh, and as that MM fella illustrates (and as I already mentioned but you chose to ignore in your rush), there are cracks (on the inside diameter) where the plastic doesn't even meet, which to fix, will require puttying (and drilling out with a pin vise!).

Meh. I didn't really have trouble with Leman Russ or Chimeras. The Land Raider is a bit tricky - but I got it working. I eventually dumped my Land Speeder for bits -  but it was the first vehicle model I ever assembled.

I don't think they're poorly engineered for model kits.

Compared to WM's Warjacks, Russes and Chimeras are dreams to assemble. The amount of work required to clean up GW plastic models compares favourably to the amount of time needed to trim flash from Confrontation models. Reaper models seem to be a bit better in my experience, but within the same general range.

As for the Multi-Melta, I'd need to actually use the kit in person to judge how it actually is. Plugging gaps with Green Stuff is super-easy and pretty much expected with multi-part models. I had to do so in three places in the Retribution Battleship I assembled last night. It wasn't especially traumatic.

Posted By Asmodai on 02/12/2007 8:40 AM

Compared to WM's Warjacks, Russes and Chimeras are dreams to assemble. 

What you talkin' about, Willis?

I actually find Warjacks and Russes equally easy/complicated to put together. Different skill sets (drilling/pinning vs. filling/filing) but comparable.

Oh, and in before lock, by the way.   

I find drilling and pinning a fit more difficult - but that may come from later of experience more than the innate difficulty.

Full head of hair...wow!

If I didn't already have a bangin' sig, I'd sig what you just said.

Phyrixis, you are wrong.

Wait, wait wait... so you mean to tell me that all those models I have built are HARD? Oh darn,... I guess I better stop buying and building them then. Thank you for informing me, otherwise I would have never known.

Land Speeders seemed pretty simple to me. A few rubber bands and some glue. So what was the issue again?

Many Land Speeders are warped so the hulls don't match up. This means that you either have to fill up the gaps with green stuff and a lot of filing - and still end up with it slightly uneven from side to side, or melt and partially recast part of the plastic.

About what?



Certainly it's not a perfectly fitting kit, but that's why you test fit. Warped parts are a hassle, but they can be bent back, they can be clamped, etc.

Perhaps my standards are just different. When you assemble a GW kit, they seem to make a consistent effort to place seams in places that are easily accessed with a file, knife or sand paper. This is why I scoff at Nyarlathotep's claims of "poor engineering." Try sanding the joint at the wing root of a WWII era scale model kit. You're trying to get into a concave shape, and sand the bottom of it. It's virtually impossible to get after it without hitting much of the surrounding surface. Also, the joints are between curved surfaces, and are often designed to follow a real panel line on the actual aircraft, so they're often curving in more than one dimension. By comparison, joints on GW kits tend to be straight lines, easily accessed for work, if needed.

So, ok, I'm sure that assembling and prepping a GW kit is harder than, say, not assembling or prepping it... But what are you comparing these kits to? I've built a lot of scale model kits in my life, and while there are certainly better detailed, higher quality kits available than what GW produces, there's really nothing that's any easier to build, without being a snap together type kiddie-kit. GW kits tend to be chunky, simple, easy things to assemble. I'm just not sure how it could be any easier, and still require assembly at all.

I must've gotten my speeders from the same batch Asmodai did. Perhaps this is all a simple case of YMMV.

I purchased and assembled four at the same time and they were all horrible. All required excessive trimming, not for mold lines, but for simple fitting. All required a healthy amount of greenstuff to fill in gaps. And all required the clamp treatment for nearly every join.


I love assembling miniatures in general, in fact it may very well be my favorite part of the hobby. I could sit and glue 40k and Hordes all day long. I also enjoy fixing and modifying minis with greenstuff, magnets, modular components, etc...

But those speeders tested the very edge of my patience. So much so that I probably will not be adding any to my Ravenwing when the new Codex comes out, even though I'd really love to.


(I also hate the new split barrels. I can deal with it, but I'd much rather drill 'em than have to deal with a gap.)

And I never had issues with Land Speeders. Glue, wrap rubber bands. Then when dry, glue and wrap rubber bands. Even when warped a little that worked. Just had to do it in stages. A lot like the tank kits I have worked on in the past.

It's funny coming from Nyarlathotep when he is always coming up with scratch building ways to do GW models. Seems like that is a bit more work to do some kit bashing.....

