from the GW site....

Take cover and call for reinforcements - new tanks are coming from the forges to lay waste to the battlefield. A number of new vehicle kits and Bitz Packs are released this August, perfect for tank commanders and treadheads of every persuasion. Shown here is the new Imperial Guard Leman Russ Demolisher - the ultimate siege tank, plated in additional armour and bristling with deadly weaponry.

The multi-part plastic kit includes all the hull and sponson-mounted weapons available to this beast, and can also be assembled as a Leman Russ Executioner or Leman Russ Punisher!

linky with pics

So it's just a different turret? Honestly I don't like it... I don't know if it's the bad paint job, a rush build-job, or the stubby cannon just looks pathetic. Give me the original Demolisher Cannon. That thing looked dangerous. This doesn't.

Eh... I have 6 Demolishers already, so I'll pass.

The plastic sponson weapons are nice, but the heavy bolters and multi-meltas look like they are sticking out way too far. They don't have the stubby look that they used to have.

Any wild speculation about what will be included in the bitz packs? I hope for the hull heavy bolter, but I'm guessing it'll simply be all the old metal tank commanders and riders.

If I had to guess, we'll probably see a Knight-Commander Pask model.

I'll be disappointed if we don't.

The front of the hull looks different too... The 3 headlight piece is missing. Not to mention that the seem between the bottom and the front looks like crap. Actually the heavy flamer gun compartment looks like it was put together by a 3 year old as well.

But I do like turret. Still not sure if I should wait for the new kit or just get a pair Executioner turrets from FW, since I already have enough chassis.

I never really liked tanks in my army much,now I like the idea even less.

I hope the turret sprue is available in bitz

On the bright side the sponson and hull weapon mounts are of a different design, which should allow for easier magnetized swapping. Other than that, what the feth. It has been hit with the ugly stick big time. Congrats to the prick (you know who you are) who kept saying that the Russ should be more like a miniature Baneblade.

looks liek they changed the front gun monut to be one front plate peice instead of two, and widened the lower hull section a little. The turret is quite tidy looking but i think i will still stick to the FW turrets for astectics

Who wrote the new guard dex again?

Was it that designer Robin who helped Andy Hoare write the Lizardmen 'dex.

(I am just trying to find out who we can hang for his crimes against tiny plastic people!)

i will say tho, the turret is like a mix between the old turret and an M1 Abrams, i think it looks a bit too high tech for the guard

Now the next question is how much will GW charge for this monstrosity , $45?

H.B.M.C. wrote:So it's just a different turret? Honestly I don't like it... I don't know if it's the bad paint job, a rush build-job, or the stubby cannon just looks pathetic. Give me the original Demolisher Cannon. That thing looked dangerous. This doesn't.

I agree on the sentiments about the cannon. The hull does appear to have been modified. The area where the turret sits has been widened. The lower hull, as Ubermosh points out, no longer has the lighting recess. Someone claims the rear apparently has some changes as well. The sponsons also appears to be composed of fewer parts. They also seem to have flattened the "suspension" on the side of the tank.

ubermosher wrote:The front of the hull looks different too... The 3 headlight piece is missing. Not to mention that the seem between the bottom and the front looks like crap. Actually the heavy flamer gun compartment looks like it was put together by a 3 year old as well.

For these models they've been using the test run sprues to assemble the model. Those early sprue runs for almost any plastic model end up generally bad because the mold hasn't had all the edges sharpened, the injectors for the plastic aren't adjusted or calibrated, and in some instances the mechanism that releases and pushes the completed part out isn't installed requiring prying. All that gets us an explanation, but there isn't an excuse for bad modelling at a company that promotes modelling.

Turret looks too flat and too long if you ask me.
The sponsons are okay, I like the melta and the plasma ....

However...the hullmounted flamer sux just as much as the one on the hound. Redo em GW, please for the love of god

Turret's nice, hull build quality and weapons are awful.

between this and the hell hound, that is some of the shodest modaling ive ever seen of gw. unaccepable really..i like the turret, but it dosnt seem to suite the hull, looks like its bin taken off a nother kit

Flachzange wrote:Turret looks two flat and too long if you ask me.
The sponsons are okay, I like the melta and the plasma ....

However...the hullmounted flamer sux just as much as the one on the hound. Redo em GW, please for the love of god

I think the turret is a bit flatter, but not much. I think its mostly due to the angle the photos taken at combined with the fact that they built up the top of the turret where copula sits as these two sharp flat edged platforms. So while the turret itself probably isn't really that flat and squished down, the visual cues are forcing us to draw that conclusion from this angle.

I don't think it matters too much which style GW decided to do the flamers. I just think they're a bit all over the place by having two distinctive designs for it. Consistency is my main complaint on this. Why do sentinels and infantry have a different style? We can come up with reasons, but from the stand point of making things immediately recognizable while playing, this dilutes that.

i didnt like the guard tanks anyway the turret just makes it look even more short and stubby

i was really hopping that they would remodel the demo cannon but they didnt


Automatically Appended Next Post:
i didnt like the guard tanks anyway the turret just makes it look even more short and stubby

i was really hopping that they would remodel the demo cannon but they didnt

I rather like the turret. The hull and sponson weapons simply bring the russ up to date with the current look of guard heavy weapons, though the plasma still looks 2nd Edition. As for the hull, I don't know what some of you people are looking at, but the kit looks identical to the current model. I see no changes to anything outside of the turret. If it looks wider to some of you, it's probably an optical illusion since the turret is so much thinner and longer.

What really saddens me though is the shoddiness of construction. This is a gaming company that has been in business for decades and that's the best their 'Eavy Metal team could do? I hate to keep piling on GW, but everyday they do something new to surprise me (just not in the good way).

The flatter, longer turret looks more realistic than the fat, tall turrets so many sci-fi tanks have. Overall, not wowed by this but I do like it.

aka_mythos wrote:The hull does appear to have been modified. The area where the turret sits has been widened.

The lower hull, as Ubermosh points out, no longer has the lighting recess. Someone claims the rear apparently has some changes as well. The sponsons also appears to be composed of fewer parts. They also seem to have flattened the "suspension" on the side of the tank.

Yeah, I agree that it looks like they redid the the upper hull where the turret mounts, to fill in some of the space. The fuel filler is still in the same detail in the same place. Just the forward left corner was filled in a bit on the top. But if they're resculpting that part of the hull, why are they still keeping the rest of the hull the same? They couldn't convert to Mars Alpha?

The lower hull hasn't changed a bit. The recess is still there, just hidden by the angle with the tow loop blocking the view.

And the suspension / side plate is completely unchanged.

All in all, this is pretty bad, even though the turret is somewhat better.

This highlights the differences in the old and new hull.

@Aka - thanks for that.

I agree the red oval is a real change, but I can't imagine why GW would make such a trivial change.

The black oval for the driver's viewport seems to be the same, as a change in angle..

The grey oval still shows a recess, but now, maybe it's smaller, like the red oval??? Maddening, if GW is changing this and not fixing the hull.

The side plates still seem unchanged.

I am torn... I rather like the new turret, but the cannon is not as impressive. It is a little hard for me to say, but I might like the new one better. If they neck down the regular LR's gun barrel a bit, I might like it a lot better.
Still, with the camo it is hard to see. I will have to put one together to really know.

