MajorWesJanson wrote: I was bracing for £240 or $399 myself, so $299 is much improved. Frees up some hobby budget for deimos rhinos and weapon packs. And for the contents, it feels like Indomitus levels of value.
The contents are certainly useful and ubiquitous enough to justify picking up a couple, especially given what we’ve seen of the upgrade packs. It’s really just the two Characters that you probably wouldn’t want to double up on.
Even if you didn’t want two Spartans, it’s not gonna be a difficult spare to shift.
Gert wrote: It's also not a limited run as well so there's no scalping to be had.
Whippy sticks are of course the most important part of that box set.
The things you miss when you can’t watch the live stream!
I’m super interested in the future of HH in terms of releases. I love the lanky Knight from FW, but I have a strong aversion to all resin kits, let alone ones you need to get properly balanced. Do them in plastic, and I’ll be on them like a Dog on dropped cheese!
The contents are certainly useful and ubiquitous enough to justify picking up a couple, especially given what we’ve seen of the upgrade packs. It’s really just the two Characters that you probably wouldn’t want to double up on.
As someone without much HH knowledge, are praetors equivalent to captains or lieutenants in 40k? Are you likely to field two in the same list?
Keel wrote: I count the same number of pixels from the bottom of the foot to the top of the gorget for both the Mk VI model and the CSM model.
That may be true but they’re in very different poses and the CSM looks much bigger and bulkier to me.
I love the look of the marines. I think the tanks look amazing. However those size comparison shots have just obliterated my enthusiasm. Looks like this’ll be a pass for me.
Gert wrote: It's also not a limited run as well so there's no scalping to be had.
Whippy sticks are of course the most important part of that box set.
Not being a limited run will greatly increase my chances of picking this up eventually. I had pretty much decided to pass on it due to what I thought it was going to price at and the fact that my paint queue is already pretty full. If I can push this back a year, and be more sure of getting it from a discounter, the odds of me building up a 30k legion just went up dramatically.
xttz wrote: As someone without much HH knowledge, are praetors equivalent to captains or lieutenants in 40k? Are you likely to field two in the same list?
A Praetor is anything from a Captain upwards and unlocks the ability to take Rites of War.
You can take one Praetor for every 1k Points currently but there's no reason to since you then lose out on slots for taking Consuls (i.e. Librarians, Chaplains, Champions, etc.).
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Nevelon wrote: Not being a limited run will greatly increase my chances of picking this up eventually. I had pretty much decided to pass on it due to what I thought it was going to price at and the fact that my paint queue is already pretty full. If I can push this back a year, and be more sure of getting it from a discounter, the odds of me building up a 30k legion just went up dramatically.
It's reasonably close enough but obviously the new beakie has a wider stance that lowers the height. I think the height would be much more evident if they were in the same pose but still not jarring at actual tabletop distances.
Gert wrote: It's also not a limited run as well so there's no scalping to be had.
Whippy sticks are of course the most important part of that box set.
The things you miss when you can’t watch the live stream!
I’m super interested in the future of HH in terms of releases. I love the lanky Knight from FW, but I have a strong aversion to all resin kits, let alone ones you need to get properly balanced. Do them in plastic, and I’ll be on them like a Dog on dropped cheese!
Wake me up when they announce plastic Solar Auxilia.
tauist wrote: I am well buzzed by these reveals! Only thing they left out was a Mk VI Assault Squad.
I especially love how they kept the Rogue Trader era special & Heavy weapons looking like they always did - Missile Launcher, Plasma & Lascannon being shoulder mounted and everything!
The only thing which reminds me I haven't died and gone to heaven is the fact that despite all this glorious RT era Space Marine goodness, there will only be 5 discreet poses for the Mk VI. Converting those 5 into more variety will be the holy grail
Because Forge World just does things better than the main gw studio. I do wonder how kitbashable these are with CSM though. That "both hands on gun" design is the same as the CSM kit. Ok, now how long until we see some melee weapons?
Keel wrote: I count the same number of pixels from the bottom of the foot to the top of the gorget for both the Mk VI model and the CSM model.
That may be true but they’re in very different poses and the CSM looks much bigger and bulkier to me.
I love the look of the marines. I think the tanks look amazing. However those size comparison shots have just obliterated my enthusiasm. Looks like this’ll be a pass for me.
Only just home from work, missed the waffling presentation, but has any mention been made of revamped Solar Auxilia rules for this new edition?
That said, if the new starter also came with the option to get Iron Armour instead of beakies, instant buy for me. I know, first world problems, but damn it, that would've made the starter better for me personally.
Automatically Appended Next Post: And yes, loving the Rhino, the other new tank not so much, that's just too much of what we already have with 40kimho; too many guns stuck on it everywhere.
BrookM wrote: Only just home from work, missed the waffling presentation, but has any mention been made of revamped Solar Auxilia rules for this new edition? .
Yes, they're planning additional books for Solar Auxilia, Custodes, Sisters of Silence, Mechanicum and Knights
Keel wrote: I count the same number of pixels from the bottom of the foot to the top of the gorget for both the Mk VI model and the CSM model.
That may be true but they’re in very different poses and the CSM looks much bigger and bulkier to me.
I love the look of the marines. I think the tanks look amazing. However those size comparison shots have just obliterated my enthusiasm. Looks like this’ll be a pass for me.
How about this shot then?
Looks pretty much identical in size to me.
Ok that does look much better. Now I’m utterly confused and don’t know what to think. I think I won’t really know whether I like the size until I get one in my hands. I’ll probably try to pick up a set of 5 on eBay to really check them out.
MeanGreenStompa wrote: Also, I hope we all took note about the improved plastic Deimos Rhino tracks...?
Nice spot, no imperial eagles anymore
Are folks gushing about that specifically because of the Emperor's Children lore and/or using it for chaos in 40k? I always liked the little detail on the current tank tracks personally but except for one edition I've been exclusively loyalist (and several flavors of foul xenos!).
Are folks gushing about that specifically because of the Emperor's Children lore and/or using it for chaos in 40k? I always liked the little detail on the current tank tracks personally but except for one edition I've been exclusively loyalist (and several flavors of foul xenos!).
It’s down to each 13th (I think it was 13) track being an imperial eagle. This was to represent the 12 high lords and then the thirteenth being the emperor.
Catching up, but really impressed by all this.
Price (!!), long term box set, doing special/heavy weapons well (especially in comparison to 40k, though I get it with the faction variety), tanks (love the reference to using it in 40k in the rhino article), love the Kratos tank. Amazing overall.
Would've liked to see more poses for the marines, but I can live with it for the price.
Want to see: plastic predator in the same style and assault marines. Definitely assault marines.
Biggest loser: Ash Wastes box for the same price. Looking forward to June.
BrookM wrote: Only just home from work, missed the waffling presentation, but has any mention been made of revamped Solar Auxilia rules for this new edition?
That said, if the new starter also came with the option to get Iron Armour instead of beakies, instant buy for me. I know, first world problems, but damn it, that would've made the starter better for me personally.