Posted By Agamemnon2 on 02/12/2007 6:59 AM
If that isn't a case of the pot calling the kettle black, I don't know what is. There's a reason why Dakka is the laughing stock of the community, and it's got a lot to do with the brain-dead morons posting within it.

I think your Irony Detector may be in need of maintenance...

Posted By Phryxis on 02/12/2007 10:43 AM

Perhaps my standards are just different. When you assemble a GW kit, they seem to make a consistent effort to place seams in places that are easily accessed with a file, knife or sand paper. This is why I scoff at Nyarlathotep's claims of "poor engineering." Try sanding the joint at the wing root of a WWII era scale model kit. You're trying to get into a concave shape, and sand the bottom of it. It's virtually impossible to get after it without hitting much of the surrounding surface. Also, the joints are between curved surfaces, and are often designed to follow a real panel line on the actual aircraft, so they're often curving in more than one dimension. By comparison, joints on GW kits tend to be straight lines, easily accessed for work, if needed.

I'd rather they'd place their seams as far from sight as possible instead of their current "in your face!" approach. Then again, GW model part counts are so low there's often no real alternative. In their priorities, making them easily-built is more important than considerations like placement of seams and mould lines.

i have to agree with the speeders weren't too bad camp here.

I built four in the space of a few months.

No elastic (rubber) bands and a good bit of glue done the trick for me.

No green stuff either.

I found metal devs and hurricane bolter sponsons far worse.

Posted By Asmodai on 02/12/2007 9:38 AM
I find drilling and pinning a fit more difficult - but that may come from later of experience more than the innate difficulty.

Nah, it's because you're weak. j/k.  

Where are these mythical landspeeders? Really?

I have never encountered any modeller that has found these "a breeze" to assemble.

I know alot of really good military modellers, one who even worked for the heavy metal team at one point, and it seems everyone I have talked to has unnanimously agreed that landspeeders are the worst plastic kit (as far as ease of assembly and lack of major filling and modifications to make it work) that GW has ever produced.

So where do you people by these mythical kits at? I would love to have just one land speeder that does not require a huge effort to simply assemble, let alone correctly align.

Games Workshop: Space Marine Landspeeder - $30 USD

Phryxis: H'ok. So let me get this straight. You're saying that landspeeders go together fine with some rubberbands, clamps, filling, sanding and putty.

You are directly comparing aircraft kits to the landspeeder.  Aircraft kits have VERY thin plastic components, so it might stand to reason that this might cause more warpage than the 2-3mm thick components that GW uses...?

Does the fact that aircraft models need filling absolve GW from providing minimal warpage?

No problem. Let's look at other kits in that price range...

Bandai: MG RX-78-2 Gundam (Ver 1.5) - $32 USD
Tamiya: 1/35 Panzer Mk.IV Ausf.J - $30 USD
Fine Moulds: Jedi Starfighter - $22 USD (http://www.hlj.com/product/FNMSW-03)

Let's take it from the top:

MG Gundam kit (Did not build this pariticular MG, but others in the series) - rock solid assembly. Requires little sanding, almost no gap filling. Poly Caps for smooth articulation. Plastic is of tough ABS variety. Excellent finish out of the box. Plastic components are about 1mm thick with NO warpage.

Tamiya (Did not build this pariticular kit, but based off other Tamiya armor kits): Crisp fine detail. Some cleanup required. Possibly some warpage in the hull components. Minor filling needed. Plastic components are about 1mm thick.

FineMoulds: Very little flash, went together very smoothly. Needed no filling. Lots of fine detail.

Games Workshop Landspeeder: This is a poor example as it is one of the worst GW kits for warpage despite having pieces between 2-3mm thick. Lots of gap filling and clamping needed due to LATERAL twisting of the hull. - Poor design IMO - YMMV The Rhino is a better comparison with pieces between 2-3mm thick, usually little warpage that can be fixed by clamping the hull bits together. No gap filling necessary. It is clearly designed for durability, and as a result, iit has no fine details.

The fact of the matter is:

Games Workshop kits are -usually- no worse off to build than other kits. I have taken into account kit durability. The Gundam MG in particular is fairly durable, and can survive some hefty "playing/posing" sessions while making sci fi noises, but won't survive being thrown against a wall (not many kits will). The Jedi Starfighter as well is fairly robust. The Tamiya tank probably won't survive regular wargaming sessions with its loads of fine details, but is in the list for price comparisons only.

So, in conclusion, build-up wise, GW's pretty average. As a "luxury" branded item, they come across as very primitive compared to their other plastic model brethern, and very expensive for what you get.