I wonder if they got rid of the extraneous rollers under the treads...

JohnHwangDD wrote:@Aka - thanks for that.

I agree the red oval is a real change, but I can't imagine why GW would make such a trivial change.

The black oval for the driver's viewport seems to be the same, as a change in angle..

The grey oval still shows a recess, but now, maybe it's smaller, like the red oval??? Maddening, if GW is changing this and not fixing the hull.

The side plates still seem unchanged.

The reason I highlighted the drivers viewport is partially because it looks like from this angle that they made the port more squared but also because if you look at the full sized GW picture you'll see two evenly spaced lines that look like shadows and a series of dots that look like rivets, implying to me that they added detail in the form of reinforcement bars down it.

For the grey oval, you can see in the comparison that the lower front section currently only extends to just left of the viewport hatch, but that on the new one it stops just right of it. My guess as to why there is still a recess is simply they could not modify the inside track assembly plate. So the new hull had to locate off the same feature the current hull does.

I don't really believe yellow oval is a change, so much as just a result of using an early sprue before full calibration of the molding machine and 100% completion of the mold. With plastic they usually wait till the end to sharpen up edges as well as that sort of detail. Which is why the model in these pictures are crap.

Is the article not showing up for anyone else?

Nope it works for me but it isn't much in any way.LOL.

I like to much this version

Sorry, its not red enough to be ork. (yet)

what ever brainless imp that they have over at GW making the models that they use for picks can't seem to make anything correctly...gaps everywhere
anyone ever notice that the Valk on the back of the box has its Tail put on backwards or the one on the front that its back canopy isn't even put down all the way... are they using young bloods now or something?

that hull looks like crap, can they just release a turret kit so we can just update our current Russes? i have 8 Leman Russ tanks i don't think i need more...

whats with the idiotic super thick rear turret stowage lids? is that lid made to withstand a direct hit with a lascannon or something?

jep'ray wrote:whats with the idiotic super thick rear turret stowage lids? is that lid made to withstand a direct hit with a lascannon or something?

AV11 Rear...

but stowage???is the crews personal gear that important? lol

jep'ray wrote:what ever brainless imp that they have over at GW making the models that they use for picks can't seem to make anything correctly...gaps everywhere
anyone ever notice that the Valk on the back of the box has its Tail put on backwards or the one on the front that its back canopy isn't even put down all the way... are they using young bloods now or something?

that hull looks like crap, can they just release a turret kit so we can just update our current Russes? i have 8 Leman Russ tanks i don't think i need more...

To anyone who works in a manufacturing setting its very clear that this is the result of them trying to get the models released as quickly as possible. The models in the pictures are probably all from prototype runs of the model sprues. Done with an imperfect mold. The result is a model as warped as a forgeworld model but without the ability to correct those issues after the fact. They probably have someone unfamiliar with the model assembling and painting it as quickly as possible so they can take a couple of pictures and order the boxes. Those boxes probably have to be ordered a month or two before they even start running production on the models. So if you have to choose between a crappy picture and waiting an extra couple of months, which would you take?

jep'ray wrote:
whats with the idiotic super thick rear turret stowage lids? is that lid made to withstand a direct hit with a lascannon or something?

Chances are yes. If you had different important equipment stored in there would you want it blown off by small arms fire. On a number of russian tanks its where they stored the radio and CO2 and raidological scrubbers. Kinda need to always be able to communicate and or breath.

It might just be an optical illusion from the angle of the shot, but does the hull (specifically between the track units) look just a bit wider than the old Russ's to anyone else?

I'll agree with aka_mythos on this last post. First models out usually show some errors (probably they were still ajusting the amount of material).

But whoever's in charge of making the kit could've used some greenstuff. Let's just hope it's not another Land Speeder (though even the pics of the ones from GW had the hull problem masked).

If it stays, they'll probably claim it was intended anyway - "Check out the new IMPERIAL GUARD tanks! They may be new but they look old because as everyone knows only SM have good tanks! In fact the IG tanks' AV is 10 or higher because most bullets pass through the slits, and so don't damage the armour!"

Its an optical illusion of sorts. You're just used to seeing certain proportions that have changed differently. Also unfortunately the angles of the two pictures aren't exactly the same, so that is skewing perspective a bit.

No, I'd say the drivers hatch is actualy a tiny bit bigger so it makes that corner look larger, the front hull weapon pod looks the same, but it looks a 2 piece construction over the old 3 piece... and the lower hull section where it was flat only under the hull weapon in the mark 1 hull now stretches across the whole bottom in the mark 2...

still think that rear stowage looks stupid... look at how dumb the hinges look... i liked the old stowage lids at least those made sense and i could hinge them... ok, no more about that... and yeah that thing looks kinda over all warped... and there is no excuse for putting that tail on backwards...

Destrado wrote:I'll agree with aka_mythos on this last post. First models out usually show some errors (probably they were still ajusting the amount of material).

But whoever's in charge of making the kit could've used some greenstuff. Let's just hope it's not another Land Speeder (though even the pics of the ones from GW had the hull problem masked).

If it stays, they'll probably claim it was intended anyway - "Check out the new IMPERIAL GUARD tanks! They may be new but they look old because as everyone knows only SM have good tanks! In fact the IG tanks' AV is 10 or higher because most bullets pass through the slits, and so don't damage the armour!"

I agree who ever assembled that kit should be shot. Anyone whos been doing this hobby for at least a couple years knows how to handle issues lik the warping a gaps the models have. Just because we have a cause or explanation doesn't mean its an excuse. As pinnacle of hobbying they should be able to set a better example.

The other possibility is that its part of their secret plot to make 12 year old beginners not feel as bad when their model does end up (unintentionally) looking like the picture. :p

RUNE wrote:I like to much this version

You missed circling the sponson. For some reason the old top rivet plate seems to be 2 parts as they don't line up at all.

Can you clearify this:

jep'ray wrote:No, I'd say the drivers hatch is actualy a tiny bit bigger so it makes that corner look larger..

jep'ray wrote:...the front hull weapon pod looks the same, but it looks a 2 piece construction over the old 3 piece... and the lower hull section where it was flat only under the hull weapon in the mark 1 hull now stretches across the whole bottom in the mark 2...

They've added a band of plastic across the bottom of the forward sponson to accomodate the fact that its now two pieces.

The bottom and the top...the old one used the top lid to span the gap at the top, and two small dorito shaped pieces for the left and right sides... this new one shows one piece with a band above and below so figure all vertical parts are one piece the top and hatch separate... so i guess the weapon gets glued on after the pod is made with the round bit in the middle...


the drivers hatch window looks a bit larger (taller and wider) than stock which makes the whole drivers hatch a little wider...which will make the front of the tank look wider...

*edit* That's it! the slope of the front armour is shallower, look at the angle of the drivers hatch in relation to the drivers view port. the angle is off they knocked the angle back a little that lack of slope will also make the tank look wider... that hatch and the angle from the vertical from the front of the drivers viewport to the actual angle of the hatch. that triangle is different...or am i seeing things...

Explains why the Armored Company boxes are going oput of stock...

aka_mythos wrote:

Destrado wrote:I'll agree with aka_mythos on this last post. First models out usually show some errors (probably they were still ajusting the amount of material).