Automatically Appended Next Post: And yes, loving the Rhino, the other new tank not so much, that's just too much of what we already have with 40kimho; too many guns stuck on it everywhere.
If you don't include the coaxial it's got the same number as the accelerator sicaran. If you do include the coaxial, it's got the same number as the sicaran with a pintle mount. I personally think it's ok.
BrookM wrote: Only just home from work, missed the waffling presentation, but has any mention been made of revamped Solar Auxilia rules for this new edition?
That said, if the new starter also came with the option to get Iron Armour instead of beakies, instant buy for me. I know, first world problems, but damn it, that would've made the starter better for me personally.
Automatically Appended Next Post: And yes, loving the Rhino, the other new tank not so much, that's just too much of what we already have with 40kimho; too many guns stuck on it everywhere.
If you don't include the coaxial it's got the same number as the accelerator sicaran. If you do include the coaxial, it's got the same number as the sicaran with a pintle mount. I personally think it's ok.
Not a fan of the heavy bolters poking out the sides of the front of the hull myself, those are too much for me personally.
I do like the Volkite options, main reason I play Auxilia after all.
Look, at least the extra guns on the Kratos (and who isn’t going to paint one with Celtic-ish markings and stylised daggers) are, y’know, actual guns and not ammo boxes that mysteriously explode in the general direction of the enemy…
Presence of the new tank is cool and the lower profile and rounded turret looks pretty great but these elements juxtapose harshly against the hull that has too many un angled, flat surfaces and shot traps that I can't unsee. A charm found with Space Marine flying vehicles as well, but it ain't for me... I can get past the sponson weapons personally but other more fundamental design choices leave me cold.
Are folks gushing about that specifically because of the Emperor's Children lore and/or using it for chaos in 40k? I always liked the little detail on the current tank tracks personally but except for one edition I've been exclusively loyalist (and several flavors of foul xenos!).
It’s down to each 13th (I think it was 13) track being an imperial eagle. This was to represent the 12 high lords and then the thirteenth being the emperor.
Scrub wrote: Presence of the new tank is cool and the lower profile and rounded turret looks pretty great but these elements juxtapose harshly against the hull that has too many un angled, flat surfaces and shot traps that I can't unsee. A charm found with Space Marine flying vehicles as well, but it ain't for me... I can get past the sponson weapons personally but other more fundamental design choices leave me cold.
It also shares with the flying primaris vehicles the weird too many weapons design choice. Granted here at least there's no absurd like sideways pointing missiles or anything like that but when you look at even the 30k marine super heavies, they're pretty reserved, they're not covered in stubbers and hunter killer missiles ect.
The tanks is ok, the dozer blade makes it look cool but the rules come off like they were a fan's wish list. Not that armour 14 all around or a flare shield are unprecedented things in 30k, but for a 5hp tank, when taken in context with many unnecessary options, which also seem forced like "see we get the 30k design ethos, options, you folks like options, look at all those options!" and its laudable that the weapon options will all seemingly be on sprue and none are hidden away in some resin blister somewhere, but I'm forced to ask why? The battle cannon has 3 firing options, great, I love that, why then all he other options?
A bit like the new options for the spartan, flame instead of twin heavy bolter seems fine, lascannon a bit more of a shrug. No complaints on the rhino, looks great, happy its not covered in stubbers just for the sake of it
Keel wrote: I count the same number of pixels from the bottom of the foot to the top of the gorget for both the Mk VI model and the CSM model.
That may be true but they’re in very different poses and the CSM looks much bigger and bulkier to me.
I love the look of the marines. I think the tanks look amazing. However those size comparison shots have just obliterated my enthusiasm. Looks like this’ll be a pass for me.
Spoiler:
How about this shot then?
Looks pretty much identical in size to me.
You're the real MVP here, sir. This pic makes me very happy as the MKVI looks very much in the new CSM size which I was hoping for.
Automatically Appended Next Post: I did not catch the livestream, and don't see it specifically mentioned in the WarCom article, but do we know if the weapon upgrade sets will be plastic or resin?
Wow. So, it seems that the studded shoulder pads are split on the Mk VI boys. That is horrible TBH. Torso and legs are one single piece, but we already knew that.
Split shoulder pads are stupendously gakky, though.
Albertorius wrote:Wow. So, it seems that the studded shoulder pads are split on the Mk VI boys. That is horrible TBH. Torso and legs are one single piece, but we already knew that.
Spoiler:
Split shoulder pads are stupendously gakky, though.
This has been known since Zephon was released and is preferable to undercuts.
TalonZahn wrote:Missed the stream. Were any release dates mentioned?
Definitely need to start looking for a buyer for this kidney of mine.
Albertorius wrote: Wow. So, it seems that the studded shoulder pads are split on the Mk VI boys. That is horrible TBH. Torso and legs are one single piece, but we already knew that.
Split shoulder pads are stupendously gakky, though.
Split shoulder pads is how they get actual studs, not the weird studs that the MkIV kit has where they stretch into the pad.
Albertorius wrote: Wow. So, it seems that the studded shoulder pads are split on the Mk VI boys. That is horrible TBH. Torso and legs are one single piece, but we already knew that.
Split shoulder pads are stupendously gakky, though.
Split shoulder pads is how they get actual studs, not the weird studs that the MkIV kit has where they stretch into the pad.
I'd rather have those than a seam line riiiight down the face of the pad, personally.
Thank the Emperor I have a solid stock of FW Mk VI resin pauldrons. Not looking forward to spending ages trying to pull off seamless assembly of these halved pauldrons, that's a awful lot of sanding and gap filling for, say, 40 marines!
PS I'm not 100% convinced GW couldn't have pulled off a satisfactory result without having to halve the pauldrons. There is one bit in existence with the bigger pauldrons pad as a single plastic bit, it's the one with the purity seals. I think it looks fine, even if it might still have a slightly undercut feel to it..? I don't remember which plastic kit it's from, its a bit rare, I think I only have like two of those in total in my bits collection..
tauist wrote: Thank the Emperor I have a solid stock of FW Mk VI resin pauldrons. Not looking forward to spending ages trying to pull off seamless assembly of these halved pauldrons, that's a awful lot of sanding and gap filling for, say, 40 marines!
PS I'm not 100% convinced GW couldn't have pulled off a satisfactory result without having to halve the pauldrons. There is one bit in existence with the bigger pauldrons pad as a single plastic bit, it's the one with the purity seals. I don't remember which plastic kit it's from, its a bit rare, I think I only have like two of those in total in my bits collection..
I mean, the probably wouldn’t have split it if they could’ve got the same result without splitting it.
tauist wrote: Thank the Emperor I have a solid stock of FW Mk VI resin pauldrons. Not looking forward to spending ages trying to pull off seamless assembly of these halved pauldrons, that's a awful lot of sanding and gap filling for, say, 40 marines!