While we are off topic I must add that my landspeeder has had filler and filing done on it, but it was not memorably difficult, quite the opposite really.

The only kit I ever have a memory of difficulty making it is the Vindicator. Ols school Rhino parts with metal pieces that do not fit. Mine is not so much assembled as extensively converted.

Landspeeders never made too much sense to me. If the imperium has antigrav tech to that level, why not give it to gaurd?

But anyways. The new box looks like another step in the plasticafying of all GW products, which I agree with.
It's also another re-release of a space marine unit, which makes me want to puke onto my keyboard.

"Hmmmmm...we've got the dread, but give them a venerable dread too. Oh, and plastic scouts. And a new tactical squad. And plastic and metal terminators. And make some new plastic terminators too. And a new rhino. And 6 iterations of every character- I want a librarian, chaplain and force commander with every possible kit configuration, damnit! And an Iron Hands boxed set. Aaaaaannnd....oh, do some more characters. And all of the special characters too. Edit, we forgot to redo chapter variants! Get to it! And some new devastators! Did we forget anything?"
*Sculptors sit glazed and numbed by the sheer number of power armoured miniatures they must complete. Outside, a lone ork player presses his nose up to the cold, freezing glass and sheds a tear*

Posted By Da Boss on 02/12/2007 3:15 PM
"Hmmmmm...we've got the dread, but give them a venerable dread too. Oh, and plastic scouts. And a new tactical squad. And plastic and metal terminators. And make some new plastic terminators too. And a new rhino. And 6 iterations of every character- I want a librarian, chaplain and force commander with every possible kit configuration, damnit! And an Iron Hands boxed set. Aaaaaannnd....oh, do some more characters. And all of the special characters too. Edit, we forgot to redo chapter variants! Get to it! And some new devastators! Did we forget anything?"
*Sculptors sit glazed and numbed by the sheer number of power armoured miniatures they must complete. Outside, a lone ork player presses his nose up to the cold, freezing glass and sheds a tear*

EXALT!

It seems that some people are getting their arguements confused. This isn't a modeling skills pissing contest.

The problem at hand which I believe Nyarlathotep was addressing and which was further clarified by fullheadofhair and Keezus is that considering the premium prices GW asks us to pay, you'd think the product would be of a higher quality. For what they charge, we really shouldn't have to putty, sand and file as much as we do. These aren't garage kits ya know.

Like many of you, I've built kits by other manufacturers and yes, those airplanes and gundams needed filling and sanding on occasion to look their best (but rarely for basic assembly), and sometimes there was even some warpage. But when I compare the price of the kit VS. the damage control required to remedy flaws in a kit  my 25 years of kit building tells me that something is amiss with GW's product, pricing structure, attitude toward their customers, or all of the above. 

I expect to fill and file my gundams or whatever, but I don't mind because Bandai doesn't overprice their kits. So filling and filing is inevitable with GW kits? Fine. Start including files, putty, and spare blades with the kits, and maybe their prices will be justified.

Posted By Bob Lorgar on 02/11/2007 7:33 PM

Ok...perhaps I'm completely blind.

But wasn't there supposed to be a set of kneeling legs on one of those sprues?  Is it there somewhere and I'm just missing it?

The box comes with the Command Legs sprue, which has the kneeling legs.

Posted By Orlanth on 02/12/2007 2:47 PM
While we are off topic I must add that my landspeeder has had filler and filing done on it, but it was not memorably difficult, quite the opposite really.

The only kit I ever have a memory of difficulty making it is the Vindicator. Ols school Rhino parts with metal pieces that do not fit. Mine is not so much assembled as extensively converted.

Which just goes to show you. My Vindicator fit together perfectly. Everything snapped properly into place. It barely needed glue, let alone filler and filing.

Individual experience with each model will vary greatly.

Except for Land Raider Crusaders - I've not yet met a person who didn't find the sponsons a PITA to assemble.

The 2 landspeeders I've assembled were just glue/rubber band type. Got them from the 3e box set.

Well, sure, they're one of the tougher GW kits (along with Hammerhead/Devilfish), but they're still easy kits to build in the grand scheme of things. Something like a P-38, with all the crazy nacelles, fuselage parts, etc. etc. There's just no way a GW kit can compare. I can recall building scale aircraft kits that required more time just in sanding than I've ever spent on assembling any two GW kits.