But whoever's in charge of making the kit could've used some greenstuff. Let's just hope it's not another Land Speeder (though even the pics of the ones from GW had the hull problem masked).

If it stays, they'll probably claim it was intended anyway - "Check out the new IMPERIAL GUARD tanks! They may be new but they look old because as everyone knows only SM have good tanks! In fact the IG tanks' AV is 10 or higher because most bullets pass through the slits, and so don't damage the armour!"

I agree who ever assembled that kit should be shot. Anyone whos been doing this hobby for at least a couple years knows how to handle issues lik the warping a gaps the models have. Just because we have a cause or explanation doesn't mean its an excuse. As pinnacle of hobbying they should be able to set a better example.

The other possibility is that its part of their secret plot to make 12 year old beginners not feel as bad when their model does end up (unintentionally) looking like the picture. :p

I'll agree that GW's 'Eavy Metal team should be held to a higher standard than your average gamer, but I think you need to chill out. Yeah, it's kinda bad when there are gaps on a showcase model that's going to be in WD, on the box, on the internet, etc. but saying they need to be "shot" because of a couple gaps? My tanks aren't perfectly filled either, and yes most of them were assembled when I first started out a couple years ago and I know better now, but I don't care about a little gap here and there personally.

Would you walk up to me in a store and start telling me I need to be shot because my models aren't to your liking? Sorry I'm not as good a modeler as you are.

@Sid: If assembling & painting models was your job, then yeah, you should be fired for doing a bad job at it.

I do hope they release the new bits as a separate sprue. I don't want to buy a new tank just to get a Punisher turret. I think I've done my bit for buying Russes from GW - they can give a little bit of love back by releasing this separately.

Thanks for the comparison pic, mythos. I was wrong, there do appear to be some changes to the hull. So then they've gone for a complete sprue recut of the original Leman Russ, correct? That's the only reason that these changes make any sense, as they might have had to move some of the components around to make them fit, and maybe someone was tasked to make some minor tweaks to improve the casting process. That and being able to move all the turret pieces and options onto a single sprue. I dunno.

GW has pulled the Demolisher preview from their site.

Crap! They're on to us!

BrookM wrote:GW has pulled the Demolisher preview from their site.

Proving that GW still doesn't understand how the internet works.

Sidstyler wrote:I'll agree that GW's 'Eavy Metal team should be held to a higher standard than your average gamer, but I think you need to chill out. Yeah, it's kinda bad when there are gaps on a showcase model that's going to be in WD, on the box, on the internet, etc. but saying they need to be "shot" because of a couple gaps? My tanks aren't perfectly filled either, and yes most of them were assembled when I first started out a couple years ago and I know better now, but I don't care about a little gap here and there personally.

Would you walk up to me in a store and start telling me I need to be shot because my models aren't to your liking? Sorry I'm not as good a modeler as you are.

I don't really think they should be shot or be subjected to pain or harm. I just meant that they should be held accountable for their half-a$$ed effort. Its a bit of a figure of speech; probably too violent and dated for these sensitive times. The fact that almost every person who's responded in this thread could probably have done a better job, and probably would have done so for free, just speaks poorly for someone who's suppose to be a professional. I apologize if I offended you. Its no attack on you or your abilities. The fact that someone gets paid to do a job most of us here would be passionate about when this person obviously has little or no passion for the hobby, it agitates the spirit.

Honestly when I've seen models assembled that way I usually offer some pointers and to help them improve their abilities. I've never yelled at anyone over their models. Where ever you are out there, sorry, GW guy.

I like the turret but it does seem a bit skinny for a demo cannon. I am bumbed the heavy flamer is old style dual nozzle and not the new style seen on marine stuff.

I didn't even notice the problems with the display model. I was too busy puking over the horrible quality of the model itself. It's a ridiculous tonka tank stolen from the crack dreams of a child in the 1920's who wondered what would happen if he combined a tank and a cupcake.

They wasted the only chance they were going to have to revamp one of the worst model lines in the game (Leman russ) for another decade.

ShumaGorath wrote:I didn't even notice the problems with the display model. I was too busy puking over the horrible quality of the model itself. It's a ridiculous tonka tank stolen from the crack dreams of a child in the 1920's who wondered what would happen if he combined a tank and a cupcake.

The wasted the only chance they were going to have to revamp one of the worst model lines in the game (Leman russ) for another decade.

*Points and laughs ohhhhhhh you guys are stuck with the ugly LR for another 10 years.

Oh wait... nooooooooooooooooo

Its a conspiracy guys.... watch FW come up with even NEWER upgrade LR kits that will blow you away along with your wallet.

oh please dice gods no................what have they done now.....

ShumaGorath wrote:They wasted the only chance they were going to have to revamp one of the worst model lines in the game (Leman russ) for another decade.

A lot of people, myself included, like the look of the Russ. Some people don't mind that it is an unrealistc take on a WWI tank and, in fact, think that that adds to the tanks charm.

Do the tracks make sense? No.
Does the turret make sense? Not really.
Is the tank's design impractical if not dangerous? Yeah, it's pretty bad.

Do we care? No.

What HBMC said. I'm happy with the current LR design.

They may be unrealistic, but they look pretty pissed off when they are lined up on the table from my opponents point-of-view. Usually he's not nearly worried about the model kit being "unrealsitic" so much as how many troops he's about to lose. I like the kit, well, the old kit. The new one would be fine with me too but I have... enough of them all ready.

The leamen russ is and probably always will be a gun turret on treads in game terms and in style. I'm fine with that.

darn, I cannot see the pics for some reason!

Painted just right for Blood Axe painted wagon. But assembly just ain't up to GW standard but looted standard looks great.

Scottywan82 wrote:Is the article not showing up for anyone else?

Not showing up for me either : (

As was said on the last page, it was taken down. GW thinks that by taking something off the official site it is therefore gone from the internet. It's also just a fad as well, apparently.

yeah, posting on the internet is like peeing in a pool. you can "clean it" but you'll never actually get it out... except for tub girl... i can't seem to find her anymore.

Well would someone please post the images in this thread?

Dang. The link doesn't seem to load properly for me.

Neconilis wrote:Well would someone please post the images in this thread?

The pic is already in this thread numerous times.

djphrang wrote:Dang. The link doesn't seem to load properly for me.

If you were to read the whole thread it's already been mentioned twice that GW has taken down the page.

H.B.M.C. wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:They wasted the only chance they were going to have to revamp one of the worst model lines in the game (Leman russ) for another decade.

A lot of people, myself included, like the look of the Russ. Some people don't mind that it is an unrealistc take on a WWI tank and, in fact, think that that adds to the tanks charm.

Do the tracks make sense? No.
Does the turret make sense? Not really.
Is the tank's design impractical if not dangerous? Yeah, it's pretty bad.

Do we care? No.

People liked the old land raider too.



Those people are wrong and should feel bad.

Ghaz wrote:

djphrang wrote:Dang. The link doesn't seem to load properly for me.

If you were to read the whole thread it's already been mentioned twice that GW has taken down the page.

Lol my bad... I must have missed that when buzzing through

Well, it's the best GW demolisher we've gotten so far, and coming with all the weapon options is definitely a boon. I appreciate that they've at least done some work on the hull parts (for example the front weapon mount looks like a simpler construction). Also, the sponson heavy bolters look good.