PS I'm not 100% convinced GW couldn't have pulled off a satisfactory result without having to halve the pauldrons. There is one bit in existence with the bigger pauldrons pad as a single plastic bit, it's the one with the purity seals. I don't remember which plastic kit it's from, its a bit rare, I think I only have like two of those in total in my bits collection..
I mean, the probably wouldn’t have split it if they could’ve got the same result without splitting it.
Like I said, you can see a slight difference, but is it really a worthwhile tradeoff for the gap in the middle?
tauist wrote: Thank the Emperor I have a solid stock of FW Mk VI resin pauldrons. Not looking forward to spending ages trying to pull off seamless assembly of these halved pauldrons, that's a awful lot of sanding and gap filling for, say, 40 marines!
PS I'm not 100% convinced GW couldn't have pulled off a satisfactory result without having to halve the pauldrons. There is one bit in existence with the bigger pauldrons pad as a single plastic bit, it's the one with the purity seals. I don't remember which plastic kit it's from, its a bit rare, I think I only have like two of those in total in my bits collection..
I mean, the probably wouldn’t have split it if they could’ve got the same result without splitting it.
Like I said, you can see a slight difference, but is it really a worthwhile tradeoff for the gap in the middle?
Here we have an example of where resin can be superior to plastic. Resin shoulder pad can have undercuts and also not have a seam line down the middle.
If they sold packs of 50 studded resin shoulder pads they'd probably be a worthwhile thing to buy if you plan on building an army of these things.
Holy gak, I mean, I'm not the sort who does their airbrushing in a vehicle prep booth in a hazmat suit by any means, but talk about overkill!
These are hard plastic, just a hair extra poly cement and a scrape back will render the seam almost invisible, assuming it's visible enough to be bothered by on dozens of rank and file infantry in the first place.
Albertorius wrote: Wow. So, it seems that the studded shoulder pads are split on the Mk VI boys. That is horrible TBH. Torso and legs are one single piece, but we already knew that.
Spoiler:
Split shoulder pads are stupendously gakky, though.
Wow. Yeah. Thats Robotech Tactics level of stupidity in sprue layout from a company whose worst offense IMO to date was empty space on a sprue that could have more bits. Split shoulder pads across the center...I didn't see that coming.
MonkeyBallistic wrote: The seam down the middle is the reason the studded shoulder pads don’t look like crap. It’s really no problem if you’re using the right kind of glue.
I seem to remember hearing the same with the RRT debacle. Turns out, it wasn't really "no problem".
Racerguy180 wrote: The seam isn't too terrible(still terrible) but prob not as big a deal as some are making.
A little prep w dichloromethane and some Vallejo plastic putty and it shouldn't be an issue.
Realistically is any of that harder/easier than dealing with resin?
I'd say that's way harder than dealing with resin.
The seam is on a exposed curved surface and surrounded by the studs (meaning you aren't going to have 1 angle where your tool will get in there properly).
It depends what standard you're trying to do it to of course... on wargaming models I don't normally bother filling seam lines unless it's truly heinous, on display models I could see myself wasting a lot of time on shoulder pads. Even on wargaming models it creates problems if you're planning on using drybrushing, washing, or contrasts in your scheme, as those techniques will accentuate the seam line and accentuate a poor attempt at filling it. On display models I'll often go back and forth between filling, sanding and priming to get the surface perfect.
So, yeah, would much rather have resin shoulder pads than ones with a seam line. It'll only take a few moments to clean up flash from around the rim of a resin shoulder pad and then it should be perfect.
Azreal13 wrote: These are hard plastic, just a hair extra poly cement and a scrape back will render the seam almost invisible, assuming it's visible enough to be bothered by on dozens of rank and file infantry in the first place.
I've stopped using that as a gap filling method on all but the finest of gaps because I've found a few times gaps that I filled reappeared weeks or months later. It seems random, some models are fine forever, others the gap has reappeared later. Some blokes on fine scale modelling groups said it was because the melted plastic puddle created takes a long time to fully harden back up and in that time sometimes the gap can return.
Azreal13 wrote: These are hard plastic, just a hair extra poly cement and a scrape back will render the seam almost invisible, assuming it's visible enough to be bothered by on dozens of rank and file infantry in the first place.
I've stopped using that as a gap filling method on all but the finest of gaps because I've found a few times gaps that I filled reappeared weeks or months later. It seems random, some models are fine forever, others the gap has reappeared later. Some blokes on fine scale modelling groups said it was because the melted plastic puddle created takes a long time to fully harden back up and in that time sometimes the gap can return.
I'll add to this and say that in the finescale world there was a trend for a while to use "sprue goo" and tamiya extra thin for gaps, but over time I've noticed the top model makers have shifted back to superglue based fillers, sculpting putties, putty primers, etc.
Seeing as I wasn't interested enough on that mini to go see the sprue... yes, absolutely?
Yeah, I never knew that was a thing, lol.
But in that case it's less of an issue to me because it's a character model, it's a bit more acceptable on a character model to spend some time making it look pretty.
Azreal13 wrote: These are hard plastic, just a hair extra poly cement and a scrape back will render the seam almost invisible, assuming it's visible enough to be bothered by on dozens of rank and file infantry in the first place.
I've stopped using that as a gap filling method on all but the finest of gaps because I've found a few times gaps that I filled reappeared weeks or months later. It seems random, some models are fine forever, others the gap has reappeared later. Some blokes on fine scale modelling groups said it was because the melted plastic puddle created takes a long time to fully harden back up and in that time sometimes the gap can return.
I'll add to this and say that in the finescale world there was a trend for a while to use "sprue goo" and tamiya extra thin for gaps, but over time I've noticed the top model makers have shifted back to superglue based fillers, sculpting putties, putty primers, etc.
If anyone is treating rank and file wargame minis like finescale models that might explain the volume of grey plastic scattered on tables the world over. Nobody's ever going to finish an army!
I get you may not want a huge gap or visible seam, but there's really only a small amount of work needed to avoid that, possibly beginning and ending with just being careful.
Keel wrote: I count the same number of pixels from the bottom of the foot to the top of the gorget for both the Mk VI model and the CSM model.
That may be true but they’re in very different poses and the CSM looks much bigger and bulkier to me.
I love the look of the marines. I think the tanks look amazing. However those size comparison shots have just obliterated my enthusiasm. Looks like this’ll be a pass for me.
How about this shot then?
Looks pretty much identical in size to me.
As well as the shoulder pad is that a great big seam down the centre of the helmet as well?
Holy gak, I mean, I'm not the sort who does their airbrushing in a vehicle prep booth in a hazmat suit by any means, but talk about overkill!
These are hard plastic, just a hair extra poly cement and a scrape back will render the seam almost invisible, assuming it's visible enough to be bothered by on dozens of rank and file infantry in the first place.
You know that's just regular styrene & abs glue...it just sounds scary. Well it is scary if you drink it or smoke around it.
