I have not seen this elsewhere, and it is a review from memory when I saw the sprues about an hour and a half ago. I did not have a notebook with me:

Saw these assembled today so I have updated and in part ammended my post:


New LEMAN RUSS sprue contents

1. This is NOT a new turret sprue for the orginal Leman Russ. The kit is a complete redesign of the old tank, same scale but better execution and model detail.

2. The assembly is roughly similar you have the two tank sides each of two sections plus a surround of tracks, however assembly is stremlined and from what I have seen the kit assembles in a far less tricky way.

3. External side detail is rougly similar, but there are small changes.

4. The turret shape is 'Ryza' pattern rarther than stock Russ pattern.

The weapons.

5. This kit screams out 'magnetise me!'. All the major weapons and options are plug ins with identical sockets, one socket type for sponson and hull mounts and one for the main gun.

6. You get a lascannon, IIRC three heavy bolters, two multi meltas and two plasma cannon. All secondarty weapons are one piece. The weapons are now normal sized, not extra chunky.

7. The main weapons are in two or three pieces and dont look at all bad on the sprue. You get the Punisher, Demolisher and Executioner variants. again the weapons fit onto an identicle sized mounting on the front of the turret with a hexagonal plug, it would be very easy to magnetise these. In fact because of the hexagonal plus it is possibly the barrles might stay in by themselves or if carefully deep pinned without magnets. However the turret mount piece varies, one for each gun though this is a minor detail (wiring on the plasma weapons mounting etc) and you can choose a generic mounting and add any of the three barrels to it.

Customisation.

8. One odd ommission was the lack of the battlecannon, because this kit is so definately superior to the stock russ Gwe had an option to save on logistical costs and retire the old kit entirely. The good news is that the punisher cannon is narrow enough that it can serve as an armature when cut down to glue on a plastic sleeve to make a DIY battlecannon. Done this way you can fully customise your Russes with a split between Punishers and stock Russ with each tank having Plasma and Demolisher options.

9. Customising the addition of sponsons will be tricky, but outfitting the sponsons and hull will be fairly easy.

10. The only other detail dependant on the weapons loadout regards the turret stowage. The turret has rear stowage built into the kit. You get a sperate strip cover representing the three stowage lids to glue in place. However if you have the executioner you are expected to use a seperate cover which represents heat sinks or power generators. You could work out a way to pin or magnetise the covers, this will involve underfilling the cover for something to mount a pin hole or magnet. Alternately this piece can be ignored altogether, the executioner turret is defined clearly by the big plasma weapon, not by the power pack at the back, there is no reason why you couldnt just have stowage.

11. The commander is Cadian and similar in options to the one on the Baneblade, This includes a cavalry sabre arm - for driving closer and hitting with. This arm was in fact NOT included, the arm I saw was apparently from another kit or the store bitz box, not taken from the Russ sprue, but from the Hellhound sprue perhaps? The store manager was in fact fond of that motivational poster and wanted to replicate it. The commander appears to be pointing with it.though this part of the sprue was part cut and I havent seen all the details.

Future concepts.

12. Oddly part of the interior (the floor) was detailed. GW seem to be setting up for Forgeworld to have the option of making open topped variants in the future. With a sculpted floor forgeworld will need to provide an upper hull piece and drivers partition wall and have a tank chassis ready for a Russ mounted artillery piece.


Second look.

13. I heard comments that the new hatches are too small or fiddly to have hinged access, you will need to glue them shut or open.

14. The exhausts, rear chassis stowage, towing hooks etc all fit on the chassis on 'featureless' mounting points. there are recommended guids for where each goes but the detail is on the add on not the tank. So for example the round riveted connecting ring for where the exhaust protrudes from the tank is on the exhaust, not the tank. Thus any of these features can be omiited or replaced in a different location. The guide brackets fro the side sponsons remain and look identicle to how they did before. I did notice a general lack of detail on the main chassis in fact, unlike the sides there is little or no riveting, you add the detail you want.
This does mean that there are alos no guides to get the pieces level, that might not be problematical for some, but the job I saw today has crooked stowage items, expect to see that a lot.


All in all a damn good kit.


New HELLHOUND sprue contents

This kit came without instructions and I cannot fully see what is where.

1. Ok the pictures dont do this justice from what I can see from the sprues the Hellhound is 'open topped' at the back you can see into the chassis. The floor of the chassis has room for a quad of four large barrels standing upright. the barrel bottoms are part of the chassic bottom, the barrels sides are two prices each and with a seprate lid then there are some piping etc and a cover the leaves detail exposed. The barrels are covered by a hinged cover plate which doesnt entirely conceal them (the actual tank cover is hinged, the models hinge is non functional). There is also a hinged rear hatch roughly similar to that on the Chimera. All this means that the rear section looks like it is intended to open up like 'jaws' so that new fuel barrels can be inserted or otherwise filled. A nice bit of detail that hints on the tanks logistical functionality. It also encourages options for dioramas with Helhounds being refueled or worked on with the two plates open.


2. The hull weapons are plug in like those for the Russ. These weapons unlike those on the Russ are two parted so they have cored barrels as per those on the Baneblade.

3. The turret main weapon is in several sections, each weapon has a two piece barrel 'base' which is standard for the tank, then there is a seperate two piece extension that forms the main gun, with a cored barrel. While more fiddly than the Russ armament it should not be difficult to pin or magnetise the main weapons. I suggest deep pinning from what I have seen, the socket is not rounded so a deep pin should hold without the need for.

4. I did however notice a very nice head with an officers cap and an arch topped mask covering ther nose and mouth.

5. The main gun of the Hellhound has an erectile dysfunction, it will droop unless glued or a piece is inserted to stop the berel drooping during assembly. because ther barrel itself is four pieces it needs to be assembled with care, even the one featured in the studio imagery looks not quite right.

6. Please do undercoat and paint the barrels and fule lines before full assembly there is a lot of submerged detail which will be all but impossible to reach afterwards. You may well have to part assdemble and spray basecoat this tank in stages if you want to get the most out of the detailing.

7. The remade Hellhound/Chimera chassis has been simplified for assembly along the same grounds as the Russ. Also the transmission plate covers protrude far less from the sides of the tank, with the new design there is still a significant amount of tank overhanging the tracks, but far less pronounced than before.

8. The turret includes options for three pieces of spaced armour, which was well handled and looks good.

After seeing the assembled kit I must say I am much more impressed than I was with the pictures.

Thanks for the info!

This includes a cavalry sabre arm - for driving closer and hitting with

I chuckled.

I suspect we will be seeing the resculpt applied to the standard Russ when they release the other patterns. Certainly, the Vanquisher need only really be an extended Battle Cannon barrell.

Overall, can't wait for pics!

Deleted per Iorek's PM

Erm. Read it again John. He said it's a complete redesign.

Why not wait to see the sprue and a contruction diagram before jumping off the deepend.

Oh, I forgot. This is the internet.

All the more for us Hwang.

Besides I dont see logic to your anger, the point quoted its that they have fixed the Russ. The only thing they didnt 'fix' is the battlecannon barrel, which I mentioned elsewhere on the post, and is replicable because the punisher cannon is narrow enough to be cut down and use as the core for a plastic tube barrel.

Geez John, did a Leman Russ rape you or something?

He's just angry that they didn't change it into a mini-Baneblade.

JohnHwangDD wrote:

Orlanth wrote:New LEMAN RUSS sprue contents

1. This is NOT a new turret sprue for the orginal Leman Russ. The kit is a complete redesign of the old tank, same scale but better execution and model detail.

GW had an opportunity to fix the Leman Russ for real, and they feth it up with a half-assed limp-dicked touch-up of a gak design.

feth you, GW. I won't buy any.

You want some cheese with your whine, John? The Russ chassis has been around for ages, and it's not changing. You want more modern tanks, play Space Marines or something.

BrookM wrote:He's just angry

Fixed your quote.

Deleted per Iorek's PM

Does the kit include any parts from the old accessory sprue, in particular the track guards?

So you've seen it from all angles yes? Or just the same piccy we've seen?

Also re the Baneblade. This design predates the Great Crusade. The Leman Russ, as the name suggests, was designed by...Leman Russ, during the Great Crusade. Thus historically, there is bone all reason for the Russ to follow the design of the Baneblade.

Comment removed at behest of mods.

Potential for open-topped Russ' eh? I'm thinking artillery piece like they did with the M4 Shermans in WW2 by shoving a howitzer onto the chassis.

John needs to learn that he doesn't speak for everybody.

I'd call H.B.M.C in here, but the pure, unbridled hate for John would no doubt cause the Dakka server to short out and blow up half of the UK.

Held the sprues my hands yesterday, It looks like the tracks are easier to fit on and there's some internal detail, overall the detail seems to be crisper. On the downside the hatches are sealed shut on the side, above the lascannon and on the deck, also I dislike the old style heavy flamers and it certainly would have been an excellent opportunity to drop the height, lengthen the hull and give it some sort of suspension.

I already have half a dozen Leman Russ so the changes are meaningless to me. I don't hate it but it is a waste of a redesign. As it's now on three sprues instead of five and has no metal parts I assume it will be getting cheaper.

There's no need to speculate on the price of the new IG tank kits coming this August. They have been showing in the Advance Order section of the GW online store for weeks now.

I actually saw the sprues for the new Leman Russ Demolisher/Executioner/Punisher several weeks ago. I like the new track attachment system which eliminates the need for the wheel sprue. The new weapons look great. I'm planning to do a little converting and use the unused weapons from the new Demolisher kit on as yet unbuilt tanks from the 10-tank Apocalypse deal. All plastic parts should make this very easy.

Thanks for posting this information Orlanth. While I too have more Russes than I already need, the fact that this kit could be used to make a standard Russ with some converting is interesting.

it is too bad that we lose the wheel sprue and track sprues though, I know that there are GW oriented scratchbuilders who will be very sad about that.

So wait. does it still have the same track assembly with the little wheels or no?

Hey John, if you want a more realistic looking russ, head over to warseer, and look up my thread "This ain't no pansy GW armor, son" you may like (or not) what you see.

Scottywan82 wrote:So wait. does it still have the same track assembly with the little wheels or no?

No, the bogey wheel sprue is gone. The tracks now fit into little c-shaped slots molded on the hull side pieces. No more fiddling to get them evenly spaced around wheels. It's a much better system that results in evenly spaced tracks every time.