Too bad about the hull flamer, I don't mind the old style nozzles that much, but it just sticks out too far.

Looks like the tracks are the same though. I was working on some chimeras this weekend and praying it would be the last time I ever saw the track and wheel sprue (copyright 1995!).

But no.

I wager someday my sons will bitch and moan about IG tracks just like I do.

The wheel sprue is a colossal waste of plastic, yes. Alas, GW designers have the misfortune of being idiots.

your starting to get a little trivial now. as has been said before, this is probably the prototype or even a rough mockup of the parts. if the kit came like this then it wouldnt sell. at least GW are taking it upon themselves to tease players by actually letting them see stuff than let everybody get agrivated on the rumor mills.
Not that this model is terribly shocking and unexpected
ah well can't stop people poking at details on the internet, until GW plant reps in everybodys bedroom to watch what they say... holding an injection of neuro-toxin just behind us....

I can see why the gun mantle is split like that, most likely so they can slide the other two main guns in there, but the rest of the hull shows these gaps and that's just unacceptable, especially for a showcase model. The Shadowsword had the same problem, but that was mostly due to it being a modular display model.

ShumaGorath wrote:People liked the old land raider too.
Those people are wrong and should feel bad.

ShumaGorath wrote:[Implying that opinions can be wrong]

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Kid_Kyoto wrote:Looks like the tracks are the same though. I was working on some chimeras this weekend and praying it would be the last time I ever saw the track and wheel sprue (copyright 1995!).

But no.

I wager someday my sons will bitch and moan about IG tracks just like I do.

I don't see anything that would prevent the wheels from being built into the side panels. I too hope that the damned wheel sprue has been removed.

BrookM wrote:I can see why the gun mantle is split like that, most likely so they can slide the other two main guns in there, but the rest of the hull shows these gaps and that's just unacceptable, especially for a showcase model. The Shadowsword had the same problem, but that was mostly due to it being a modular display model.

The Baneblade did have some problems as well, IIRC the rear track sections were crooked.

Do you think someone is at GW assmbling and painting the new model properly, ready to be put online in a couple of days?

I think this is just the master cast that the guy on the factory floor assembled to see if everything fits together perfectly. The Studio then pilfered it and painted it up quick-quick because their overseers needed to show the sheeple that they still cared about the Imperial manthings.

ShumaGorath wrote:I didn't even notice the problems with the display model. I was too busy puking over the horrible quality of the model itself. It's a ridiculous tonka tank stolen from the crack dreams of a child in the 1920's who wondered what would happen if he combined a tank and a cupcake.

They wasted the only chance they were going to have to revamp one of the worst model lines in the game (Leman russ) for another decade.

Its a sad day when Shumagorath and I are in complete agreement.
They should have taken the opportunity to make all the existing Leman players want new ones. They should have banebladized the core of the Leman. You didn't have to make it a modern battle tank, but come on! the new superheavies look excellent. The flattened Lemans in Epic actually look decent. The new aircraft look inspired. This was you chance. You should have taken it.

1: Good call on saving the pic in your photobucket so GW cant remove it


2: it can be made better, just means chopping around 15-20% of its height (ok, thats a fair bit of work)
losing the turret and replacing it with the turret from a pred (keeping the dem cannon though)

just those changes should make it look alot better, i may have to pick one up and tinker with some ideas.

ShumaGorath wrote:I didn't even notice the problems with the display model. I was too busy puking over the horrible quality of the model itself. It's a ridiculous tonka tank stolen from the crack dreams of a child in the 1920's who wondered what would happen if he combined a tank and a cupcake.

They wasted the only chance they were going to have to revamp one of the worst model lines in the game (Leman russ) for another decade.

Are you unhappy with the styling or the kit quality?

As far as styling, from this and other comments you may be best looking at another game or at least another army. Imperial stuff is weirdly anachronistic deigns that pretty much only make sense with a liberal dose of "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."

All the Imperial tanks are far too tall by modern standards, and rivets are generally considered 'bad' by modern design theories... But this might not matter if you add 38,000 years to things.

If it's kit quality, complain away. Not that I expect anyone to stop based off anything I say anyway.

Y'know... looking at the strange hull, I'm almost convinced the guy building it put the bottom hull plate on backwards.

H.B.M.C. wrote:Y'know... looking at the strange hull, I'm almost convinced the guy building it put the bottom hull plate on backwards.

It's possible, though we only have this one angle, we really can't say for certain.

They are probably ironing out the silly design quirks that Tony put in last millennium, one part at the time.

H.B.M.C. wrote:Y'know... looking at the strange hull, I'm almost convinced the guy building it put the bottom hull plate on backwards.

But if it isnt , then it still shows GW have stupid concept designers. ( you are talking about the whole section between the *17 plate , and the back armor / stowage part right? )

Somewhat disappointing - they could have done a whole lot more with the redesign. On the plus side though it looks so similar to the existing Russ that I can use all my old tanks without them looking bad next to the new stuff (unlike when they updated the Rhino). Bizarrely for once my wallet thanks GW!

I quite like the longer turret but is it me or does that demo cannon look rather, er, under-endowed now?

ShumaGorath wrote:They wasted the only chance they were going to have to revamp one of the worst model lines in the game (Leman russ) for another decade.

QFT.

The recent Baneblade and Shadowsword show very clearly that GW can make a good-looking "Gothic" tank that follows 40k Imperial themes. Hell, even the updated Land Raider shows this. But instead, GW soldiers on with their crappiest tank. If GW was going to do a totally half-assed job, why even bother? It's not like the current Demolisher is so bad to keep in production for another few months if that's what it'd take to do the damn thing properly.
____

Meltdown wrote:your starting to get a little trivial now. as has been said before, this is probably the prototype or even a rough mockup of the parts. if the kit came like this then it wouldnt sell.

The original Land Speeder had a horrible time with the front gap fit. And the Land Raider was notorious for how badly the upper hull gapped. And those were both production models.

So, while the build quality is poor, that doesn't mean the production model will be better.
____

Waaagh_Gonads wrote:Do you think someone is at GW assmbling and painting the new model properly, ready to be put online in a couple of days?

After being held to task for doing a crappy job of assembling, someone who actually knows how to build a plastic tank model *should* be assembling and then painting the model correctly.

Whether GW actually cares enough to do a non-half-assed job, or whether it goes online this month or next doesn't really matter.
____

Balance wrote:As far as styling, from this and other comments you may be best looking at another game or at least another army.

As above, look at the Baneblade. That tank is cool. Why couldn't any of that have rubbed off in making a Land Raider mk.2?
____

OldPeculiar wrote: it looks so similar to the existing Russ that I can use all my old tanks

It looks practically identical, to the point that GW might as well not have bothered.

i don't mind the current overall look of the IG tanks. if they did a redo, i'd prefer if they just added details instead of changing the overall lines because i don't want my army that i spent hundreds of dollars and dozens of hours to standardize to look hodgepodge. although the basis of their tech is the same, i like the visual tech level difference between the IG and marines. marines have tanks with slopping armor, covered exhaust, remote operated turrets, a modern military design look. the IG instead have a mix of WW1 and WW2 aesthetics with blocky armor, crewed sponsons, and hull mounted guns. this "same but different" motif continues to other army choices. IG (at least the metal cadians) special weapons require a backpack and look bulkier; the marines just plug their weapon into their armor. marines carry their heavy weapons (including ammo/powerpacks) on their person; IG require a two man team and a tripod. the only thing i don't like is the rebasing i'll have to do to make my heavy weapons teams tourny legal... grumble, grumble...