So general question, a local shop has a sealed copy of Betrayal at Calth for $300. Another shop I was told has either Betrayal at Calth or Prospero Burns(couldn't tell me for sure). Is it worth picking 1 or both of these up, or just waiting for the new box set?
l0k1 wrote: So general question, a local shop has a sealed copy of Betrayal at Calth for $300. Another shop I was told has either Betrayal at Calth or Prospero Burns(couldn't tell me for sure). Is it worth picking 1 or both of these up, or just waiting for the new box set?
I'd hold off, but that's just my opinion based on the Mk VI being much better proportioned. I don't think the prev. armor marks will look great with them.
Holy gak, I mean, I'm not the sort who does their airbrushing in a vehicle prep booth in a hazmat suit by any means, but talk about overkill!
These are hard plastic, just a hair extra poly cement and a scrape back will render the seam almost invisible, assuming it's visible enough to be bothered by on dozens of rank and file infantry in the first place.
You know that's just regular styrene & abs glue...it just sounds scary. Well it is scary if you drink it or smoke around it.
Its a plastic solvent sure, but its not regular. It's just needlessly risky when regular poly cement poses far less risk and no real disadvantages.
l0k1 wrote: So general question, a local shop has a sealed copy of Betrayal at Calth for $300. Another shop I was told has either Betrayal at Calth or Prospero Burns(couldn't tell me for sure). Is it worth picking 1 or both of these up, or just waiting for the new box set?
The marines from those sets will be smaller than the new ones, however on the upside they're very compatible with 40k marines bits and 30k resin bits from that era.
l0k1 wrote: So general question, a local shop has a sealed copy of Betrayal at Calth for $300. Another shop I was told has either Betrayal at Calth or Prospero Burns(couldn't tell me for sure). Is it worth picking 1 or both of these up, or just waiting for the new box set?
I'd hold off, but that's just my opinion based on the Mk VI being much better proportioned. I don't think the prev. armor marks will look great with them.
Unless you want to actually play the board game. Which I highly recommend (certainly BaC); it’s such a shame so few people actually did that.
l0k1 wrote: So general question, a local shop has a sealed copy of Betrayal at Calth for $300. Another shop I was told has either Betrayal at Calth or Prospero Burns(couldn't tell me for sure). Is it worth picking 1 or both of these up, or just waiting for the new box set?
I'd hold off, but that's just my opinion based on the Mk VI being much better proportioned. I don't think the prev. armor marks will look great with them.
Are all of the marines in the upcoming box going to be the mark VI beakie style?
I figured it had to be something like a 2-piece shoulderpad from the very earliest photos showing the arrangement of those very large studs across the entire curved surface. It's also the reason we might not get plastic Mk Vs in any great numbers, since they routinely use those studs across helmets and legs as well.
I've always wondered if the incompatibility of the studded pads with the plastic moulding process wasn't a part of the reason for the movement away from Mk6s to Mk7s during late 1st and early 2nd edition. They'd already redesigned the lower legs to their current shape for similar reasons when they built the RTB01 sprues (RTB01 studded shoulder pads look particularly awful, too, though the metal ones were also all over the place in terms of stud size, pattern and the overall care the sculptor used).
There is no conceivable universe in which GW would possibly be making a loss on this.
Less profit =/= Loss leader
Loss leader =/= no profit
That's exactly what it means. It's there in the name.
Otherwise you call it an introductory offer of something similar.
The actual definition is that, yeah: "A loss leader strategy prices a product lower than its production cost in order to attract customers or sell other, more expensive products".
That said, it also gets frequently used when something is sold below its market price, instead.
In that sense, there is no way in hell that the box costs $299 to be produced.
That said, it also gets frequently used when something is sold below its market price, instead.
That it is sometimes used incorrectly by people who don't understand what it actually means (despite the fact it is literally self defining) doesn't alter a thing.
That said, it also gets frequently used when something is sold below its market price, instead.
That it is sometimes used incorrectly by people who don't understand what it actually means (despite the fact it is literally self defining) doesn't alter a thing.
You mean, like the word "literally"? Because I got news for you...
While I'm normally all for a discussion on the incorrect use of terminology - and "literally" doth metaphorically drive me up the wall - what's the story with the Sicaran?
Thread title implies a plastic kit, but it wasn't in today's preview, and I haven't seen a mention from anyone who was at the event in person about one.
I'm also happy to flee from the mind bending density and to respond to your question with "I'm not sure, I have a Sicaran so I was mostly excited by the Kratos, but as the hull is the basis of several other kits, it still makes absolute sense to plasticise it."
Azreal13 wrote: I'm also happy to flee from the mind bending density and to respond to your question with "I'm not sure, I have a Sicaran so I was mostly excited by the Kratos, but as the hull is the basis of several other kits, it still makes absolute sense to plasticise it."
The sic aran question may be which turret options are included. I'd guess the omega and the Arcus, since 5he missile pods and plasma require the least changes to the turret.
Yeah, I'd expect the Venator would need too many alternative parts. Might make sense to just reduce it to a conversion kit as a FW direct thing (if they do conversion kits any more?)
Dysartes wrote: Thread title implies a plastic kit, but it wasn't in today's preview, and I haven't seen a mention from anyone who was at the event in person about one.
There's a leaked photo (below) that looks a bit different from the current resin one - and has a spotlight identical to the plastic Deimos-pattern Rhino previewed today.
Azreal13 wrote: If anyone is treating rank and file wargame minis like finescale models that might explain the volume of grey plastic scattered on tables the world over. Nobody's ever going to finish an army!
I get you may not want a huge gap or visible seam, but there's really only a small amount of work needed to avoid that, possibly beginning and ending with just being careful.
I'm mainly using it as an example why I don't consider "just throw some poly cement on it" a suitable response to "I don't like that seam line".
Sure, I'm not going to spend hours filling those shoulder seam lines.... that doesn't mean I find their presence acceptable on a kit that GW is likely going to sell for $6USD per model. Compared to, say, a mould line, a seam line is much more painful to fix to the point where it's unnoticeable.
If anything, I find seam lines in prominent places more acceptable on fine scale models, because on fine scale models I'm going to be spending 10's if not 100's of hours on each model anyway, it's not a big deal to have to fix some seam lines. Rank and file wargame miniatures should be as close to flawless so they don't need fixing.
Azreal13 wrote: If anyone is treating rank and file wargame minis like finescale models that might explain the volume of grey plastic scattered on tables the world over. Nobody's ever going to finish an army!
I get you may not want a huge gap or visible seam, but there's really only a small amount of work needed to avoid that, possibly beginning and ending with just being careful.
I'm mainly using it as an example why I don't consider "just throw some poly cement on it" a suitable response to "I don't like that seam line".
Sure, I'm not going to spend hours filling those shoulder seam lines.... that doesn't mean I find their presence acceptable on a kit that GW is likely going to sell for $6USD per model. Compared to, say, a mould line, a seam line is much more painful to fix to the point where it's unnoticeable.