Pictures are needed!

No more wheel sprue? - shock horror , I've used those wheels for so many conversions, they were such a nice source of 'round bits'

But it makes sense from a manufacturing perspective - it was a whole sprue that was normally invisible on the completed model so why have it at all?

So, I presume this is true for both the new Russ and Chimera hulls?

Cheese Elemental wrote:You want some cheese with your whine, John? The Russ chassis has been around for ages, and it's not changing. You want more modern tanks, play Space Marines or something.

Yeah, because Space Marines have so much to offer to a modern tank fan, with none of their vehicles being anything like modern tanks at all. The closest they get is the Predator, the two variants of which are armed with either a glorified pea shooter, or a pair of anti-tank energy weapons. Hardly MBT material.

infilTRAITOR wrote:Potential for open-topped Russ' eh? I'm thinking artillery piece like they did with the M4 Shermans in WW2 by shoving a howitzer onto the chassis.

Yes, because what the Imperial Guard really needs is more artillery variants, to go with the half a dozen we have already...

Are the turrets for new and old LR interchangeable?

Agamemnon2 wrote:

Cheese Elemental wrote:You want some cheese with your whine, John? The Russ chassis has been around for ages, and it's not changing. You want more modern tanks, play Space Marines or something.

Yeah, because Space Marines have so much to offer to a modern tank fan, with none of their vehicles being anything like modern tanks at all. The closest they get is the Predator, the two variants of which are armed with either a glorified pea shooter, or a pair of anti-tank energy weapons. Hardly MBT material.

infilTRAITOR wrote:Potential for open-topped Russ' eh? I'm thinking artillery piece like they did with the M4 Shermans in WW2 by shoving a howitzer onto the chassis.

Yes, because what the Imperial Guard really needs is more artillery variants, to go with the half a dozen we have already...

Negativity makes you die sooner.

Marshal2Crusaders wrote:

Agamemnon2 wrote:

Cheese Elemental wrote:You want some cheese with your whine, John? The Russ chassis has been around for ages, and it's not changing. You want more modern tanks, play Space Marines or something.

Yeah, because Space Marines have so much to offer to a modern tank fan, with none of their vehicles being anything like modern tanks at all. The closest they get is the Predator, the two variants of which are armed with either a glorified pea shooter, or a pair of anti-tank energy weapons. Hardly MBT material.

infilTRAITOR wrote:Potential for open-topped Russ' eh? I'm thinking artillery piece like they did with the M4 Shermans in WW2 by shoving a howitzer onto the chassis.

Yes, because what the Imperial Guard really needs is more artillery variants, to go with the half a dozen we have already...

Negativity makes you die sooner.

We can only hope so. His blood must've turned to pure vinegar by now.

BrookM wrote:

Marshal2Crusaders wrote:Negativity makes you die sooner.

We can only hope so. His blood must've turned to pure vinegar by now.

I see things a lot more clearly than you lot, that much is for certain. And really, would I even want to spend more lifetime in such company? I think not.

Deleted per Iorek's PM

I'm happy as long as they de-frustrationized the track and wheel assembly. I have no idea why there is so much spontaneous vitriol out of nowhere. Warseeritis indeed.

Agamemnon2 wrote:

BrookM wrote:

Marshal2Crusaders wrote:Negativity makes you die sooner.

We can only hope so. His blood must've turned to pure vinegar by now.

I see things a lot more clearly than you lot, that much is for certain. And really, would I even want to spend more lifetime in such company? I think not.

We arnt exactly psychics on the internet , nor we do we claim to explain ourselves to the points you might totally understand.
I dont think you see things any clearer than others , if anything miscommunication plays a part in giving you that illusion.

*Back on topic , the "older" version of russes have 2 tabs beneath the turret , and the haul have 2 slots to where the tabs go into.

I have clipped mine off and it makes absolutely no difference ( other then i cant lift the russ by grabbing the turret lol )
so i was wondering if that makes the older russes 100% interchangeable with new ones.

I would have liked to see a Mars Alpha-pattern hull - more rounded model. Oh well - will have to go back to the drawing board to figure out a plasticard add-on template.
Don't mind the rest of the details mention though.

Just have to add - Johny, grow up. It;s just a toy, no need to throw yours out the pram.

I'm with John here, but less angrylike.

This was a fantastic opportunity to update it to a more sleek, modern design. A lower hull profile, more stowage, just...more better.

And yes, I know more better isn't proper English.

I'll third the wishing for a more practical design. They could have at least produced the Alpha Pattern. Ah well. Hopefully the new one is as easy to convert into something resembling a tank as the previous one was. I worry about the reported loss of the wheels, as those were really important to modifying the tracks so they had clearance. As for the rest of it? Time to get out the plasti-card...

Incidentally that Four Reich Rhino in the Warseer thread is pretty cool. It reminds me of how a guy, whose name I forget but he was one of the few decent posters on Warseer back in the day (no doubt banned with the rest of the Portent old guard), did some CAD work on a realistic Leman Russ that kept the basic design but made it look good (lowered it, widened the tracks, made the battlecannon less cartooney, enlarged the turret, gave the tracks some clearance, etc).

I don't see the issue, just be patient. If you don't like this version of the Russ there will be another one in 2024.

And I'm sure GW will lower their prices and World of Warcraft will be shut down too.

Deleted per Iorek's PM

First of all, I don't see how it's "stupid-looking". I rather like how the Russ looks and I don't get why people hate it so much. I especially like it with what I think is the Vanquisher turret, looks badass.

Second of all, where the hell is the justification for a more "modern" look? I thought the main appeal in playing IG was the WW1-esque tanks and tactics? "Modern" isn't the first thing that comes to my mind when looking at the average Guard army.

*Edited out.

Sidstyler wrote:First of all, I don't see how it's "stupid-looking". I rather like how the Russ looks and I don't get why people hate it so much. I especially like it with what I think is the Vanquisher turret, looks badass.

Second of all, where the hell is the justification for a more "modern" look? I thought the main appeal in playing IG was the WW1-esque tanks and tactics? "Modern" isn't the first thing that comes to my mind when looking at the average Guard army.

Also, now that we're trading friendly advice, I suggest that you go play in traffic, on an unlit street, after sunset, wearing dark clothing...

And I suggest you go cut yourself. Seriously, you really are acting like a fething child, telling people to go play in traffic over a fething toy.

Are you really going to say that, with the vast amounts of different worlds manufacturing tanks, the various hulls, etc...

That the Leman Russ should always have that WW1 tank look, and that every Guard army should play exclusively as waves of troops ala the Vallhallans?


If so, I'd love for them to go and flesh out the other regiments with their own Codexes, and have a Codex for each style of warfare(Cadians--mechanized/urban warfare, Elysians--drop assault, shock troops, and Catachans--jungle warfare/ambush tactics).

Because frankly, there's more to Guard than trenches and meatshields.

Kanluwen wrote:

Sidstyler wrote:First of all, I don't see how it's "stupid-looking". I rather like how the Russ looks and I don't get why people hate it so much. I especially like it with what I think is the Vanquisher turret, looks badass.

Second of all, where the hell is the justification for a more "modern" look? I thought the main appeal in playing IG was the WW1-esque tanks and tactics? "Modern" isn't the first thing that comes to my mind when looking at the average Guard army.

Also, now that we're trading friendly advice, I suggest that you go play in traffic, on an unlit street, after sunset, wearing dark clothing...

And I suggest you go cut yourself. Seriously, you really are acting like a fething child, telling people to go play in traffic over a fething toy.

Are you really going to say that, with the vast amounts of different worlds manufacturing tanks, the various hulls, etc...

That the Leman Russ should always have that WW1 tank look, and that every Guard army should play exclusively as waves of troops ala the Vallhallans?


If so, I'd love for them to go and flesh out the other regiments with their own Codexes, and have a Codex for each style of warfare(Cadians--mechanized/urban warfare, Elysians--drop assault, shock troops, and Catachans--jungle warfare/ambush tactics).

Because frankly, there's more to Guard than trenches and meatshields.

But what about Codex: Krieg? Surely they get a Codex for being Meatshields and Trenchfighters

Deleted per Iorek's PM

I can feel John's pain , but i'll leave the " i like or i dont like out of this" and just get to the point.

GW's investment in making plastic kits costs money , there is no doubt that we'll be stuck with this "new" LR for a decade.
How ever it looks pretty much the same as the old ones , and just as pricey.

So why would GW waste money to recreate something that looks the same? = why people are disappointed.

stupid looking or not, it's a fine tank, and it's battle cannon round is 1 of the best there is....

I say it's fine, and the majority agree....at least it didn't look worse!

Marshal, there's already a Codex: Krieg!

Meatshields and trenchfighters is the 'codex', gawd!

JohnHwangDD wrote:http://www.warseer.com/forums/showthread.php?t=207928

Now, that's a somewhat radical approach to fixing the Russ, but very impressive in the details and execution.

Quite so. Shame that it's monstrously ugly. Better luck next time.

Kanluwen wrote:Marshal, there's already a Codex: Krieg!

Meatshields and trenchfighters is the 'codex', gawd!

Silly Me!!!

Because frankly, there's more to Guard than trenches and meatshields.

And there's more to Tau than "anime mecha anime fan fightan magic", but will people ever listen? No.

Seriously though, I just don't think there's anything wrong with the tank's design. And I'm sure every regiment is different, but that doesn't mean they all use their own totally unique vehicles, does it? The "s" in STC is for "standard", isn't it?

*Edited out.

So why would GW waste money to recreate something that looks the same? = why people are disappointed.

It's not like they haven't done it before. The recut Ork boys and CSMs were pretty much the same as before, with a few new bits thrown in. Maybe they're fairly happy with the design and don't want to make mini baneblades?

Actually if it were a mini baneblade then I wouldn't like it. You can't please everybody I guess.

Sidstyler wrote:

Because frankly, there's more to Guard than trenches and meatshields.

And there's more to Tau than "anime mecha anime fan fightan magic", but will people ever listen? No.

Actually, I think it's more true for the Tau than the Imperial Guard. The Guard is explicitly a stagnant organization, in a culture where innovation and free interchange of ideas are not only illegal, but also heretical. They are very much slaves to the status quo, blindly following doctrine their ancestors laid down a millennium ago with none of them knowing why. If anything, the Guard is far too specialized and capable, considering the nature of the Imperium.