I think the new demolisher looks fine. I did like the look of the metal one better though

I'm going to wait and see how the Punisher cannon and plasma blast cannon look on that turret before throwing a complete bitch fit.

H.B.M.C. wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:They wasted the only chance they were going to have to revamp one of the worst model lines in the game (Leman russ) for another decade.

A lot of people, myself included, like the look of the Russ. Some people don't mind that it is an unrealistc take on a WWI tank and, in fact, think that that adds to the tanks charm.

Do the tracks make sense? No.
Does the turret make sense? Not really.
Is the tank's design impractical if not dangerous? Yeah, it's pretty bad.

Do we care? No.

and when you openent looks across the table and sees nine of them, will he still wet himself a little? yes
it is still one of my fave models

JohnHwangDD wrote:It looks practically identical, to the point that GW might as well not have bothered.

Had they designed less LR variants in the new codex, there would have been no need for a new three-in-one kit for either the Hellhound and the Demolisher. Instead, we could have gotten Russ/Demolisher and Chimera/Hellhound boxes. Without the half-assed new variants to drum up interest and soak development zots, they would have had ample opportunity to redesign the kits. As such, this latest fiasco can directly be attributed to Robin Cruddace's abortion of a codex.

I don't want seven crappy tank variants. I want one model that looks good. Nothing more. I'd even settle for one statline.

If they hadn't put so many new variants in the codex, you would be lucky to see a plastic turret for the demolisher. GUARENTEED they wouldn't waste their resources on a kit that isn't even getting a new unit type. They could be making Psyker Battle Squads, or Rough riders, or Storm Troopers instead.

No, GW could have done a modern 5-in-1 Russ / Conqueror / Demolisher / Executioner / Exterminator, along with a 3-in-1 Hellhound / Salamander / Salamander Scout which would have satisfied *everybody*.

No, not everybody.

And a Conqueror?

Of *course*, a Conqueror. How hard is it to shorten the Russ barrel?

Certainly wouldn't have made me happy. I'd rather have some of the new variants.

And who wants a salamander? Maybe that DKoK mini-transport.

Good WWII design to steal from
http://www.tamiyausa.com/product/item.php?product-id=35300

and
http://www.tamiyausa.com/product/item.php?product-id=35290

and (THIS ONE SCREAMS LEMAN RUSS)
http://www.tamiyausa.com/product/item.php?product-id=35287

*John*, *stop* *it*.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Scottywan82 wrote:Certainly wouldn't have made me happy. I'd rather have some of the new variants.

And who wants a salamander? Maybe that DKoK mini-transport.

You mean the Centaur. It's a wonderful little tractor but a little useless in regular Guard armies I think, seeing as it can only carry five men.

Hmmm, maybe as a command vehicle.

Scottywan82 wrote:If they hadn't put so many new variants in the codex, you would be lucky to see a plastic turret for the demolisher. GUARENTEED they wouldn't waste their resources on a kit that isn't even getting a new unit type. They could be making Psyker Battle Squads, or Rough riders, or Storm Troopers instead.

See, that would be awesome compared to what we're getting. The IG book is a colossal letdown on all counts.

If you say so. I enjoy what I've seen. Not that I'm going to buy every kit, but certainly the demolisher one.

EDIT: @ BrookM - yeah, it isn't really a full transport, but neither is the salamander. At least the Centaur looks cool.

The Bren Universal Carrier knock-off? Very cute, but not exactly something I'd expect in a Codex.

Certainly a superior model to the Salamander.

Thankfully they released put sweet new LRBT variants in instead though. Can't wait until August. Hopefully the low armor LRBTs will be released too.

No reason they couldn’t have converted this hunk of junk


Into a small version of this very Gothicy masterpiece

Every weapon cluster, every main sponson could have transferred.

And remember:

BrookM wrote:I'm going to wait and see how the Punisher cannon and plasma blast cannon look on that turret before throwing a complete bitch fit.

Good point, and me too!

Though I must admit, I'm locked and loaded, and ready to go!

I think a lot of you guys are being too hard on GW. Yes, GW could have done an extensive redesign, but that would mean the next wave after this one would likely never happen. This minimal redesign is obviously a means of saving budget to cover the storm troopers and rough riders, as well as all the artillery that are suppose to be in the next wave. When you look at the quantity of sprues going into the Imperial Guard its certainly more than the space marines got. To the people who want such an extensive redesign, build your own from scratch or convert it. Thats as much a part of the hobby as buying something off the shelf and slapping it together.

aka_mythos wrote: To the people who want such an extensive redesign, build your own from scratch or convert it. Thats as much a part of the hobby as buying something off the shelf and slapping it together.

Say again, I couldn't hear you over the sound of the battle cannon

Yes Fraz, we get it, you don't like the Russ.

Move on.

aka_mythos wrote:Yes, GW could have done an extensive redesign, but that would mean the next wave after this one would likely never happen. This minimal redesign is obviously a means of saving budget to cover the storm troopers and rough riders,

To the people who want such an extensive redesign, build your own from scratch or convert it.

Given that the new Storms are unfieldable at 16+ pts/model average, and the Rough Riders became crappier with the weapon options reduction, I think that a brand new Russ would have been a more than even trade. That is, I would have gladly traded the opportunity to buy unfieldable Storms for the opportunity to have a new Russ kit.

If you've seen my [WWW] gallery, it's pretty clear that I have the ability to do scratchbuild a Russ, given time. Unfortunately, with the new Superheavies and such, time is a luxury I am lacking.

Well not everyone would. I have seen your tank pron. Its good stuff.

I think we should all just be optimistic and start looking forward to the next codex, when GW updates the other half of all these tanks.

H.B.M.C. wrote:Yes Fraz, we get it, you don't like the Russ.

Move on.

Haha, HMBC telling someone to move on.

Who's HMBC Ozy?

H.B.M.C. wrote:Who's HMBC Ozy?

Half-mother of Barneus Calgar.

The only real problem I have the the Russ as it is is that the turret looks completely cartoony bonkers. The cannon is so disproportionately huge it's practically some sort of chibi no-way bizarro land Japan tank. I half expect to see a tank commander with huge eyes and a tiny mouth to pop out of the turret and flash the peace sign before that massive super buster graviton wave battlecannon turns him to paste with it's ludicrous recoil.

For a cannon that big, it looks like there is no room to maneuver the shells into the breech inside that turret anyway.

H.B.M.C. wrote:Who's HMBC Ozy?

It's you, move on.

He's being mean to me mummy!

*cries*

Glad to see I still have no reason to buy a Russ.

Railguns wrote:The only real problem I have the the Russ as it is is that the turret looks completely cartoony bonkers. The cannon is so disproportionately huge it's practically some sort of chibi no-way bizarro land Japan tank. I half expect to see a tank commander with huge eyes and a tiny mouth to pop out of the turret and flash the peace sign before that massive super buster graviton wave battlecannon turns him to paste with it's ludicrous recoil.

For a cannon that big, it looks like there is no room to maneuver the shells into the breech inside that turret anyway.