If anything, I find seam lines in prominent places more acceptable on fine scale models, because on fine scale models I'm going to be spending 10's if not 100's of hours on each model anyway, it's not a big deal to have to fix some seam lines. Rank and file wargame miniatures should be as close to flawless so they don't need fixing.
You're not obligated to like it but quoting price per model as some sort of justification for you not liking it is just asinine.
GW had a choice between offering the same strange looking undercut rivets as before or somehow changing the way they were molded for higher visual quality. This time they chose the latter and split the pads in half.
You're welcome to buy 3D printed or resin pads to avoid the extra work just like people previously would have done if they wanted pauldrons with good looking rivets.
You're not obligated to like it but quoting price per model as some sort of justification for you not liking it is just asinine.
GW had a choice between offering the same strange looking undercut rivets as before or somehow changing the way they were molded for higher visual quality. This time they chose the latter and split the pads in half.
You're welcome to buy 3D printed or resin pads to avoid the extra work just like people previously would have done if they wanted pauldrons with good looking rivets.
Time is money and this is supposedly a premium luxury product from the industry leader. It's not "asinine" to quote a price when discussing something that will take time to fix as it's completely reasonable to factor in your own time to the total cost/investment in making a model, unit, or army when cheaper cheaper models from the same company don't require that extra work. It's also reasonable for you to prioritize undercuts and I'd be criticizing him if he were instead telling you to just cut off the badly done rivets with undercuts and sculpt your own out of greenstuff.
Jack Flask wrote: You're not obligated to like it but quoting price per model as some sort of justification for you not liking it is just asinine.
Price point sets an expectation. If they were $1 models, what I'd be willing to live with would be different.
Like, what I find acceptable in a Ford is not the same as what I find acceptable in a Mercedes.
I'm not sure why you'd think that's asinine.
GW had a choice between offering the same strange looking undercut rivets as before or somehow changing the way they were molded for higher visual quality. This time they chose the latter and split the pads in half.
You're welcome to buy 3D printed or resin pads to avoid the extra work just like people previously would have done if they wanted pauldrons with good looking rivets.
I think GW probably should just include resin shoulder pads in this rare case. Maybe they could use slide moulding, though not sure if that's economically viable. They have used slide moulds on rare occasions in the past, so I assume they have the capability (though perhaps those rare occasions were outsourced).
That it "will take time to fix" is, at this point, and assumption based on scant information.
We know that the pad comes in two halves, and that on the image that prompted this discussion there is some seam line visible.
But then, there's mold lines all over the shop on that same model, so nothing is indicative of any great care taken in assembly.
The halves are cut in a wave shape, so there's near enough no chance of any serious vertical misalignment, if there's any sort of locator tab to prevent misalignment along the z axis, then there's every chance the seam will be near inviisble when assembled with care and primed.
Azreal13 wrote: That it "will take time to fix" is, at this point, and assumption based on scant information.
Scant information and decades of experience building models.
But, yeah, maybe GW will break new ground in invisible join lines.
The halves are cut in a wave shape...
An interesting idea would have been to make it a detail feature, so there's intentionally a panel line there. Though that wouldn't match historical designs of the shoulder pads.
Azreal13 wrote: If anyone is treating rank and file wargame minis like finescale models that might explain the volume of grey plastic scattered on tables the world over. Nobody's ever going to finish an army!
I get you may not want a huge gap or visible seam, but there's really only a small amount of work needed to avoid that, possibly beginning and ending with just being careful.
I'm mainly using it as an example why I don't consider "just throw some poly cement on it" a suitable response to "I don't like that seam line".
Sure, I'm not going to spend hours filling those shoulder seam lines.... that doesn't mean I find their presence acceptable on a kit that GW is likely going to sell for $6USD per model. Compared to, say, a mould line, a seam line is much more painful to fix to the point where it's unnoticeable.
If anything, I find seam lines in prominent places more acceptable on fine scale models, because on fine scale models I'm going to be spending 10's if not 100's of hours on each model anyway, it's not a big deal to have to fix some seam lines. Rank and file wargame miniatures should be as close to flawless so they don't need fixing.
I mean, I know it's not the most exciting thing, but plastic models have certain limitations involving undercuts. If they could get perfectly round studs on the sides (where they'd have to either be on a seam line, or have undercuts) without cutting the pads in half they would have. But you can't do undercuts with plastic. The details would either be sheered off or end up needing to be designed differently. For example here's the old studded shoulder pad with stretched studs near the edge, smaller studs (for easier mold removal) and studs away from the sides of the pad where they'd be perpendicular with the side walls of the mold.
And here's the new ones with larger studs that are perfectly round and are along the edges of the pad where the they'd get stuck in a single peice:
Now does this come with extra work to make them look good with the need to fill in the seam? Yes. But creating model kits is a series of compromises.
ClockworkZion wrote: Now does this come with extra work to make them look good with the need to fill in the seam? Yes. But creating model kits is a series of compromises.
And what people is saying is they prefer the other compromise instead.
ClockworkZion wrote: Now does this come with extra work to make them look good with the need to fill in the seam? Yes. But creating model kits is a series of compromises.
And what people is saying is they prefer the other compromise instead.
The main reason I got involved in the discussion because I think this is a good example of an area where rigid adherence to "plastic is the material of the gods!" falls flat.
Those shoulder pads would work perfectly in resin, you can have it as one part, have the undercuts, and shift the mould line to somewhere that it's easy to clean up.
Once you get out of the realm of GW, using different materials for different parts of a kit become more common.
There's also slide moulding, where instead of having a 2 part mould it'll have multiple parts that slide out from different directions, so that way you can get detail on orthogonal planes. GW have done slide moulds in the past, so I assume they have the capability. Other manufacturers do slide moulds, I think Bandai and Tamiya have used slide moulds on some of their models.
Or the other option I mentioned, actually put an intentional panel line there so that the seam line blends into the panel line. The only downside I can see to doing that is that it wouldn't match previous models, but I think it'd be a good compromise.
Another one would be having separate studs, though I haven't come up with a good way of doing that wouldn't be fiddly, maybe having the studs coming through from the back somehow.
Seems they chose a compromise. It’s not ideal. It’s also not the worst mould line or join line ever seen on a mini. A lot of teeth gnashing for a very small thing. I guess it must mean the rest of the release looks good to people and THIS is the one whiny nitpick they’re deciding to write essays about this week?
Whatever the case, the decision has been made, the series cut and everyone will have to deal with it if they want the minis. Or buy another Mk if it irks you a lot. Loads of options.
I guess the mould like on the beakie helmets could be the greater issue - when the forms are worn out and mould lines get stronger on the casted sprues and makes it more difficult to cleaned up.
I would have actually loved it if the studs would have been separate, and you'd have to glue them on to a bare shoulderpad with indented slots in it. Would have been crazy cool for converters! But not seeing that for rank & file models, characters like Dom. Zephon perhaps..
I think many here are missing how incredibly easy it is to brush a seam like that away with the right plastic glue. I use “Same Stuff” from Micro-Mark. You just brush glue across the gap, at a 90 degree angle to the seam, until the seam is gone.