The Tau, on the other hand, are inquisitive, technically advanced and dynamic, pretty much superior to the Imperium of Man in every single way. They adapt and evolve to deal with new challenges in new ways, whereas the IG just goes through the motions like a race of brainless drones.

Agamemnon2 wrote:

Sidstyler wrote:

Because frankly, there's more to Guard than trenches and meatshields.

And there's more to Tau than "anime mecha anime fan fightan magic", but will people ever listen? No.

Actually, I think it's more true for the Tau than the Imperial Guard. The Guard is explicitly a stagnant organization, in a culture where innovation and free interchange of ideas are not only illegal, but also heretical. They are very much slaves to the status quo, blindly following doctrine their ancestors laid down a millennium ago with none of them knowing why. If anything, the Guard is far too specialized and capable, considering the nature of the Imperium.

The Tau, on the other hand, are inquisitive, technically advanced and dynamic, pretty much superior to the Imperium of Man in every single way. They adapt and evolve to deal with new challenges in new ways, whereas the IG just goes through the motions like a race of brainless drones.

*Some* Guard armies do, if we go by the fluff.
Creed's grasp of combined arms tactics, the Tallarn playing to their strength, the Elysians perfected their aerial strikes as best as they can, etc.

There's plenty of "specialist" Guard armies. The problem is that, currently, those specialist Guard armies play just like the non-specialist Guard armies.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Further thinking:
I think the biggest issue, to me at least in regards to the Guard, is that GW thinks too...big for Guard. At least in 40k, that is.

40k isn't suited to an unwieldy organization that's deployed in waves of millions by their commanders.

If they went and did the Guard to be more focused on the Veterans/Stormtroopers or the Mechanized units, etc...I personally feel we'd be in a better place.
Less emphasis on tanks also would be fantastic to me.
I mean, the Drop Sentinels from IA3/4?
Awesome. They give the idea of a specialist force that's suited for THAT role, and has trained extensively to hold their title as best at that role.

If making the Leman Russ realistic means flattening it like a BB, I'm not interested either. The LRBT is a characterful vehicle. Then again, I don't complain about the last edition of SM vehicles either.

Why do people need a 'realictic' Leman Russ anyway? To bring it line with the sheer wealth of other realistic things in 40K?

Because they want something that looks like a tank.

I'm buying and painting 3 Leman Russ kits this week (using Forge World Demolisher cannon). I can't see any reason to wait a month for the new kit. As a store owner, I'll consider the new Demolisher a basic restock, rather than a new release. Am I missing something?

Nurglitch wrote:Because they want something that looks like a tank.

Tracks? Check!
Turret? Check!
Big Honking Gun in the Turret? Check!

Looks like a Tank to me?

The IG don't need to be special ops. Thats not what they do. They are a sledgehamer. Slow, unwieldy, and all but unstoppable. This is how it has fought for Millennia, and successfully so. Why would the Imperium change it?

If you want a special ops force, might I suggest Space Marines, Tau, or Eldar rules? These cover that style of Warfare, be it highly mobile, hit and run forces (Eldar) super elite infiltration where skill matters more than numbers (Marines) or long ranged firepower backed up with some mobile infantry (Tau)

Really, another pointless, badly thought out debate on a 40K forum? Who could have imagined that?

40K and specificially, the Imperial Guard, have had a "retro" technology look for two decades. It seems odd to criticize this now. It is what it is and that has made it very popular. There are plenty of historical simulation games out there with realistic, modern looking equipment. Yes, modern tanks have sloping armor and no sponsons and the troops who man them do not have magic weapons nor super-human allies nor alien monsters to fight. 40K has never been an historical simulation, it's a fantasy game. If they changed it to please a few then GW would lose the many. Instead of wishing 40K was something different, if one doesn't like it, then find models and a game one does like. If 40K lost its retro "dark age of lost technology" atmosphere, GW would be out of business over night.

BrassScorpion wrote:Really, another pointless, badly thought out debate on a 40K forum? Who could have imagined that?

40K and specificially, the Imperial Guard, have had a "retro" technology look for two decades. It seems odd to criticize this now. It is what it is and that has made it very popular. There are plenty of historical simulation games out there with realistic, modern looking equipment. Yes, modern tanks have sloping armor and no sponsons and the troops who man them do not have magic weapons nor super-human allies nor alien monsters to fight. 40K has never been an historical simulation, it's a fantasy game. If they changed it to please a few then GW would lose the many. Instead of wishing 40K was something different, if one doesn't like it, then find models and a game one does like. If 40K lost its retro "dark age of lost technology" atmosphere, GW would be out of business over night.

Quoted for excessive irony.

You guys ever play dawn of war ( video game ) ?
The LR animation pretty sums up why i find the model's design so silly looking.

They look like they'll roll over everytime they fire their cannon , or if they go up/down a hill.

The tank looks like a ball / box.

Don't forget getting bogged down in anything but pavement due to the tracks being flush with the track-guard, the limited transverse of the sponsons, all the shell traps in the glacis plating, its height, and the side hatches.

Then don't play guard?

Why would I stop playing Imperial Guard just because their MBT sucks out of the box? Especially in a hobby that encourages you to modify and rebuild models?

BrookM wrote:Then don't play guard?

Their silly look looks cute to me , i dont mind them.
Though a "new" kit for same look does bother me. Supposedly the real improvement from the old one are the new less assembly required tracks?

LunaHound wrote:

BrookM wrote:Then don't play guard?

Their silly look looks cute to me , i dont mind them.
Though a "new" kit for same look does bother me. Supposedly the real improvement from the old one are the new less assembly required tracks?

They did the same with the Land Speeder.

Hmm heres me thinking the improvement was the three different turret variants or something.......

Nurglitch wrote:Why would I stop playing Imperial Guard just because their MBT sucks out of the box?

Because you won't stop bitching?

Nurglitch wrote:Especially in a hobby that encourages you to modify and rebuild models?

Now I really have no idea why you're complaining since you said yourself that you can just modify it to suit your needs anyway! Pointless.



If you hate the look of the MBT so much then why in the feth did you ever go with IG, a treadhead army, in the first place? I never would have picked Tau if I hated the look of the vehicles.

And I'm still not convinced by the argument, either, you're asking for a modern look that doesn't really fit with the Imperium's fluff and complaining about the same design flaws that plague every one of GW's fantasy tanks. The land raider that you guys like so much has no ground clearance, and then there's the rhinos track placement, the Tau devilfish engines with really huge, vulnerable intakes, etc. The designers aren't engineers, and none of their tank designs have ever made "sense", so I'm not sure why the Leman Russ deserves any better.

That, and a mini baneblade would just look fething ugly. I'm not a big fan of the plastic baneblade in the first place, and like it was said the LR design predates the BB in the first place, so...why?

Those were improved. At least the turret is bigger now. I'm just surprised that they aren't concurrently releasing a Leman Russ set with the options of a Battle Cannon, Exterminator Autocannon, and that other one.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Sidstyler:

Bitching is a noble tradition of wargaming. I, as an honourable grognard, reserve the right to hold two mutually incompatible thoughts at once, and grumble about both! I'm complaining that the regular Leman Russ sucks, not about my ability to convert it into something with less suck.

But now that you mention it, the Imperial Guard vehicles prevented me from starting an Imperial Guard army for quite a while until I became confident enough to hack and saw away at plastic kits and make something that didn't look like a 10 year old Ork player made it out of a dollar store truck. So then I started the army because they're the army-est army in 40k, and because I wanted a human army to go with my Dark Eldar, Orks, Tyranids, and Space Marines. As generic human sci-fi models go, they're not bad once you scrape all the fascist iconography off of them, and they're pretty fun in 5th edition to boot.

I wouldn't say that I like the Land Raider design. If anything it's even worse than the Leman Russ because it has high-tech styling without the high-tech design. It's like an I-Pod with toggle-switches. I hacked my Land Raiders up as well.

But it doesn't matter that the designers aren't engineers. They don't have to be (although it might help). They don't need to be engineers to avoid the obvious flaws that their designs have, which you've admirably listed, just a hobbyist's passing familiarity with modern armour. They don't have to make something that works, just something that looks like it works to the average hobbyist. I mean, one of my favourite shows on television is this thing on the history channel where they restore a tank, and you learn about all the interesting design pressures that went into making and fielding that particular configuration, where only the expert engineers would be able to point out why one configuration is better than another, for what purpose, and why.

So, no, the Leman Russ doesn't deserve better so much as the fans deserve better.

Bitching is a noble tradition of wargaming. I, as an honourable grognard, reserve the right to hold two mutually incompatible thoughts at once, and grumble about both!

Well yeah, I'm a whiner too.

Anyway, I guess that's just the thing, all the little flaws don't really bother me that much. I don't care if you could easily disable a Tau tank by tossing a piece of debris into the engine, it still looks cool enough. The land raider ground clearance wouldn't have bothered me if I didn't have it pointed out to me. Etc.

With the Leman Russ though it just seems like people are complaining about stuff that they really shouldn't be, like the fact that it looks like an outdated WW1 tank design. It'd be like complaining about Tau tanks being too "sci-fi". I assumed that was the whole point, that was exactly the look they were going for. I understand that each Guard regiment fights differently and that there are very few that fight with WW1 tactics, but still.

I'm not saying I don't like the improvements. I do. I'm just wishing they'd gone further in re-designing it - the Mars Alpha, for example, would have been better.

I must admit though, that my disappointment was quenched a while ago, when I realized that the art in the Codex series of books was a good indicator of what up-coming releases were going to be. So the fact that it was redesigned to be more compatible with the rest of the line (no more over-sized weapons, etc), and easier to build didn't come as a surprised. It's going to be tricky giving it some track clearance though, without the wheels.

Nurglitch wrote:Don't forget getting bogged down in anything but pavement due to the tracks being flush with the track-guard, the limited transverse of the sponsons, all the shell traps in the glacis plating, its height, and the side hatches.

And all these glaring flaws become even more apparent when you consider that every other vehicle in 40K is bang-on 100% realistic.

Oh wait...


Seriously - why the Russ? Why is this tank singled out as the one that "needs to be realistic" when nothing else is.