Ummm have you looked at a space marine? Or even a guardsmen they are anatomically disproportional to the same degree as the tanks. If you expect anything less you should probably find another game. The identity of 40k, is partially a cartoony proportion. This has been a complaint of other non-GW wargamers for years. It's like going to a death metal rock concert and complaining you were deafened. It is the nature of the beast, anything less and the game loses to some degree of its identity. Now if you believe that to be good or bad is your choice.

Thats not the point. There is rediculous, which is great. But, then there is stupid. The Leman Russ barrel is stupid. It should be slightly longer and thinner. As it is the weapon is completely out of scale with other S8 type weapons. It's large enough to reasonably act as a demolisher cannon.

People complain about people complaining about scale discrepencies, but this is an easy one. You don't even have to re-do any other parts of the decade old kit, just resculpt the barrel and widen the turret.

Railguns wrote:Thats not the point. There is rediculous, which is great. But, then there is stupid. The Leman Russ barrel is stupid.

There are opinions. Everyone can have them, which is great. But, then there's stating opinion as fact. The above quote is someone stating opinion as fact.

Which is stupid.

Railguns wrote:It should be slightly longer and thinner. As it is the weapon is completely out of scale with other S8 type weapons. It's large enough to reasonably act as a demolisher cannon.

Who's to say that the barrel isn't for show (or armour!) and that the actual width of the barrel is much thinner than it appears from the outside?

Railguns wrote:Thats not the point. There is rediculous, which is great. But, then there is stupid. The Leman Russ barrel is stupid. It should be slightly longer and thinner.

Only if it was built in 2009.

There were technological advances in the period before the stagnation in fluff. Many of those advances could easily have caused battlecannon design to be re-thought in conjunction with making it able to penetrate power armour.

It's silly to complain that tanks 40,000 years in the future don't reflect current technological limitations.

.....I'm not complaining that they don't fit technological limitations? I'm complaining that I think the turret gun is too big. It looks like a Space Marine could get his head stuck in it, it's that large. Yes, thats my opinion. I'm not stating it as fact, guys. I'm looking at the hole in the middle of the barrel and I notice that it looks about as wide as the lid of a 55 gallon drum. Don't get me wrong, I like the design and crazy WWI aesthetic of the tank overall, I really do. But to me the gun is comically oversized and inconsistent with the rest of the tank. You can look at a space marine and tell that he is certainly big enough to heft a heavy bolter. You can look at a pair of Guardsmen and be reasonably sure that the 2 of them can drag around and operate an autocannon on a carriage. The gun looks off to me because the bore width gives the impression that it fires a shell the size of the guy standing in the cupola. I'm not asking for a lascannon sized gun. I'm not even asking for the overall width of the barrel to be changed. I'm just saying that the width of the hole in the barrel is too large. Hell, make the dang thing thicker so that the large calibre Guard weapons look like variations of the same principle in 40k killiness.

And cmon HBMC, it isn't like I'm the only guy around here who occasionally states his opinions strongly enough that other people think he is stating it as fact.
I've seen your tank collection pictures, I totally understand if you disagree.


EDIT:It also seems quite silly that everyone becomes nearly militant just because I didn't preface an opinion with "I think". C'mon guys, this is Dakka, not Warseer.

Kid_Kyoto wrote:Looks like the tracks are the same though. I was working on some chimeras this weekend and praying it would be the last time I ever saw the track and wheel sprue (copyright 1995!).

But no.

I wager someday my sons will bitch and moan about IG tracks just like I do.

One of my buddies installed just the wheels that would show and put the rest in his bitz box. Every time he talks about my Rhinos being worthless, I remind him of how easy the tracks are to install and he shuts up for a little bit.

Railguns wrote:EDIT:It also seems quite silly that everyone becomes nearly militant just because I didn't preface an opinion with "I think". C'mon guys, this is Dakka, not Warseer.

But that's just it Railguns - you didn't think!!!!



See what I did there? I've always wanted to say something like that.

I tend to agree that the barrel is a bit silly on the Russ. However, what makes me insane is the barrel on the Vanquisher. It looks like a sewer pipe, not a weapon. I am hoping they narrow it a good bit to make it making it look like it shoots more of a railgun type slug instead of a giant exploding pickle barrel.
Ideally, it would have a different turret too, but that is probably hoping for too much.

Wehrkind wrote:I tend to agree that the barrel is a bit silly on the Russ. However, what makes me insane is the barrel on the Vanquisher. It looks like a sewer pipe, not a weapon. I am hoping they narrow it a good bit to make it making it look like it shoots more of a railgun type slug instead of a giant exploding pickle barrel.
Ideally, it would have a different turret too, but that is probably hoping for too much.

What makes this whole thing even worse is that the Vanquisher's shells no longer explode at all. I guess it must just be one giant sabot.

@Nerf: With that barrel, it's just a big slug of iron...

H.B.M.C. wrote:

Railguns wrote:EDIT:It also seems quite silly that everyone becomes nearly militant just because I didn't preface an opinion with "I think". C'mon guys, this is Dakka, not Warseer.

But that's just it Railguns - you didn't think!!!!



See what I did there? I've always wanted to say something like that.

What did I not think? That people would assume I was stating an opinion as fact? I was kinda hoping we were past that Stelek business. Oh well, C'est la Vie.

Really though, I like the goofy old Lemon Russ, it's a throwback to the days when I started playing and still evokes the kind of backa$$wards "tech of the 41'st millenium, tactics of WWI" aesthetic that most of the better Guard models have (DKOK!). Would like a slight resculpt of the barrel, sure, because as it's been said it looks like a pickle barrel launcher or embiggerized mortar rather than an MBT cannon. My spacial reasoning keeps screaming that if the bore is x wide, then the shell must be x wide, which means that the turret needs y extra space just to maneuver the 55 gallon drum shells into the breech, which leaves no room for the commander to get back down into the tank, or for a loader and commander to occupy the same turret while firing(which is probably the case).

As for the new demolisher, I think I'll wait to make a judgement until I see a properly put together model. I like the lines and newer sponson weapons though. The Hellhound is fine, doesn't wow but it doesn't need to in a Guard army. It looks like a non-nonsense flamey death tank with at least some consideration given to trying to protect the fuel tanks.

Agamemnon2 wrote:The wheel sprue is a colossal waste of plastic, yes. Alas, GW designers have the misfortune of being idiots.

I happen to love the wheel and track sprues. Sure, it takes a few extra minutes to assemble. But, with minimal creativity, you can get a stock of wheel pieces, and tread pieces that make excellent stowage on your tank.

After you've got enough, you can even double-wide some of the pieces, like this looted basilisk I made back when such things were possible:


Not to mention having the pieces available for all manner of other conversions. These are what we lose when they simplify....

I also hate that they attached the ork shootas to the arms on the new boyz sprues, instead of, gasp, making you cut a handle off a gun. Because nothing's as orky without a few extra shootas lying around, and having the potential to use those bitz more than makes up for having to actually glue a gun to an arm.

Redbeard wrote:I happen to love the wheel and track sprues. Sure, it takes a few extra minutes to assemble. But, with minimal creativity, you can get a stock of wheel pieces, and tread pieces that make excellent stowage on your tank.

What's it like out in the cold? Is it lonley?