After brushing with plastic glue and priming, this will be completely invisible. I’ve fixed more difficult seams with this technique (the hair on the heads of the beastmen in Blackstone Fortress comes to mind)
There is no scraping or sanding, and it takes about a minute to do one model. You can’t do this over fine detail because the glue will destroy that, but these are smooth surfaces. I’m also assuming that the fit of two halves is near perfect, but for 2022 GW models that’s not a stretch.
*sigh* not a big fan of the mark VI. Perhaps the other box sets are more my style. I wonder if they're resizing the older armors with the new boxes.
Considering the MkVI isn't a different scale and that has been shown multiple times in the last day, the armours being different scales isn't a concern.
I would have actually loved it if the studs would have been separate, and you'd have to glue them on to a bare shoulderpad with indented slots in it. Would have been crazy cool for converters! But not seeing that for rank & file models, characters like Dom. Zephon perhaps..
Oh, there's more options than that one, not to worry.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
RobertDD wrote: I think many here are missing how incredibly easy it is to brush a seam like that away with the right plastic glue. I use “Same Stuff” from Micro-Mark. You just brush glue across the gap, at a 90 degree angle to the seam, until the seam is gone.
Sure, because for most of us, this is our first rodeo.[/s]
Crimson wrote: I'm a bit disappointed how small and dainty the beakies look. I was hoping a bit more bulk.
Just do what everyone else seems to be doing and buy tortuga marines
The new MK6 also sound like they have some irritating design decisions, like splitting the studded shoulder pads into two pieces that join down the middle. I'm sure that will be an absolute blast to assemble with no visible seam and a smooth finish.
RobertDD wrote: I think many here are missing how incredibly easy it is to brush a seam like that away with the right plastic glue. I use “Same Stuff” from Micro-Mark. You just brush glue across the gap, at a 90 degree angle to the seam, until the seam is gone.
After brushing with plastic glue and priming, this will be completely invisible. I’ve fixed more difficult seams with this technique (the hair on the heads of the beastmen in Blackstone Fortress comes to mind)
There is no scraping or sanding, and it takes about a minute to do one model. You can’t do this over fine detail because the glue will destroy that, but these are smooth surfaces. I’m also assuming that the fit of two halves is near perfect, but for 2022 GW models that’s not a stretch.
Personally if some Tamiya Thin brushed across the seam doesn't do it I was thinking some home made sprue too could work but I usually save that for if things are really gapped.
RobertDD wrote: I think many here are missing how incredibly easy it is to brush a seam like that away with the right plastic glue. I use “Same Stuff” from Micro-Mark. You just brush glue across the gap, at a 90 degree angle to the seam, until the seam is gone.
Sure, because for most of us, this is our first rodeo.[/s]
I think some people have different definitions of "completely invisible"
jojo_monkey_boy wrote: Just do what everyone else seems to be doing and buy tortuga marines
The new MK6 also sound like they have some irritating design decisions, like splitting the studded shoulder pads into two pieces that join down the middle. I'm sure that will be an absolute blast to assemble with no visible seam and a smooth finish.
I'm not sure exactly where you're getting that second part from considering the MkVI kit doesn't have any indication for that being true. The Zephon model does have that but there's no sign of a split on the regular kit.
jojo_monkey_boy wrote: Just do what everyone else seems to be doing and buy tortuga marines
The new MK6 also sound like they have some irritating design decisions, like splitting the studded shoulder pads into two pieces that join down the middle. I'm sure that will be an absolute blast to assemble with no visible seam and a smooth finish.
I'm not sure exactly where you're getting that second part from considering the MkVI kit doesn't have any indication for that being true. The Zephon model does have that but there's no sign of a split on the regular kit.
We’ve seen the sprues and assembled models. There’s a split.
Having carved the undercuts for countless badly cast plastic studded shoulder pads I definitely welcome the two part construction. They look much better and getting rid of the seam is not a huge deal.
jojo_monkey_boy wrote: Just do what everyone else seems to be doing and buy tortuga marines
The new MK6 also sound like they have some irritating design decisions, like splitting the studded shoulder pads into two pieces that join down the middle. I'm sure that will be an absolute blast to assemble with no visible seam and a smooth finish.
I'm not sure exactly where you're getting that second part from considering the MkVI kit doesn't have any indication for that being true. The Zephon model does have that but there's no sign of a split on the regular kit.
Crimson wrote: I'm a bit disappointed how small and dainty the beakies look. I was hoping a bit more bulk. Has there been any pics of the sprues?
Also the tanks look great, but there is no Predator?
Well some of us care being true to scale and fluff. Guess you could make them wider(fat marines?) But much taller than that and they approach primaris size. To maintain marines at 7 feet entire primaris and custodes line would need to be redone.
RobertDD wrote: I think many here are missing how incredibly easy it is to brush a seam like that away with the right plastic glue. I use “Same Stuff” from Micro-Mark. You just brush glue across the gap, at a 90 degree angle to the seam, until the seam is gone.
Sure, because for most of us, this is our first rodeo.[/s]
I think some people have different definitions of "completely invisible"
I do agree with the notion of “different definitions”, when people say that Apple Barrel paints are “just as good” as citadel paints, or when people claim that a decent, cheap brush is “just as good” as a Winsor Newton #7. But I’m pretty critical, and when I say “completely invisible” I really mean “completely invisible”. I fix the sides of Necron Warriors (the part under the arms) using this same technique, and, when done right, that seam also completely disappears. Shades will not find a ridge to darken, drybrushing will not highlight an edge. The surface becomes one smooth curve. Before priming the glue covered surface looks distinctly different from the unglued areas, but that difference disappears under a (thin!) coat of primer.
Time will tell if the fit of the parts is good enough to apply this technique, or if a filler is needed, which is far more involved. I see no reason to assume that the parts will fit sub-optimally. Recent GW kits have been pretty spot on. The one exception for me has been the large center seams on the primaris bikes from Indomitus. Those I found very hard to adequately disappear, although I managed (mostly) with a combination of fillers (I think I used Vallejo plastic putty), this technique, and scraping and sanding. I don’t think we will need to sand and scrape in these seams, but if we do, that’s going to be really tough with those rivets in the way.
As to the “first rodeo” comment: there’s always more to learn in this hobby, evidenced by the “different definitions” comment.
Crimson wrote: I'm a bit disappointed how small and dainty the beakies look. I was hoping a bit more bulk. Has there been any pics of the sprues?
Also the tanks look great, but there is no Predator?
Well some of us care being true to scale and fluff. Guess you could make them wider(fat marines?) But much taller than that and they approach primaris size. To maintain marines at 7 feet entire primaris and custodes line would need to be redone.