Because it's the new content of the day/ maybe he's just had a grudge for a long, long time.

H.B.M.C. wrote:Seriously - why the Russ? Why is this tank singled out as the one that "needs to be realistic" when nothing else is.

I don't think it needs to be realistic, but it's a particularly fugly vehicle unlike other IG models. It's unattractive enough that I've got 3,500 points of IG so far and no Leman Russ. It's so unattractive that I've got a $160 Forge World order on barrels and body kits to improve the look, while I can get the standard Leman Russ at cost through my store. It's the only way I can stomach the thing. They didn't need to revolutionize it, but they could have done something. It's not like they don't have a whole R&D division that makes parts to make it attractive. I mean, really, they know what people want to see based on Forge World sales, right?

blackdiamond wrote:I don't think it needs to be realistic, but it's a particularly fugly vehicle unlike other IG models.

Based on what qualifiers? What methods or measures do you use to make this comparison?

It's subjective, of course. I could talk about the stubby little barrels, the lopsided nature of the design, or the archaic sponsons, but the bottom line is I can't bring myself to build one without some serious add-ons. As a store owner, I've heard others voice their opinions as well, and few can appreciate the look of the Leman Russ. It's overall utility is why most people take them, I think. It's great in the game.

That said, I think the Leman Russ is quite attractive when you stretch it out a bit and give it a longer barrel (Ryza pattern, for example), and I'm willing to spend stupid amounts of money for that, apparently. If I were the king of all Games Workshop, I would consider Forge World the high performance, concept division of GW and allow some of that good design to flow into new models. Instead, we get more of the same, as if FW is a valuable asset that needs protection, rather than a creative resource to be mined.

HBMC:

I singled out the Leman Russ because this thread is about the newly remodeled Leman Russ Demolisher kit. Shocking, eh?

Nurglitch wrote:I singled out the Leman Russ because this thread is about the newly remodeled Leman Russ Demolisher kit.

Nice try, but this isn't the first time (and I'm sure it won't be the last time) that the same conversation has come up about the Russ. Some people here demand that it be more realistic, and I'm trying to figure out why.

The same people who won't bat an eyelid when their gun-line gets attacked by screaming women in armour armed with swords riding in hover tanks or when a star-god incased in living metal attacks them are the same people screaming "It's unrealistic" at the Russ.

I don't get it.

Why this tank? Why is it so important that its tracks be correct or that its profile be lower when we've got men on horses using explosive-tipped lances and green people wielding axes in a game that has heavy Machine Guns and genetically enhanced super-humans screamly baldly whilst waving giant glowing fists around?

Nurglitch wrote:Shocking, eh?

No need to get cute Nurgy.

Sure the old Leman Russ has some faults, and i have indeed harboured some heretical thoughts of change. Even Anger.
But the LR is almost the Epitome of the Imperial Guard.

"What i cannot crush with words i will crush with the tanks of the Imperial Guard!"

Hibby:

But I put the pink pinafore on, just like you like it!

When people use the term "realistic", they really mean a degree a verisimilitude that matches their own opinion of what's 'real'. Unfortunately it is not unusual for people to phrase expressions of preference, and expressions of degrees of preference at that, as absolute declarative statements of fact. Presumably because adding all the qualifiers about opinion, exact degree, and whatnot gets you tarred with the label of 'pedant' or whatever dismissive nastiness is popular at the time.

This tank is the defining tank of the Imperial Guard, the army-est army in Warhammer, the most realistic army in Warhammer. Having men on horses using explosive-tipped lances isn't unrealistic, as the use of anti-tank teppo-yaris in WWII, and the fact that men actually used to charge each other on horseback with spears, attests. The combination doesn't exceed the suspension of disbelief that people are willing to give to the Imperial Guard. Likewise Orks wielding axes doesn't exceed the suspension of disbelief that people give to Orks, since the Orks have a built-in force multiplier for the suspension of disbelief ever since GW decided to make Genetor Anzion's 3rd edition blithering the fact of the matter when it came to the facts about Orks in the Warhammer 40k ficton or universe. Likewise the "genetically enhanced" super-humans who like to fight with giant fists are pretty in line with the hogswash that counts as genetic enhancement in the GW background. Space Marines are already so stupidly ludicrous that fighting with giant glowy fists while angry and freshly bic'd actually kind of disappointing and ordinary compared to what the background builds them up as. I'm sure you've observed the stupidly over-the-top "Movie Marines" that people make rules for every so often, when ordinary Marines are neither bald nor screaming enough.

Basically what it seems to be is the closer to reasonably reaslistic we get, such as humans fighting in an organization that vaguely resembles a real army, the more realism is demanded.

I like to think of it like caricatures. The more realistic the caricature, the more it needs to look like the person it caricatures, while a stick figure only needs a catch-phrase or posture and people immediately marvel at the resemblance.

Hahaha

In this thread: HBMC defends the ugly model kits that he's spent $2000+ on.

It's an awful model. The new demolisher looks a little better, but the company's clearly not interested in doing a complete redesign. If you don't like the kit, convert it or pick a different army. I'm just going to suck it up and do some plasticarding or pay for mars alpha hulls if I ever do guard.

Yeah, I'm with H.B.M.C. I don't see the need to modernize the Russ chassis, it is the very Image of the Imperial guard. Why pick on the iconic Russ, if you want a more modern look, go play with the marines or Tau... I have always loved the Russ shape, it matches that whole world of 40K. The stagnate technology level of the universe. and of course I to own way to many of these Russ chassis myself, but such is the Fate of a true Imperial guard player. the tank is cool the way it is...

btw. i still hate that stowage lid on the new turret, still think it looks stupid...

Nurglitch wrote:Hibby:

There was a girl at my last work we called Hibby. She was a good golfer. Anyway...

Nurglitch wrote:When people use the term "realistic", they really mean a degree a verisimilitude that matches their own opinion of what's 'real'.

Which I find very hard to fathom given all the various un-real things in this game. How can one draw a distinction between what should be realistic, and what's fine to exist in the realm of fantasy?

Nurglitch wrote:Unfortunately it is not unusual for people to phrase expressions of preference, and expressions of degrees of preference at that, as absolute declarative statements of fact. Presumably because adding all the qualifiers about opinion, exact degree, and whatnot gets you tarred with the label of 'pedant' or whatever dismissive nastiness is popular at the time.

Pompous ass. This has nothing to do with the 'opinion as fact' thing, and puffing it up with flowery language doesn't make you sound smarter.

Nurglitch wrote:This tank is the defining tank of the Imperial Guard, the army-est army in Warhammer, the most realistic army in Warhammer.

Ok fair enough. I'm sure some people can see it that way, wanting their army-like army to have a more army-like vehicle. I've always seen Russes the rickety old WWI tanks as opposed to anything trying to be a WWII Panzer (or even a more modern design like an Abrams), but that doesn't make them wrong wither.

Nurglitch wrote:Having men on horses using explosive-tipped lances isn't unrealistic, as the use of anti-tank teppo-yaris in WWII, and the fact that men actually used to charge each other on horseback with spears, attests.

And now you're being intentionally obtuse. I never said that people didn't use horses, I said that it doesn't make much sense for horses to exist as a viable troop type in a world of Greater Daemons, Titans and Orbital Bombardments. Moreover, do you see any massive cavalry formations today? Of course you don't. We've moved on. They have become something of the past, rather than something we continue to use. However, 40,000 years... or 38,000 years I 'spose... into the future, there they are, ready to charge. This isn't 'realistic' this doesn't 'make sense', yet it is accepted. So why not the Russ?

See what I'm getting at here? Why are people fine with all the blatantly absurd and rediculous things in this game yet brought to the point of childishness when it comes to a tank (other than the explanation you offered above)? Are there any other reasons?

Nurglitch wrote:Basically what it seems to be is the closer to reasonably reaslistic we get, such as humans fighting in an organization that vaguely resembles a real army, the more realism is demanded.

Why do you suppose that is?

I wasn't the biggest fan of the tracked wheels, but now that those are gone I really see the conversion potential of the it severely restricted.

Nurglitch wrote:Why would I stop playing Imperial Guard just because their MBT sucks out of the box? Especially in a hobby that encourages you to modify and rebuild models?

Exactly. If you don't like it use it as an opportunity to convert it to something more appropriate to your personal vision. Most treadheads have a converter's eye and appreciate fine conversions, expecially if you field six of them and use them to smite MEQ with enthusiasm. Anecodtally but I'd proffer guard players have the 2nd highest levels of converters in thier midsts, just behind old school ork players.

H.B.M.C. wrote:Which I find very hard to fathom given all the various un-real things in this game. How can one draw a distinction between what should be realistic, and what's fine to exist in the realm of fantasy?

For me the issue is best exemplified the gross physical impossibility of the turret. Stylized weapons are one thing, but there's no way to fit a breech and any kind of crew into the stock Russ turret, given the insanely oversized barrel. To say nothing of ammo storage, loading mechanisms or motors for gun traverse. The new kit, at least, remedies this somewhat. Other issues include the poor parts breakdown of the kit and poorly sculpted hull and sponson weapons.

Of these the first is a "realism" issue, because it means the tank's basic functioning breaks basic laws of physics in the setting more than is reasonable. YMMV.

Why do people want things to look sooooooooooo realistic in a fantasy/sci-fi game?

You want realistic tanks? Then go buy an M4 model and call it a leman russ. Or whatever you're preferred Modern Battle Tank is.

And while you're at it why don't you get yourself those properly proportioned figures because GW doesn't have the right proportion. In fact if you're so obsessed about realistic stuff make your own game where all the crap you make in there are realistic. Or buy GW so you now own it and you can make all the super realistic stuff you want in the game.

But if you do that then there shouldn't be 40k at all, because all the stuff they do isn't realistic!!

Nobody is forcing you to buy GW stuff so quite complaining.

Nurglitch wrote:Hibby:

This tank is the defining tank of the Imperial Guard, the army-est army in Warhammer, the most realistic army in Warhammer.... Basically what it seems to be is the closer to reasonably reaslistic we get, such as humans fighting in an organization that vaguely resembles a real army, the more realism is demanded.