I've never met anyone - until now of course - who likes the way Guard tracks are done. They're easily one of the most unnecessary and needlessly fiddly things GW has ever come up with, and the day they die will be a good day for the hobby. The one's on the Russ can be simpler to put together (but by the time you're on your 20th Russ you can put them together with your eyes closed) but the Chimera chassis... my God... I've put together 26 of those damned things - that's 52 track sections - and they never get easier, and are always different. And then there's the Malcador Super-Heavy tank. You know the reason I didn't buy any of those tanks, despite how much I like the way they look, is because you have to stick the plastic tracks, to a resin hull, with super-glue. The thought of that gives me nightmares!!!!

No, those tracks need to go and they need to be replaced with the same system as the Land Raider. After so many Guard tanks, the Land Raiders were like a reward for putting up with them.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Railguns wrote:What did I not think?

Ah c'mon! I wasn't being serious. Did you not see the "" in that post. I just wanted to say that line.

Lost in internet translation I suppose.

I can't wait to do something with those vulture punisher cannons that Forgeworld is showing off. Those look really, really nice and killy, and I keep thinking of Gundam Heavyarms whenever I see them. Maybe I'll do a broadside conversion with Tau missile pods and those cannons on the arms and...

I hope Rhino tracks aren't as bad as the Chimera tracks... are they?

Railguns wrote:Lost in internet translation I suppose.

No harm no foul.

Railguns wrote:I can't wait to do something with those vulture punisher cannons that Forgeworld is showing off. Those look really, really nice and killy, and I keep thinking of Gundam Heavyarms whenever I see them. Maybe I'll do a broadside conversion with Tau missile pods and those cannons on the arms and...

If you falling over money every time you walked down your hallway, or are in a habit of lighting fires using nothing but bank notes because you have so much spare cash, you could get some of those and make them into interesting Hydras. Or one hell of a Chimera variant!!!

Personally I just want them on Vultures. I am over the moon that there is a plastic conversion kit of the Vulture. I wants me 4 o'dems! And two Vendettas. An air wing of 6 Valks, 2 Vendys and 4 Vultures sounds pretty good right?

Railguns wrote:I hope Rhino tracks aren't as bad as the Chimera tracks... are they?

Rhino tracks are a bit fiddly, but their logical-fiddly, as in they have small pieces that must go in the right order, but they're always the same, they always go in the same spot, and it makes sense over all. This is the opposite to the Guard tracks where if you start in slightly the wrong place the tracks will either be too short (leaving a gap) or too long (requiring you to cut a track piece in half). I've had to do that so many times now it's not funny. Could be worse - could be a resin Baneblade; those tracks don't actually go together at all. The Land Raider and the plastic Baneblade have the best tracks.

As soon as I find myself drowning in discretionary income, that Hydra conversion is done. So much dakka.

And as for the tank treads, I've been spoiled putting together pansy floaty tanks for Xenos armies for years and have never put together a Rhino chassis vehicle. Going to do my first one this week (hopefully) so I want to know what kind of headache I'm in for.

I actually like the new turret, cause I know everyone cares what I think.

I don't love it, but I like it flatter and wider. I also don't love the cartoonish gun barrels, etc. They're clearly meant to be cartoonish, so I accept them in that light, but I think I'd prefer something a bit more realistically proportioned, as the SM tanks tend to be.

That said, it seems like GW is pretty hesitant to revamp any of their established kits. Notice that Sentinels stayed the same, Cadians, Catachans, etc. They released new SM stuff, and it's all the same, basically.

The Orks got some NEW stuff, but it's in the same style as older stuff, save the vehicles, which are genuinely new... But then again the old Ork Trukk was so laughable, it's hard to say if it ever even existed.

They redid War Walkers and Wraithlords fairly extensively... Hard to say what motivates them to change, really.

H.B.M.C. wrote:Who's HMBC Ozy?

Her Majesty's Big Chest

H.B.M.C. wrote:
What's it like out in the cold? Is it lonley [sic]?

I've never met anyone - until now of course - who likes the way Guard tracks are done. They're easily one of the most unnecessary and needlessly fiddly things GW has ever come up with, and the day they die will be a good day for the hobby.

It all depends what you're looking for. I honestly don't think they're that bad. And, you get extras for conversions, terrain detailing, and the like. I've build scale model WWII tanks that had every single linkage as a separate piece. I'm not some newb modeller who can't figure out how to glue a few tracks together. Given the choice between a little complexity (really minimal, compared to what you get with scale models) with bonus parts, or easy-to-build with no extras for creative modeling, I'll take the complexity any day.

It's not the complexity that annoys me, it's now unnecessary it is. Why do I need to put track wheels inside it? Why not just have several large bits rather than lots of tiny bits?

Comparing it to the only other tanks around at the time - the Rhino/Predator and the Land Raider - it didn't make sense. Those two tanks just had the tracks built into the mould and they didn't need to be glued on. They could have made it far simpler because it didn't need to be so complex. The kit wasn't improved by the inclusion of muti-piece tracks.

H.B.M.C. wrote:It's not the complexity that annoys me, it's now unnecessary it is. Why do I need to put track wheels inside it? Why not just have several large bits rather than lots of tiny bits?

Comparing it to the only other tanks around at the time - the Rhino/Predator and the Land Raider - it didn't make sense. Those two tanks just had the tracks built into the mould and they didn't need to be glued on. They could have made it far simpler because it didn't need to be so complex. The kit wasn't improved by the inclusion of muti-piece tracks.

He's one hundred percent on the tracks for IG. Although they are great to add bits onto the hull they are HORRIBLE. I think I had three vehicles sitting around for three months purely because I did not mess with the tracks. After Tamiya, after the aforementioned rhino its maddening. The thing is, there's no reason for them to be so hard.

The one positive with all the wheels is that you can cut ~half a CM off the bottom (or more with proper support) on both the Leman and the chimera to show the wheels in proper tanker fashion. If done decently it really changes the image of the vehicles.

I still have a pair of Russes and my other two Hellhounds that are trackless just because I can't be bothered to put them on!!!

Yea, one of the guys at my store left off the outer armor on one of his chimeras, exposing the inner wheels and treads. It looked pretty cool, but he had to do some extra work on the side to add detail. not something I would do, but it was a really neat look.

H.B.M.C. wrote:

Redbeard wrote:I happen to love the wheel and track sprues. Sure, it takes a few extra minutes to assemble. But, with minimal creativity, you can get a stock of wheel pieces, and tread pieces that make excellent stowage on your tank.

What's it like out in the cold? Is it lonley?

I've never met anyone - until now of course - who likes the way Guard tracks are done.

I LOVE them, and I've assembled over 25 IG vehicles in my time. I have a huge collection of wheels and treads left over...



Also, there is one reason the Leman Russ will never be changed. I can give all of you one very believeable reason.

Forge World.

To many kits have been made dependent on these tanks' scheme.


As for the tank itself, I like the way it looks because it IS NOT what we have today. If you play video games as much as I do, you'll know there are a trillion modern-esque/sci-fi tanks out there. Yes they are cool. How many WW1 style tanks are out there? Very very few... this is why I like the Russ, it is UNIQUE to TT and Video gaming pretty much.