Except like I have told you about nine thousand times and you ignore it every time: compared to GWs normal humans, Primaris models are actually scaled to be roughly seven feet tall. That's the maths. Also, IIRC there still is no indication what the exact height of Primaris or Custodes is supposed to be in the fluff. For all we know, they can be two inches taller than normal marines. (Some people say they're eight feet tall, though I don't think that there is any official source for that. This would mean the models should be ogryn sized to be properly scaled to be eight feet tall compared to normal human models.)
Automatically Appended Next Post:
lord_blackfang wrote: Anyway we all love doing some mandatory tedious cleanup on a prominently visible part of every mini in a horde army.
I mean you need to clean up the mould lines anyway...
l0k1 wrote: So general question, a local shop has a sealed copy of Betrayal at Calth for $300. Another shop I was told has either Betrayal at Calth or Prospero Burns(couldn't tell me for sure). Is it worth picking 1 or both of these up, or just waiting for the new box set?
I'd hold off, but that's just my opinion based on the Mk VI being much better proportioned. I don't think the prev. armor marks will look great with them.
Unless you want to actually play the board game. Which I highly recommend (certainly BaC); it’s such a shame so few people actually did that.
As well, if you mix the armor a bit for an army using salvaged parts it wouldn't look bad. Certainly the legs on the new guys are better done of course.
The parts and their arrangement on in the mould are most likely done by computer optimization for best material flow-through and volume fill.
The helmets im not too fussed about. How the bolter arms work with the various heavy weapons on which particular pose is what I'm more concerned about.
For those who have criticisms of the new beakies (mild in my case), here's some good news. At least he's not an exact representation of the upcoming White Dwarf cover marine who apparently failed his Tzeentch fun house mirror save. Wow.
Spoiler:
That's some warp fueled depth of field and mutant proportions there.
Thanks. I didn't know as I stopped following codex churn once I realized that every two years wasn't the anomaly but rather the goal. I figured it was new art.
The helmets seem perfectly appropiate, and as said above, the mold lines will probably be easier to scrape off.
The biggest issue I have with the beakie sprue is that it seems to be very, very limited in both options and poseability.
But for the apparent price of the big set I can stomach it: after all, my main interest for them is to use them to make a "battle for the farm" RT set. I already have located classic looking orks for that, too
TalonZahn wrote: I'm more curious why The Lion and Curze are absent from all photos posted by many sources from the HH weekender.....
Was there like a photo of all the Primarchs together and those 2 missing? Otherwise I’m not sure why it would be significant. I’ve not seen many photos of anything apart from the box contents.
I'd bet quite heavily on there being some more plastic Primarchs appearing in the not too distant future. We have after all, conveniently, just recently seen the last of the resin releases.
That Beakycheese pic set was pure gold, thanks for the share!
I don't actually mind the moldline in the middle of the helmet. It'll make painting halved colourschemes and classic RT-style "helmet lines" easier. And like already stated, cleaning it up will be much easier than the old plastic kits, which had the mold line going across the horizontal axis. The resin helmets are again superior in this regard, barely any moldlines on those.
JWBS wrote: I'd bet quite heavily on there being some more plastic Primarchs appearing in the not too distant future. We have after all, conveniently, just recently seen the last of the resin releases.
Not of (30k) Lion or Curze though. Angron and at some point Fulgrim, sure.
TalonZahn wrote: I'm more curious why The Lion and Curze are absent from all photos posted by many sources from the HH weekender.....
Was there like a photo of all the Primarchs together and those 2 missing? Otherwise I’m not sure why it would be significant. I’ve not seen many photos of anything apart from the box contents.
Lots of stuff on Instagram, and some feeds like Siege Studios and even WarCom have taken pictures of all the cases, and every Primarch except those 2 have been individually pictured and they aren't even in the background of anything.
TalonZahn wrote: I'm more curious why The Lion and Curze are absent from all photos posted by many sources from the HH weekender.....
Was there like a photo of all the Primarchs together and those 2 missing? Otherwise I’m not sure why it would be significant. I’ve not seen many photos of anything apart from the box contents.
Lots of stuff on Instagram, and some feeds like Siege Studios and even WarCom have taken pictures of all the cases, and every Primarch except those 2 have been individually pictured and they aren't even in the background of anything.
Ah okay. I’m not sure that it would mean anything major, might just be being photographed for a white dwarf article or something. Where are the WarCom photos?
Well I do like these Mk6 marines but I just wish that there is an option for other helmets then just beakie or nonstudded shoulder pad as I can imagine some legions having them and others not.
I checked with Leakycheese on Twitter (he who is quoted as Beakycheese earlier in the thread) - apparently there wasn't anything about a plastic Sicaran at the event.
Dysartes wrote: I checked with Leakycheese on Twitter (he who is quoted as Beakycheese earlier in the thread) - apparently there wasn't anything about a plastic Sicaran at the event.
I'd chuckle if it was there showing off some elements from the new vehicle upgrade sprue...
But I seriously think that it'll come, when's the next reveal event? They're at UKGE aren't they?
Dysartes wrote: I checked with Leakycheese on Twitter (he who is quoted as Beakycheese earlier in the thread) - apparently there wasn't anything about a plastic Sicaran at the event.
I'd chuckle if it was there showing off some elements from the new vehicle upgrade sprue...
But I seriously think that it'll come, when's the next reveal event? They're at UKGE aren't they?
Aye, UKGE was mentioned on today's pre-order article - though, as of looking at the UKGE events page earlier, there's no seminar this time, which is disappointing. I was looking forwards to asking why they appears to be scared of T9 and above in 40k if there was one...
Well yeah, they were sent to a number of painters to do up in legion colors. Shame the Night Lords didn't make it, that's the legion I wanted to see in MkVI the most.
Dysartes wrote: I checked with Leakycheese on Twitter (he who is quoted as Beakycheese earlier in the thread) - apparently there wasn't anything about a plastic Sicaran at the event.
I'd chuckle if it was there showing off some elements from the new vehicle upgrade sprue...
But I seriously think that it'll come, when's the next reveal event? They're at UKGE aren't they?
Aye, UKGE was mentioned on today's pre-order article - though, as of looking at the UKGE events page earlier, there's no seminar this time, which is disappointing. I was looking forwards to asking why they appears to be scared of T9 and above in 40k if there was one...
Agreed. Bumping toughness would help a lot with damage inflation problems. If Ld can go to 11 now, why can't toughness go to 12 for Land Raider equivalents?
Dysartes wrote: I checked with Leakycheese on Twitter (he who is quoted as Beakycheese earlier in the thread) - apparently there wasn't anything about a plastic Sicaran at the event.
I'd chuckle if it was there showing off some elements from the new vehicle upgrade sprue...
But I seriously think that it'll come, when's the next reveal event? They're at UKGE aren't they?
Aye, UKGE was mentioned on today's pre-order article - though, as of looking at the UKGE events page earlier, there's no seminar this time, which is disappointing. I was looking forwards to asking why they appears to be scared of T9 and above in 40k if there was one...
Agreed. Bumping toughness would help a lot with damage inflation problems. If Ld can go to 11 now, why can't toughness go to 12 for Land Raider equivalents?