You've got something here. If you don't like science fiction, the Imperial Guard is the most realistic army available. I've learned to enjoy the 40K universe, but 40K turned me off for a long time because although I was a fantasy fan, sci-fi never grabbed me. I'm not saying I want realistic vehicles, but if you play IG, it's possible that you want more realism than other players, which is why you chose the army.

blackdiamond wrote:

Nurglitch wrote:Hibby:

This tank is the defining tank of the Imperial Guard, the army-est army in Warhammer, the most realistic army in Warhammer.... Basically what it seems to be is the closer to reasonably reaslistic we get, such as humans fighting in an organization that vaguely resembles a real army, the more realism is demanded.

You've got something here. If you don't like science fiction, the Imperial Guard is the most realistic army available. I've learned to enjoy the 40K universe, but 40K turned me off for a long time because although I was a fantasy fan, sci-fi never grabbed me. I'm not saying I want realistic vehicles, but if you play IG, it's possible that you want more realism than other players, which is why you chose the army.

This has got to be the biggest load of bull that I've read... If you don't like science fiction, then why aren't you playing Flames Of War?

The IG aren't what I would call "realistic" by any means. Think about this... and let's go for realism here... The Commisariat, you know, those political officers that are bound to be in any armed forces for the sake of troop morale, are quite possibly the worst example of modern battlefield discipline I've ever seen. "You're all scared? *blam* SHUT UP AND GET BACK TO FIGHTING!" You're so worried about the fact that the LRBT is unrealistic, how about the fact that your troops carry laser guns, your anti-armor weaponry is basically an overpowered hairdryer, and you can bring field artillery and the 40k equivalent to a SCUD launcher (in TRIPLICATE, no less) to a run-in that's happening over a few square miles, at most.

The IG sort of resemble modern armed forces, but are, ultimately, a mish-mash of best-ofs dating back from the late 1700s all the way up to today.

Agamemnon2 wrote:For me the issue is best exemplified the gross physical impossibility of the turret. Stylized weapons are one thing, but there's no way to fit a breech and any kind of crew into the stock Russ turret, given the insanely oversized barrel. To say nothing of ammo storage, loading mechanisms or motors for gun traverse. The new kit, at least, remedies this somewhat. Other issues include the poor parts breakdown of the kit and poorly sculpted hull and sponson weapons.

Of these the first is a "realism" issue, because it means the tank's basic functioning breaks basic laws of physics in the setting more than is reasonable. YMMV.

I don't know how you can make these complaints on geometry. All things in 40k are caricatures and are not meant to be realistic. That is the ultimate failing of your arguement. You assume that GW is attempting to make something realistic. Even the basic IG have the wrong proportions to be realistic so why would their vehicle be any different? Marines suffer from being wider than they should be and eldar have barbie doll waists. There are plenty of things that are not realistic. Are the Leman Russ' battleship sized guns oversized? Probably so, but why does it really matter, when you are playing the wargame equivalent to a cartoon.

Anyone who thinks the Russ is 'unrealistic should take a looik at WW1 and inter-war tank designs. There are a lot of early designs similar to the Russ. for a start its a Mk1 with a turret, give or take.

Also the Mk1 is a solid design, the problems with it regard power transmission, as the Imperium has plenty of high energy systems the inefficient load transmission doesnt matter.

Furthermore with a lot of energy weapons which dont have recoil and are worthwhile mounting there is good reason to add sponsons. These tanks are not built like our tanks there are huge differences.

The bassic hull shape is in fact in several ways a good design rather than a bad. You might not know this but the Mk1 still holds the record for verticle traverse and horizontal traverse for any ground based AFV. That is to say it can cover a gap wider and climb a wall higher (as opposed to going through it) than any other AFV, this includes designs like Leopard, Challenger, Abrams etc. Given a sufficiently wide trench or high trench wall the Mk1 can cross but the modern tank cannot.
IIRC the verticle traverse of a Mk1 is over 3m. A modern tank would be lucky to traverse half that.

All the Leman Russ hull really tells us is that the tank is optimised for trench warfare. In fact a more 'realistic' modern loonking design would in fact proove inferior at the role the Imperium wants for it, allowing equal weaponry and engine.

The only real problem with the Russ, and for that matter most other Imperial turreted designs is that the main gun has no recoil space and preciouis little breach access. The commanders hatch is right behind the breach, anyone who knows anything about tanks knows this cannot work as a design. Which is why I consider the commanders hatch an entry/escape hatch and never miount a commander there except on the Chimera, which has an energy weapon and doesnt need a recoil track.

I think part of the issue though Orlanth are players like myself who would have preferred to see scaled down baneblade coolness.

I'm withholding judgement though. If the weapons have been scaled down and turrent enlarged that might be just the trick needed.

Turret is not enlarged per se, its instead very similar to the Ryza pattern turret. The front is entended slightly and there is a very pronounced slope to the turret front, which makes sense.

Orlanth wrote:The bassic hull shape is in fact in several ways a good design rather than a bad. You might not know this but the Mk1 still holds the record for verticle traverse and horizontal traverse for any ground based AFV. That is to say it can cover a gap wider and climb a wall higher (as opposed to going through it) than any other AFV, this includes designs like Leopard, Challenger, Abrams etc. Given a sufficiently wide trench or high trench wall the Mk1 can cross but the modern tank cannot.

If only the Leman Russ and the MkI were the same shape, but they aren't, yes they're both roughly lozenge shaped but the MkI is long and low (giving it the capabilities you describe) whereas the Russ is short and high also the MkI doesn’t have bits of armour that hang over the sides of the track.

aka_mythos wrote:I don't know how you can make these complaints on geometry. All things in 40k are caricatures and are not meant to be realistic. That is the ultimate failing of your arguement. You assume that GW is attempting to make something realistic. Even the basic IG have the wrong proportions to be realistic so why would their vehicle be any different? Marines suffer from being wider than they should be and eldar have barbie doll waists. There are plenty of things that are not realistic. Are the Leman Russ' battleship sized guns oversized? Probably so, but why does it really matter, when you are playing the wargame equivalent to a cartoon.

Just so we're on the same page, do you accept any cosmetic complaints at all? Because if what you're saying is how you truly feel, with no double standard, then literally anything goes when it comes to GW sculpting. Human figures' proportions being wrong are nowhere near the level of basic physical wrongness of the Leman Russ. It's a difference of an entire order of magnitude.

As for your cartoon comparison, I'd much rather the overall visual quality of the game was closer to Ghost in the Shell than Looney Tunes.

Agamemnon2:

Yup. It's acknowledged that Warhammer 40,000 is a cartoon. By 'realism' we're commenting on what I suppose is an analog to the quality of the art and animation. Take the spider-tank in Ghost in the Shell. It's not a realistic design in terms of being a blueprint for building a working model, but it is realistic from the standpoint of its design and execution in the film making it easier to suspend disbelief about whether an arachnoid tank is a good idea.

I think that's one reason why the mechanical designs in anime tend to be considered more realistic than the sorts of things that GW produces, not because they are any more feasible from a production perspective, but because the artists paid attention to the little details that make swallowing the ludicrousness of a giant robot fighting machine much easier.

You can see this in scratch-builds, actually. There's Blackadder's thread about his superb Warhound scratch-build. In that thread he also features a beautiful scratch-built Warlord. Both look very realistic because attention is given to all the little details, like rivets, ladders, exhausts, etc, that real machines have.

Nurglitch wrote:Agamemnon2:

Yup. It's acknowledged that Warhammer 40,000 is a cartoon. By 'realism' we're commenting on what I suppose is an analog to the quality of the art and animation. Take the spider-tank in Ghost in the Shell. It's not a realistic design in terms of being a blueprint for building a working model, but it is realistic from the standpoint of its design and execution in the film making it easier to suspend disbelief about whether an arachnoid tank is a good idea.

Yep i agree.

And some people are deliberately mixing the 2 different types of realism together for the sake of their argument.

Hmm, I wonder when the Tau will invent their own Tachikoma.. :3

Agamemnon2 wrote:Just so we're on the same page, do you accept any cosmetic complaints at all? Because if what you're saying is how you truly feel, with no double standard, then literally anything goes when it comes to GW sculpting. Human figures' proportions being wrong are nowhere near the level of basic physical wrongness of the Leman Russ. It's a difference of an entire order of magnitude.

As for your cartoon comparison, I'd much rather the overall visual quality of the game was closer to Ghost in the Shell than Looney Tunes.

To a degree I would to. I agree there are aesthetics that are poorly executed. I'm not saying GW can get away with anything, but they are consistent about how they characterize. My extensive converting is proof to the fact that I don't agree with GW's aesthetic. That doesn't mean I believe 40k should become something it isn't because thats what happens when you do move the out of the box kits in the direction of extremely serious realism. While you want something more adult, 40k isn't that. 40k is a caricature and not meant to be so realistic, I said that before. This game, by GW design is made and targeted at 13 year old, and only needs to make as much sense at that demographic needs it to. Wanting the likes of Ghost in the Shell is not realistic, it is most definitely not designed for 13 year olds. You don't go to a Disney movie expecting a sex scene. You don't go to GW for realism. 40k has moved away from a more comedic style, most people would say this has a bit to do with GW's games losing their character and uniqueness. Any game can be realistic, it takes more to make or play something that relies more on fantasy and imagination.

I had a chat with some GW fairies yesterday about the new kit and I'm a little worried about it. Granted the snap on track is a good idea but it does put limitations on conversions. I was told that the copula is fused with the turret out of the box.

So now I'm thinking "Sure, it's a nice looking tank but it's starting to sound like an Airfix snap-kit for five year olds." The kits are basic enough as it is and I'm worried that this might be the way the company is going with it's models :(

And I was informed that they will be redoing the standard Leman Russ to a similar format. I think I'm gonna have to go on a splurge and buy every basic Leman Russ kit I can find.

BrookM wrote:Hmm, I wonder when the Tau will invent their own Tachikoma.. :3

add some legs on the Pirranas :3

We don't need more anime fan gak in 40K.

LunaHound wrote:

BrookM wrote:Hmm, I wonder when the Tau will invent their own Tachikoma.. :3

add some legs on the Pirranas :3

Dunno, the Piranha has a nice enough shape to it already, Tachi's are very boxy. Come to think of it, they've got wheels in their feet and the Tau have denounced the wheel as backwards.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

infilTRAITOR wrote:I had a chat with some GW fairies yesterday about the new kit and I'm a little worried about it. Granted the snap on track is a good idea but it does put limitations on conversions. I was told that the copula is fused with the turret out of the box.