The three I built went together fine. That's not to say they were a total breeze, but I got through them without any major issues.

Perhaps I'm just more patient than some? I have no problem with taking a warped piece, gluing down one side, letting it sit for two days until it's totally cured, and then clamping down the other side. If you're willing to take the time, take each seam one at a time, that's one way to deal with warped or poorly fitting parts. You fit what fits, get it cured and done, then make more fit.

You can also put some cyanoacrylate glue inside to lock a cemented seam in place, and move on from there. I use that technique a lot on Rhinos.

The one thing I learned from all the kits I've made over the years is to never be in a hurry. If you've GOT to get that Landspeeder done for the weekend, it's gonna show. If I'm going to put hours and hours of my time into a model, I'll wait till next weekend for it to be done so it's done right.



I don't think anybody here is going to debate that point. Compared to a top notch Dragon or Tamiya kit, GW's stuff is pretty primative and overpriced. But, then again, Tamiya isn't also publishing a game to support their product, they're not having to do artistic design on their products, and they're also (I assume) selling a much, much larger volume.

I'm not saying GW is a world leader in injection molded kits or value for price. I'm just saying their kits are quite easy to assemble as these things go.



The Exorcist is similar. I had to hack the crap out of the Rhino chassis to get the metal parts to mate up correctly.



I understand that's the argument that some are making. I'm not trying to brag up my modelling skills, I just don't understand how people can have so much trouble with GW's kits, so the argument doesn't make a ton of sense to me. As I asked before, what do people expect? In the absolute best case, every seam/join you've got is going to need a once over with a file/knife/sandpaper. Honestly, that's about how it goes for me when I build GW kits.

Heck, I just got done doing a pair of Falcons, and I can only think of two joins in the whole model that needed any sanding at all (the bottom rear of the hull to the main hull, and the engine exhausts). Thats hard?

Posted By Elusive71 on 02/12/2007 4:29 PM

It seems that some people are getting their arguements confused. This isn't a modeling skills pissing contest.

The problem at hand which I believe Nyarlathotep was addressing and which was further clarified by fullheadofhair and Keezus is that considering the premium prices GW asks us to pay, you'd think the product would be of a higher quality. For what they charge, we really shouldn't have to putty, sand and file as much as we do. These aren't garage kits ya know.

Like many of you, I've built kits by other manufacturers and yes, those airplanes and gundams needed filling and sanding on occasion to look their best (but rarely for basic assembly), and sometimes there was even some warpage. But when I compare the price of the kit VS. the damage control required to remedy flaws in a kit  my 25 years of kit building tells me that something is amiss with GW's product, pricing structure, attitude toward their customers, or all of the above. 

I expect to fill and file my gundams or whatever, but I don't mind because Bandai doesn't overprice their kits. So filling and filing is inevitable with GW kits? Fine. Start including files, putty, and spare blades with the kits, and maybe their prices will be justified.

What you say is understandable, but what we are specifically talking about in this thread is the split barrels on the heavy weapons.

These weapon barrels were split by choice, by the sculptors.

So the question is: Why did the sculptors split the barrels on the Heavy Weapons?

Now, some posters seem to believe that it is incompetance (or even negligence) on the part of the GW sculptors. If you want to equate it to the percieved 'overall decline of GW quality' then one can throw the conspiracy theory net out wide enough to say that Tom Kirby snuck into the production offices and asked the sculptors to split the barrels of the weapons in order to punish gamers who don't want to putty/sand their models.

But the reality of the situation has to be this: The sculptor was attempting to replicate the look and quality of the metal sculpts to the best of his ability and a conscious decision was made to split the barrels in order to accomplish this.

Now, I don't know the exact details of plastic mould-making, but I do know that in order to have anything resembling a hollow barrel on a plastic miniature you have to use a split barrel, as plastic moulds don't allow 'undercutting' (aka no detail on the fame can be smaller than the widest point of the model on one side.

That's why (for example) on the Carnifex weapon sprue you have a split (empty) barrel for the Barbed Strangler but a one-piece Venom Cannon (with no hollow barrels).

In short, it was a design choice, pure and simple.

Obviously some think that this was a poor design choice and others think this is a wise design choice. I guess it depends on whether you look at the glass half-empty or half-full.

But everyone should take a moment and realize that the choice was made for a purpose, and that purpose was to attempt to replicate the superior quality of the metal models. In that pursuit, perhaps they failed in your eyes, but that's what they attempted to do.

 

And with that final word, I'm going to lock this thread.