I don't really care one way or the other about the tracks. I think they could be improved but I'm not going to lose sleep over it. Also there is no way of knowing if GW has changed how the wheels of these tanks are done. What if they did change the wheels to being molded on and only retained the tracks as separate pieces, there isn't any really way to judge from the pictures. I'm just pointing that out; I doubt they did.

JoeyFox wrote:I LOVE them, and I've assembled over 25 IG vehicles in my time. I have a huge collection of wheels and treads left over...

When you get to 55 IG vehicles, then we'll talk. It's not fun and it's not necessary.

JoeyFox wrote:Also, there is one reason the Leman Russ will never be changed. I can give all of you one very believeable reason.

Forge World.

To many kits have been made dependent on these tanks' scheme.

That's not a reason. The resin Valk and Vulture went away with the new plastic one. The old resin Baneblades went away with the plastic one. They don't keep things around just 'cause FW made some conversion kits.

H.B.M.C. wrote:
Personally I just want them on Vultures. I am over the moon that there is a plastic conversion kit of the Vulture. I wants me 4 o'dems! And two Vendettas. An air wing of 6 Valks, 2 Vendys and 4 Vultures sounds pretty good right?

Absolutely




Since this new design of the chimera and russ chassis is part of codex IG ( vehicle drawings page 50 + 53 ), but the hydra / manticore /
deathstrike are just some pics ( not a correct side view of non-released vehicles ) is it safe to assume they will stay FW?

JoeyFox wrote: I've assembled over 25 IG vehicles in my time. I have a huge collection of wheels and treads left over...

Also, there is one reason the Leman Russ will never be changed. I can give all of you one very believeable reason.
Forge World.

I've built over a dozen IG tanks, and had a bunch of wheels & tracks left over. I bought Chimera Hull & Track sprues for $6 each, allowing me to build more Chimera-hulled stuff at marginal cost.

FW will simply adapt like they did moving to Arkurian-pattern Superheavies, cancelling anything that is replaced by all-plastic. I don't see FW holding GW back.

1hadhq wrote:Since this new design of the chimera and russ chassis is part of codex IG ( vehicle drawings page 50 + 53 ), but the hydra / manticore /deathstrike are just some pics ( not a correct side view of non-released vehicles ) is it safe to assume they will stay FW?

I think its more the fact that GW didn't make their models top priorities for design. My guess is that at the time the codex was finalized, "hydra/manticore/deathstrike" were not finalized in design. While some vehicles maybe left only as models available through Forge World I don't think a lack of drawings in the codex is an immediate indicator of that.

HMBC: I am very grateful to be in a place where IG vehicles are easily aquired 2nd hand. none-the-less the reason I am hateful of the current design based upon the construction of roughly 25 of the bastard things.

DEATH TO THE WHEEL AND TRACK SPRUE!!!

DEATH TO THE WHEEL AND TRACK SPRUE!!!

DEATH TO THE WHEEL AND TRACK SPRUE!!!

HUZZAH!!!!

...wait. They aren't replacing it? SON OF A BITCH!!!

I'm not sadistic (I don't play Dark Eldar) but honestly the track and wheels don't bother me. So long as you spend some time and plan the order and dry fit the first time you build a Chimera or Russ, it easy enough to copy the sequence and positions on your next one. This also means you can work out the best use of bits and not bother placing them under the track guards (now I am pissed off they got taken out the codex but thats another matter ).

I'm not saying I wouldn't love to see an improved track set like mini-baneblades but I can live with it easily enough.

I love the new turret. I'm gonna pre-order one and convert it. I'm not liking the new sponsons as the weapons are sticking out far too much. I think I'm gonna replace the barrel with a vanquisher one from FW. Just hope it fits together better than the one in the picture.

I like the whole plastic change over-makes it a bit more affordable, but i agree, they wont change the russ-think of the uproar if they did! People would go mad!

aka_mythos wrote:

1hadhq wrote:Since this new design of the chimera and russ chassis is part of codex IG ( vehicle drawings page 50 + 53 ), but the hydra / manticore /deathstrike are just some pics ( not a correct side view of non-released vehicles ) is it safe to assume they will stay FW?

I think its more the fact that GW didn't make their models top priorities for design. My guess is that at the time the codex was finalized, "hydra/manticore/deathstrike" were not finalized in design. While some vehicles maybe left only as models available through Forge World I don't think a lack of drawings in the codex is an immediate indicator of that.

Models not top priority for GW
I agree, Gw hadn't those IG tanks ready when they shot the pics for the codex.
But all of GW's new models are identical to any drawing seen before ( from stormlord to IG at least.) and 3 tanks didn't get such presentation. Maybe youre right and its only the 18 months release window, keeping us guessing.

reds8n wrote:from the GW site....

Take cover and call for reinforcements - new tanks are coming from the forges to lay waste to the battlefield. A number of new vehicle kits and Bitz Packs are released this August, perfect for tank commanders and treadheads of every persuasion. Shown here is the new Imperial Guard Leman Russ Demolisher - the ultimate siege tank, plated in additional armour and bristling with deadly weaponry.

The multi-part plastic kit includes all the hull and sponson-mounted weapons available to this beast, and can also be assembled as a Leman Russ Executioner or Leman Russ Punisher!

linky with pics

I have heard these rumors too. Apparently all Leman Russ types will be available in two box sets.

Klueless wrote:

reds8n wrote:from the GW site....

Take cover and call for reinforcements - new tanks are coming from the forges to lay waste to the battlefield. A number of new vehicle kits and Bitz Packs are released this August, perfect for tank commanders and treadheads of every persuasion. Shown here is the new Imperial Guard Leman Russ Demolisher - the ultimate siege tank, plated in additional armour and bristling with deadly weaponry.

The multi-part plastic kit includes all the hull and sponson-mounted weapons available to this beast, and can also be assembled as a Leman Russ Executioner or Leman Russ Punisher!

linky with pics

I have heard these rumors too. Apparently all Leman Russ types will be available in two box sets.

Aye, one light box and the other heavy.

I think they lowerd the sides as well were the tracks are because there are only seven rivets on the side just infront of the multimelta and there are eight on the curent russ..
And it looks like the made the front bit of the sides less pointy and more roundisha as well.

dirkthe1 wrote:I like the whole plastic change over-makes it a bit more affordable, but i agree, they wont change the russ-think of the uproar if they did! People would go mad!

Terrible people, we're better off without them.

1hadhq wrote:

aka_mythos wrote:

1hadhq wrote:Since this new design of the chimera and russ chassis is part of codex IG ( vehicle drawings page 50 + 53 ), but the hydra / manticore /deathstrike are just some pics ( not a correct side view of non-released vehicles ) is it safe to assume they will stay FW?

I think its more the fact that GW didn't make their models top priorities for design. My guess is that at the time the codex was finalized, "hydra/manticore/deathstrike" were not finalized in design. While some vehicles maybe left only as models available through Forge World I don't think a lack of drawings in the codex is an immediate indicator of that.

Models not top priority for GW
I agree, Gw hadn't those IG tanks ready when they shot the pics for the codex.
But all of GW's new models are identical to any drawing seen before ( from stormlord to IG at least.) and 3 tanks didn't get such presentation. Maybe youre right and its only the 18 months release window, keeping us guessing.

I think you're reading that the way you wanted to. Not that models are not a top priority for GW but that those models are not a top priority relative to the other Imperial Guard tanks.