So now I'm thinking "Sure, it's a nice looking tank but it's starting to sound like an Airfix snap-kit for five year olds." The kits are basic enough as it is and I'm worried that this might be the way the company is going with it's models :(

And I was informed that they will be redoing the standard Leman Russ to a similar format. I think I'm gonna have to go on a splurge and buy every basic Leman Russ kit I can find.

Always assume the worst. Right. The main reason why there are less parts and easier construction is so that the box takes up less shelf space.

And if anything, the Baneblade, Stompa and Valkyrie are a good indication that GW isn't going completely kiddie on you.

True that. The Valk was a right bastard to put together. Some of the parts dont exist!!!

Marshal2Crusaders wrote:True that. The Valk was a right bastard to put together. Some of the parts dont exist!!!

I've had no trouble putting my fifty together. The Stompa on the other hand, the manual is an outright bitch sometimes and the online guide isn't helping squat due to the parts being wrongly numbered.

I want pics.

Particularly with regard to how the OP stated it would be easier to magnetize the sponsons and other weaponry.

The Russ looks fine, now the Chimera on the other hand...

Cheese Elemental wrote:We don't need more anime fan gak in 40K.

You know , even though "anime fan gak" isnt grim dark omg goth for 40k , it still provides excellent concept
for how things are designed.

Keep an open mind , good ideas should be shared among all.

LunaHound wrote:

Cheese Elemental wrote:We don't need more anime fan gak in 40K.

You know , even though "anime fan gak" isnt grim dark omg goth for 40k , it still provides excellent concept
for how things are designed.

Keep an open mind , good ideas should be shared among all.

The Tau look so clean and neat and awesome when they shout their special attacks ("Cyclon Ion Blaster GO!") at those pesky evil Space Marines, but their background is just as dark as the others, with their internment camps, systematic eugenics and whatnots.

Anyway, I doubt that the Chimera will be radically redesigned. The new codex art of it showed the same old lovable tracked tub I hold so near and dear. Well, held near and dear until miss Valkyrie took me for a flight.

I think the Chimera turret looks stupid

True, turret is on the small side but that has never stopped the conversion crew from changing it. I like mine the way they are, big clunky floaty tanks with wee turrets on top that don't seem to be overcompensating one bit.

BrookM wrote:True, turret is on the small side but that has never stopped the conversion crew from changing it. I like mine the way they are, big clunky floaty tanks with wee turrets on top that don't seem to be overcompensating one bit.

So when is the new Russ Kit going to be out?

I bought my first Russ about 2 weeks ago and It was still the old kit (obviously.)

What confused me about the kit is the fact that it even had road wheels [they're completely covered by the tracks so you don't know they're there) and the fact that over half the tracks are covered [and you can't see that half at all.]

There's a place called www.games-workshop.com that has all the release dates on it. O-M-G.

Anyway, Demolisher and Hellhound are inbound for the 1st of August or the first Saturday of the month.

infilTRAITOR wrote:I had a chat with some GW fairies yesterday about the new kit and I'm a little worried about it. Granted the snap on track is a good idea but it does put limitations on conversions. I was told that the copula is fused with the turret out of the box.

So now I'm thinking "Sure, it's a nice looking tank but it's starting to sound like an Airfix snap-kit for five year olds." The kits are basic enough as it is and I'm worried that this might be the way the company is going with it's models :(

And I was informed that they will be redoing the standard Leman Russ to a similar format. I think I'm gonna have to go on a splurge and buy every basic Leman Russ kit I can find.

I completely agree. We deffinitely are moving in the direction of toys you have to assemble and away from model kits. The lack of actual wheels to go with the tracks is another such limiting attribute to the new kit. Every conversion based on doubling up wheels or rearranging the wheels and tracks are now right out the window.

For your splurge, you could try to find the armored company box. That should give you enough old Russes.

Lagduf wrote:I want pics.

Warseer has s pretty complete set of sprue pics http://www.warseer.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3759108&postcount=366

George Spiggott wrote:

Orlanth wrote:The bassic hull shape is in fact in several ways a good design rather than a bad. You might not know this but the Mk1 still holds the record for verticle traverse and horizontal traverse for any ground based AFV. That is to say it can cover a gap wider and climb a wall higher (as opposed to going through it) than any other AFV, this includes designs like Leopard, Challenger, Abrams etc. Given a sufficiently wide trench or high trench wall the Mk1 can cross but the modern tank cannot.

If only the Leman Russ and the MkI were the same shape, but they aren't, yes they're both roughly lozenge shaped but the MkI is long and low (giving it the capabilities you describe) whereas the Russ is short and high also the MkI doesn’t have bits of armour that hang over the sides of the track.

Partly true. The tanks are different but share some characteristics. The Malcador is closer to the Mk1 as it is much longer and its likely to share a similar performance profile. The Russ being quite short would not have a particularly good horizontal traverse but the verticle traverse should still be way above average.

The armour skirting is not that big an issue either, the track still stands proud especially on the front where it counts for verticle traverse. Like i said this is not a Mk1 but it sghares some characteristics. What we can say is that a conventional track arrangement and a sinilar size hull will have a lower verticle traverse thus justifying the design from one point of view.

Warseer has s pretty complete set of sprue pics http://www.warseer.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3759108&postcount=366

No wheels at all but the tracks look as finicky as ever to put together. Er guys...

Frazzled wrote:

Warseer has s pretty complete set of sprue pics http://www.warseer.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3759108&postcount=366

No wheels at all but the tracks look as finicky as ever to put together. Er guys...

Looks the same as the current Landraider? Just sandwich the 2 sides, then put the tracks around them in specific slots?

Note the number of treads. It was aleays difficult to get them to meet properly. Now if they have changed the treads and the treads match up preoperly then you're right.

However, as noted, no wheels equals no conversions.

No wheels. The way they seem to make the track fit to the tank is that they've put indentions for all the teeth of the tracks into the side walls. As opposed to the Land Raider or Rhino, where the tracks rest on protrusions. I think this will lead to problems for anyone who purchases the kit a few months from when kits have been sitting in warm warehouses and have warped or undergone any degree of shrinking. At that point you'll be lucky if those teeth match up.

As an aside, GW partner stores in the US have been offered a "black box" of the new Demolisher this week. It's essentially a Demolisher kit without instructions or fancy packaging. I'm planning to put mine together this weekend, along with a couple standard Leman Russ's and a small fortune in Forge World bits. This will be my first shot at the Russ. Pictures to follow.

I personally like the Chimera, enough to buy 10 of them. I don't care for the mutli-laser turret, but I can live with it, possibly because I have no real-world version to compare it to. I just bought three beautiful Chimera autocannon turrets from Forge World and I'm trying to think of a way to convince other players to allow me to use them. There's something about daemonhunter errata with autocannons in it somewhere....

Turret for the chimera is actually realistic for a automatic cannon. I like it.

aka_mythos wrote:

infilTRAITOR wrote:I had a chat with some GW fairies yesterday about the new kit and I'm a little worried about it. Granted the snap on track is a good idea but it does put limitations on conversions. I was told that the copula is fused with the turret out of the box.

So now I'm thinking "Sure, it's a nice looking tank but it's starting to sound like an Airfix snap-kit for five year olds." The kits are basic enough as it is and I'm worried that this might be the way the company is going with it's models :(

And I was informed that they will be redoing the standard Leman Russ to a similar format. I think I'm gonna have to go on a splurge and buy every basic Leman Russ kit I can find.

I completely agree. We deffinitely are moving in the direction of toys you have to assemble and away from model kits. The lack of actual wheels to go with the tracks is another such limiting attribute to the new kit. Every conversion based on doubling up wheels or rearranging the wheels and tracks are now right out the window.

Yeah, the Stegadon, Valkyrie, Drop Pod, Ork Trukk, Shadowsword and Stompa kits are all indicative of this new over-simplified direction! What a ridiculous whinge.

I thought the standard response to this kind of "failure" on GW's behalf was "I'll build my own out of plasticard" anyway?

Redemption wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

Warseer has s pretty complete set of sprue pics http://www.warseer.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3759108&postcount=366

No wheels at all but the tracks look as finicky as ever to put together. Er guys...

Looks the same as the current Landraider? Just sandwich the 2 sides, then put the tracks around them in specific slots?

From the staffer who assembled the tanks they are MUCH easier than old Russes, no track wheels to assemble on either kit.

I do build my own out of plasticard and other things, but thats beside the point. The point of my comment was not that 40k = toys. It was more a compairson on a relativistic scale. Even if it changes only a tiny amount it still changing in the direction of more toy like, because it is getting simplified. The point of the statement goes back to the fact that a significant portion of IG players that convert rely on the wheels and tracks as separate pieces to do the vast majority of their conversions.

It isn't so much a matter of simplification, but how the models are used. As the model kits move further and further away from being converter friendly, they become something that is more restrictive in how they are used. That de-emphasis away from the hobby to playing the game is what makes it more toy like.

EDIT:
An easier wheel system would have been better than no wheel system. I didn't want the kit more realistic, but the people who did will certainly have issues with this.

blackdiamond:

Speaking of 'real-world' Chimeras, there's the Soviet BMP series. Actually the Chimera isn't so bad, except for the usual complaints about the tracks, and those weird boxy side-parts.

Prior to the new codex coming out I'd wish-listed that they'd made an Autocannon-turreted Chimera (like the Forgeworld Salamander Scout with an armoured top) as an Imperial Guard light tank. It turns out we got the Devil Dog as the light tank instead, so I definitely can't complain.

I also proposed allowing Infantry Platoons to be fielded as single large units. Spoooooky.

Boxy side parts are pontoons. They make your chimeras float.

From looking closer at the sprues, I have to point out that they've managed to fix a few of my pet peeves. The turret is centered on the hull, which is good because centering it was a biatch. It also looks like it will be easier to convert a sloping glacis plate.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Speaking of bits, does anyone know where the track guards are on these sprues?

Haha... there are no track guards or accessories included... you have to buy them from GW directly. We all know how nice GW is, they pulled out all those sprues just so they could drop the price by a whopping $.50. Nothing like losing 2 sprues worth of stuff from the kit and seeing such a large savings .

@Nurglitch :
There are no track guards on the sprue.
And GW is so nice to us, that there will be no longer the tank accessory sprue within the new box.
You will have to buy it seperatelly from Mail order if you want to have trackguards or all the other options.
Nice, isint it?

aka_mythos wrote:I do build my own out of plasticard and other things, but thats beside the point. The point of my comment was not that 40k = toys. It was more a compairson on a relativistic scale. Even if it changes only a tiny amount it still changing in the direction of more toy like, because it is getting simplified. The point of the statement goes back to the fact that a significant portion of IG players that convert rely on the wheels and tracks as separate pieces to do the vast majority of their conversions.

Significant? Honestly, what percentage of Leman Russ kits sold since their original release about 15 years ago do you think have been converted in this way? I know it's nice to have the ability there, but for the rest of us it was a complete pain in the proverbial to assemble, taking a needlessly long time for something that could be easier and you can't even see.

It isn't so much a matter of simplification, but how the models are used. As the model kits move further and further away from being converter friendly, they become something that is more restrictive in how they are used. That de-emphasis away from the hobby to playing the game is what makes it more toy like.

Look at all the examples of recent kits i've just listed and tell me with a straight face that GW are moving towards simpler kits that are less converter/modeller friendly. All those kits come with plenty of options, extra parts for customisation and high detail (look at the underside of a Trukk, ridiculously detailed for something you can't even see in game or the inside of a drop pod, where many people glue them shut) and most are reasonably complex builds. There's no great trend or evil plan to turn GW into a maker of cheap snapfit toys as you're trying to imply. As usual, the sky isn't falling.

xowainx wrote:

aka_mythos wrote:I do build my own out of plasticard and other things, but thats beside the point. The point of my comment was not that 40k = toys. It was more a compairson on a relativistic scale. Even if it changes only a tiny amount it still changing in the direction of more toy like, because it is getting simplified. The point of the statement goes back to the fact that a significant portion of IG players that convert rely on the wheels and tracks as separate pieces to do the vast majority of their conversions.

Significant? Honestly, what percentage of Leman Russ kits sold since their original release about 15 years ago do you think have been converted in this way? I know it's nice to have the ability there, but for the rest of us it was a complete pain in the proverbial to assemble, taking a needlessly long time for something that could be easier and you can't even see.

There isn't anyway of truly knowing that. If I had to guess I'd guess 5%. The point is that it is limiting and restrictive, the point of an artistic pursuit is to be less limited. Even if you like the new design, you have to admit that in making it "easier" they have reduced the number of parts and possible ways you can assemble it. I seriously never thought of it as painful. Peg into hole. More pegs more holes. Anyone who seriously struggled with this has never assembled a scale model tank. Its quite similar, but those kits have more tiny parts. Excess detail also has little to do with converting. Its useful in the significantly less likely chance that someone wants to convert the inside; I have seen more track assembly conversions than any and all interior conversions.

xowainx wrote:

aka_mythos wrote:It isn't so much a matter of simplification, but how the models are used. As the model kits move further and further away from being converter friendly, they become something that is more restrictive in how they are used. That de-emphasis away from the hobby to playing the game is what makes it more toy like.

Look at all the examples of recent kits i've just listed and tell me with a straight face that GW are moving towards simpler kits that are less converter/modeller friendly. All those kits come with plenty of options, extra parts for customisation and high detail (look at the underside of a Trukk, ridiculously detailed for something you can't even see in game or the inside of a drop pod, where many people glue them shut) and most are reasonably complex builds. There's no great trend or evil plan to turn GW into a maker of cheap snapfit toys as you're trying to imply. As usual, the sky isn't falling.

What you say here doesn't invalidate what I said. Having plenty of options does not make a kit more or less converter friendly. Also the two, modeling and converting, are not neccesarily the same thing; this comes down to whether the person assembles the model the way it was intended to be or not. So while all those kits and extra parts are modeller friendly, they aren't any more converter friendly than any spare pile of parts lying about.

I never said their was some evil plan. On a scale of 1 to 10 (1 being toys, 10 being models) GW has gone from an 8 to a 7.5; minorly consequential. I only spoke of them moving in the direction of toys. I still don't believe them to be toys, it is just a subtle trend following GW's pursuit of a simpler demographic.

You've taken a simple statement I made and asked me to expand on it many times more than I really ever meant to.

aka_mythos wrote: I wasn't the biggest fan of the tracked wheels, but now that those are gone I really see the conversion potential of the it severely restricted.

Everything else I have said to you has been to expand on that, to convey the sentiment that I feel the new kit is more restrictive. Maybe its also less so in others, but in the case of what I was talking about, it most certainly is.

Out of curiousity, what kind of conversions have been made with the old tracked wheels, that couldn't be done with the new model?

Here are just a few...
http://www.battlegroup.net/blog/
http://www.warseer.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=2642&d=1131843796
http://www.warseer.com/forums/showpost.php?p=284848&postcount=54
http://www.warseer.com/forums/showpost.php?p=284848&postcount=54
http://www.warseer.com/forums/showpost.php?p=550742&postcount=942
http://www.warseer.com/forums/showpost.php?p=556356&postcount=981
http://www.warseer.com/forums/showpost.php?p=578185&postcount=1010
http://www.warseer.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2774986&postcount=5562

I can't think of many peope who will be sad to see the current Russ track system vanish into the distant past. Those things were horrible.

And as someone who has put together more than 50 of the fething things, I can say that.

aka_mythos wrote:Here are just a few...
http://www.battlegroup.net/blog/
http://www.warseer.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=2642&d=1131843796
http://www.warseer.com/forums/showpost.php?p=284848&postcount=54
http://www.warseer.com/forums/showpost.php?p=284848&postcount=54
http://www.warseer.com/forums/showpost.php?p=550742&postcount=942
http://www.warseer.com/forums/showpost.php?p=556356&postcount=981
http://www.warseer.com/forums/showpost.php?p=578185&postcount=1010
http://www.warseer.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2774986&postcount=5562

That can still be done methinks. Mount a plasticard plate inside the track. Mount the treads on that plate.

I'm not missing the wheels on balance for the Leman, but would definitely for the Chimera, as the sies can be cut away to reveal the wheels in a similar manner to a rhino without difficulty.

Well the track widening might be possible with the new kit but more involved than just doubling up on wheels and tracks (that covers 2 of those links). But anything with exposed wheels is gone.

Those were just what I found in 5 minutes of looking. I'm sure there are many more.

Can it be confirmed that the vehicle accessory sprues are now gone, or is that just potentially left off the initial slides. That seems like more of deal to me, kind of a screw the customer move.

Lets be clear, if I have to buy vehicle accessory sprues I can get better and cheaper ones via Tamiya.

The accessory sprue is not included in the box. The copula is fuzed to the turret and a few of the bitz are on the demolisher and hellhounds sprues. The rest, you have to get by purchasing the accessory sprue separately. The guy a Warseer who got pictures of the sprues, said this was the case.

The demolisher has gone from 5 sprues + metal bits to only 3 sprues. All for a whopping $.50 decrease in price. What a deal!

There are more bits on the sprues, you get all the sponsons options and enough heavy bolters for an all heavy bolter loadout, the three different main cannons, and different stowage boxes to go with each cannon. The engine cover and the side hatches appear to all be fused in place. The turret's locating collar appears smaller, so that forgeworld turrets will no longer work; the turret is now centered. No wheels, the tracks locate position by the tracks teeth fitting into teeth shaped indentions along the top of the side walls.

aka_mythos wrote:The turret's locating collar appears smaller, so that forgeworld turrets will no longer work

I will verify this, hopefully over the weekend. If so, that's my deal breaker. I emailed Forge World asking them if their turrets and body kits would work on the new kit (no reply, as usual). Maybe they didn't know.

Cheese Elemental wrote:We don't need more anime fan gak in 40K.

CE, what exactly does "anime fan" mean?

And can you define it without sounding like a full on racist gak?

So thats not related to Patrick Star going "wweeeeee bboooo" when scared walking down the street at night in an episode of Spongebob? Teach me to assume things...

"Weeabo" is word filter for "Wapanese" on 4chan.

Although normaly used in a deragatory fashion against overzelos animefans.

It's a derogatory term for bad anime and things that try to be like anime, e.g. Tau and the D&D supplement book Tome of Battle, which is known on 4chan as the Book of anime fan Fightan Magic.

Redemption wrote:Out of curiousity, what kind of conversions have been made with the old tracked wheels, that couldn't be done with the new model?

You might wish to take a look at the scratch half-track conversion at this link.

BEEP!

Sorry sir, try again. Duke got it right, it's white folks what like Japanese stuff.

A nice term that combines racism, xenophobia and a 'stick to your own kind' narrow-minded-ness.

If you don't like anime, fine, whatever, but terms like weeabo are:

A - Hysterically funny to toss around when you don't know anyone's ethnicity
B - Bascially say it's wrong for non-Japanese to like anything Japanese.

I guess the next question should be: what's 4chan?

Frazzled wrote:I guess the next question should be: what's 4chan?

Some sort of AoL intarweb site I hear.

I don't know much about it since I don't use the AoL intarwebs much.

blackdiamond wrote:

aka_mythos wrote:The turret's locating collar appears smaller, so that forgeworld turrets will no longer work

I will verify this, hopefully over the weekend. If so, that's my deal breaker. I emailed Forge World asking them if their turrets and body kits would work on the new kit (no reply, as usual). Maybe they didn't know.

This may just be an illusion of sorts, since in the very least they thickend up the part turret that goes into the chassis, inwardly. It also appears that the Chimera and Leman Russ now share the same turret collar. This is also a blow to converters who liked using Predator turrets on their IG tanks.

aka_mythos wrote:Boxy side parts are pontoons. They make your chimeras float.

Actually, they're not. According to several GW fluff sources, they're the engines.

Well those just went from making sense to not making any sense. It makes little sense to mount an engine in a protruding box, screams shoot me, especially when the imperium has the technology to locate the engines into the side walls (like a rhino) or elsewhere.

I always assumed they were, given that some real life amphibious tanks have similar protruding features.
http://mailer.fsu.edu/~akirk/tanks/UnitedStates/lighttanks/uslt-ChristieAmphib1923-IonFonosch.jpg
http://mailer.fsu.edu/~akirk/tanks/france/imageCET.JPG
http://www.amphibiousvehicle.net/amphi/I/ikv91.jpeg
http://www.d-daytanks.org.uk/images/articles/developing_images/image004.jpg

Cheese Elemental wrote:It's a derogatory term for bad anime and things that try to be like anime, e.g. Tau and the D&D supplement book Tome of Battle, which is known on 4chan as the Book of anime fan Fightan Magic.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Platuan4th wrote:

aka_mythos wrote:Boxy side parts are pontoons. They make your chimeras float.

Actually, they're not. According to several GW fluff sources, they're the engines.

Could be the floaters now, GW has said "feth FW" before. Plus in the new codex only the Chimera keeps the boxy sides, all the other Chimera chassis variants have the new Hellhound slimmed sides.

I guess that's because the Chimera is the Imperial Guard's #2 AV...

Some one posted some nice pictures of the hellhound on Warseer. They're some of the best pictures showing the rear details.

http://www.warseer.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3772182&postcount=1

I'm impressed with how they have the fuel tanks and the fuel hoses to them. It actually makes a good amount of sense now. I'm really glad to see that its more than just a rear covering plate with some blah detail. I may have to get this now.

The pics are show a better design than what I originally thought, but to me it still doesn't compare to the FW versions.

A nice detail, but another thing for the "realists" to bitch and whine about.

Black Boxes with the new Hellhound, Demolisher and Deff Rolla sprues arrived at some GW stores this week. I had a peek at these items on the sprue tonight.

So yeah after making my Punisher for the store at the weekend I can tell you all that the new kit is a lot better than the old one, aslong as you don't want to convert. The whole making of it has been made a lot easier, and with the removal of the wheels you don't have to spend half an hour lining up the wheels to make sure everything fits correctly.

Furthermore, the hole in the hull for the turret is smaller than on the existing LR model, meaning that sadly swapping between the 2 models is difficult. However, this does mean that obviously GW is aiming to release the other 4 variants in another kit (or kits)

Sadly the cupola on the turret is fused, and looks kinda chunky. It's not the nicest looking thing, but once the kit is fully made and painted you can't really tell the difference.

I made the Executioner turret, with Plasma Cannon sponsons and a lascannon on the hull . . . that's a hell of a lot of firepower =] Can't wait to see a 10 man squad of termies drop down infront of it =]

__________

The new Hellhound kit is AWESOME!!! The new turrets are cooler than ever, the tank commander has a cool new hat, you can make every variant, it comes on less sprues than the existing one. However, having not had the pleasure to assemble the Hellhound I can't give much more info on this =[

Hands up from all of those who will buy the new Hellhound because the commander has a new hat?

Anyone?

Anyone?


And if the hatch on the turret is fused... how do you give it a PMHS? Have GW released a kit that actually regresses the way you use accessories? You can now do less with it?

It's not just the hat that is awesome, it just caught my eye while giving it a quick once over.

And the fused turret has got the ability to have pintle mounted weapons, it's exactly the same as the old one, just fused and chunkier. =]

The new hat looks okay, too bad it's attached to a horrible gasmask.

Yeah, that gas mask doesn't really go with the hat . . . but it does make sense for a tank commander to wear one, protect him from all the fumes and such. But it is pretty much the same as the masks off the command squad sprues . . . it just doesn't look as cool when added to that hat . . .

My opinion?

New Hellhound Kit = Slaaneshi Banewolf

Are 40mm bases Terminator sized ones? and 60 = MC / hvy weapon team?

I love the idea of the 'fused' hatch. Guard Tank Crew are crew for life - once they get in, they never get out.

LunaHound wrote:Are 40mm bases Terminator sized ones? and 60 = MC / hvy weapon team?

Yup. A pretty good deal actually. Saved me the bother of getting three useless base bags.

I quite like the new Hellhound and Demolisher kits after having a close look at the sprues. The fact that there are only 2 sprues for each model is very impressive when compared to the older kits, especially given all the new variant parts on the sprues.

What's not impressive is the price. Much like the Empire Greatswords, it at least appears that GW is really pushing the limit on what customers will pay for these. There have been times in the past when GW found a cheaper way to produce a kit that the price was seriously rolled back (e.g., plastic Chaos Knights in 2008, the original plastic regiment boxes in the last decade, etc.) to encourage volume buying from customers. However, at other times such reductions in production costs have been used to simply boost profit margin on a kit. This would appear to be one of those times that the chest thumping and testosterone won the debate in the marketing meeting where pricing was established for these kits. The new Hellhound and Demolisher kits are great, but at near $50 US per model and given the current state of the economy, these will likely not sell in huge quantities quickly upon release. If volume of sales is what GW wants, these should have been at least $10 per kit cheaper.

$50 per tank? Yikey crikey.

Frazzled wrote:$50 per tank? Yikey crikey.

Yes, they're only a mere $49.50 per kit. I guess that was so they could say in their marketing that they are under $50. Ouch.

BrassScorpion wrote:This would appear to be one of those times that the chest thumping and testosterone won the debate in the marketing meeting where pricing was established for these kits.

Just to clarify, pounding one's chest and having testosterone is a sign of wanting to increase price during meetings? Do fertility goddess statues and chanting usually denote a propensity to lower prices in favor of volume?

Man, corporate cultures sure can be different across companies!

:-P I agree with you though, I think they would have been wise to drop the price a bit an help fuel the "Gotta build them all!" frenzy that offering 6+ variants with a max of 9 individual tanks in your army leads to. At ~32$ per tank (at intarwebz discounts) I can easily see most people deciding it is better to just own 12 rather than worry about magnetizing all sorts of options, at least if they entertain the notion of Apocalypse games periodically. 384$ vs. 600$ (or 480$) is a bit easier to swallow, especially in small amounts of tanks at a time. At least for me, low 30's is still impulse buy territory when it comes to vehicles.

Just to clarify, pounding one's chest and having testosterone is a sign of wanting to increase price during meetings?

Absolutely. These are metaphors I got from people who have actually sat in those meetings. There are often heated debates about which way to go on pricing new products and unfortunately for consumers and sometimes GW, the headstrong "alpha males" who believe they can charge whatever they want and get it often win those debates.

Heh, around here the kits are cheaper than their predecessors thankfully.

Well the before mentioned Chaos Knights caused a loss on the part of GW, this is due to the fact that too few people bought it, and not enough money was made in the release period. So GW has learned from their mistakes, hence the only minor decrease in price of Greatswords (which are cheaper AND better than the metal ones), so again why would GW sell the new LR at a cheaper price than the existing one? It's got more guns, and it's a better build than the existing one . . . so it's better, why sell it cheaper?

For me the Russ price is not as out of line as the Hell Hound kit. That should be in the 41.25 price class.

Aren't they both the same price as the current ones? And aren't they both better than the current ones? So aren't you getting a better kit for your money? Just trying to see where the downside is here . . .

I've seen both kits assembled and painted at the Amsterdam store, nothing wrong with them, it just shows that the witches over at the Studio can't properly build the showroom models.

I just saw both the new Hellhound and the NEw Leman Russ assembled, as well as the sprues.

They're nice. I'm probably going to pick Imperial Guard for my next army.

I mentioned the Hellhound pricing on its own thread. It just annoys me that GW is giving little to no incentive to buy or use one over the Valkyrie (Both cost and gameplay use). Its a shame as it is a classic IG tank.

Oshova wrote:Well the before mentioned Chaos Knights caused a loss on the part of GW, this is due to the fact that too few people bought it, and not enough money was made in the release period. So GW has learned from their mistakes, hence the only minor decrease in price of Greatswords (which are cheaper AND better than the metal ones), so again why would GW sell the new LR at a cheaper price than the existing one? It's got more guns, and it's a better build than the existing one . . . so it's better, why sell it cheaper?

Because more people will want to buy it if it's better and cheaper.

And the reason why no one bought Chaos knights is because GW probably keeps fething up Chaos with every new codex/army book and making people not want to play them.

I actually built store display kits of the Devil Dog, Punisher and Executioner this weekend for one of my local GW stores. I have to say that the quality of the kits is excellent and the parts go together well and quickly. Track assembly took a fraction of the time it takes with the older kits. They are fun, excellent looking models. The new rear area detail on the Hellhound kit is especially good, with four large drums of main weapon fuel, hose details, etc. I'm sure I'll buy at least one of each. If they weren't quite so expensive I probably would have bought three of each already on advance order. Release date is August 1.

Oshova wrote:Well the before mentioned Chaos Knights caused a loss on the part of GW, this is due to the fact that too few people bought it, and not enough money was made in the release period. So GW has learned from their mistakes, hence the only minor decrease in price of Greatswords (which are cheaper AND better than the metal ones)

Yeah... that's not a valid excuse at all.

Empire State Troops (10 plastic models) = AUD$35
Empire Handgunners (10 plastic models) = AUD$35
Empire Free Company (20 plastic models) = AUD$50
Empire Great Swords (10 plastic models) = AUD$69

Umm... what??? Twice the price for an equal amount of plastic models? Are you gaking me?

Don't worry Commissar Calgar, we have cheaper alternatives.

With these cheap online stores, Empire Greatswords are only $45 AUD. Not bad at all. If only there were more stores like this.

Shut up Lemontank! We don't need more of that.

H.B.M.C. wrote:

Oshova wrote:Well the before mentioned Chaos Knights caused a loss on the part of GW, this is due to the fact that too few people bought it, and not enough money was made in the release period. So GW has learned from their mistakes, hence the only minor decrease in price of Greatswords (which are cheaper AND better than the metal ones)

Yeah... that's not a valid excuse at all.

Empire State Troops (10 plastic models) = AUD$35
Empire Handgunners (10 plastic models) = AUD$35
Empire Free Company (20 plastic models) = AUD$50
Empire Great Swords (10 plastic models) = AUD$69

Umm... what??? Twice the price for an equal amount of plastic models? Are you gaking me?

OK so yes they're twice as expensive, but they're not going to sell as many of them, they are better quality models, and are a lot nicer. If GW were to sell them at the decreased price of Core troops then they wouldn't make enough profit on them. They are a Special choice for the army, that means you only need 2 or 3 choices! Let alonce 2 or 3 boxes of Greatswords. Whereas Core troops you need much more of them. Supply and demand are key factors to pricing.

Damn.....

There goes my Battlecannon.....

Well at least I can have my Executioners!