Uncapping values was definitely one of the better things that 8/9th did since it let them give more room to the statlines to breathe, but they never really do enough with it.
Dysartes wrote: I checked with Leakycheese on Twitter (he who is quoted as Beakycheese earlier in the thread) - apparently there wasn't anything about a plastic Sicaran at the event.
I'd chuckle if it was there showing off some elements from the new vehicle upgrade sprue...
But I seriously think that it'll come, when's the next reveal event? They're at UKGE aren't they?
Aye, UKGE was mentioned on today's pre-order article - though, as of looking at the UKGE events page earlier, there's no seminar this time, which is disappointing. I was looking forwards to asking why they appears to be scared of T9 and above in 40k if there was one...
I don't think the seminar programme has been announced yet.
Dysartes wrote: I checked with Leakycheese on Twitter (he who is quoted as Beakycheese earlier in the thread) - apparently there wasn't anything about a plastic Sicaran at the event.
I'd chuckle if it was there showing off some elements from the new vehicle upgrade sprue...
But I seriously think that it'll come, when's the next reveal event? They're at UKGE aren't they?
Aye, UKGE was mentioned on today's pre-order article - though, as of looking at the UKGE events page earlier, there's no seminar this time, which is disappointing. I was looking forwards to asking why they appears to be scared of T9 and above in 40k if there was one...
Agreed. Bumping toughness would help a lot with damage inflation problems. If Ld can go to 11 now, why can't toughness go to 12 for Land Raider equivalents?
Because there are factions that simply just cannot deal with T12. Leadership is something you can build your own army to ignore anyway (ie, you the player have agency over your own leadership, though it sucks for armies that want to do leadership bombs). But for armies that cap out on S9 or so? They're just boned if someone drops a wall of T12 in front of them. And then defensive strats, relics and abilities come in (which, for example, the new chaos knights have a lot of). At that point the play experience plummets to 'extremely unfun' (to be nice).
Dysartes wrote: I checked with Leakycheese on Twitter (he who is quoted as Beakycheese earlier in the thread) - apparently there wasn't anything about a plastic Sicaran at the event.
I'd chuckle if it was there showing off some elements from the new vehicle upgrade sprue...
But I seriously think that it'll come, when's the next reveal event? They're at UKGE aren't they?
Aye, UKGE was mentioned on today's pre-order article - though, as of looking at the UKGE events page earlier, there's no seminar this time, which is disappointing. I was looking forwards to asking why they appears to be scared of T9 and above in 40k if there was one...
Agreed. Bumping toughness would help a lot with damage inflation problems. If Ld can go to 11 now, why can't toughness go to 12 for Land Raider equivalents?
Uncapping values was definitely one of the better things that 8/9th did since it let them give more room to the statlines to breathe, but they never really do enough with it.
They uncapped values only to keep Lascannons and Lances S8-9
Dysartes wrote: I checked with Leakycheese on Twitter (he who is quoted as Beakycheese earlier in the thread) - apparently there wasn't anything about a plastic Sicaran at the event.
I'd chuckle if it was there showing off some elements from the new vehicle upgrade sprue...
But I seriously think that it'll come, when's the next reveal event? They're at UKGE aren't they?
Aye, UKGE was mentioned on today's pre-order article - though, as of looking at the UKGE events page earlier, there's no seminar this time, which is disappointing. I was looking forwards to asking why they appears to be scared of T9 and above in 40k if there was one...
Agreed. Bumping toughness would help a lot with damage inflation problems. If Ld can go to 11 now, why can't toughness go to 12 for Land Raider equivalents?
Uncapping values was definitely one of the better things that 8/9th did since it let them give more room to the statlines to breathe, but they never really do enough with it.
They uncapped values only to keep Lascannons and Lances S8-9
That's part of it for sure. They could have moved the cap to 12 across the board and shifted the range between things more but they seemed to be afraid to rock the boat too much.
On a different topic, have some Marines in every legion color from the HH Open:
Spoiler:
Really liking that NL option, though he needs more corpse parts and some legion iconography.
Dysartes wrote: I checked with Leakycheese on Twitter (he who is quoted as Beakycheese earlier in the thread) - apparently there wasn't anything about a plastic Sicaran at the event.
I'd chuckle if it was there showing off some elements from the new vehicle upgrade sprue...
But I seriously think that it'll come, when's the next reveal event? They're at UKGE aren't they?
Aye, UKGE was mentioned on today's pre-order article - though, as of looking at the UKGE events page earlier, there's no seminar this time, which is disappointing. I was looking forwards to asking why they appears to be scared of T9 and above in 40k if there was one...
Agreed. Bumping toughness would help a lot with damage inflation problems. If Ld can go to 11 now, why can't toughness go to 12 for Land Raider equivalents?
Uncapping values was definitely one of the better things that 8/9th did since it let them give more room to the statlines to breathe, but they never really do enough with it.
They uncapped values only to keep Lascannons and Lances S8-9
That's part of it for sure. They could have moved the cap to 12 across the board and shifted the range between things more but they seemed to be afraid to rock the boat too much.
On a different topic, have some Marines in every legion color from the HH Open:
Spoiler:
Really liking that NL option, though he needs more corpse parts and some legion iconography.
I had to figure out why the Crimson Fist doesn't have red hands.
The next few moments were spent working out which black-armored loyalist is which. I still really feel like GW did the loyalists a disservice when they selected the 'first founding' chapter out a hat. Raven Guard weren't even named until 2nd edition (they were presumably one of the unnamed 'destroyed' chapters of the Isstvaan massacre. Of course, Salamanders could have been stuck with their original ugly yellow with wavy black stripes.
Did anyone at the open hear anything regarding the game types? IE is there a combat patrol, incursion, etc. missions in the game, and is Zone Mortalis in the book?
My guess is no, but missed a lot over the weekend.
Sabotage! wrote: Did anyone at the open hear anything regarding the game types? IE is there a combat patrol, incursion, etc. missions in the game, and is Zone Mortalis in the book?
My guess is no, but missed a lot over the weekend.
If it's come up I haven't found anything on that or on the possibility of seasons. Then again I haven't found a lot of coverage among the channels I know that went so it might be getting back and get content together.
Sabotage! wrote: Did anyone at the open hear anything regarding the game types? IE is there a combat patrol, incursion, etc. missions in the game, and is Zone Mortalis in the book?
My guess is no, but missed a lot over the weekend.
If it's come up I haven't found anything on that or on the possibility of seasons. Then again I haven't found a lot of coverage among the channels I know that went so it might be getting back and get content together.
Thanks for the update! I’ll have to keep my eyes peeled and hopefully we will learn a bit more about game types soon!
AllSeeingSkink wrote: What's the status of Horus Heresy as a game? Is this likely to have new rules? Are we expecting it to align with regular 40k?
The box tempts me, but I haven't even played 40k since, I dunno, probably 6th edition. Never bothered learning the rules again after the overhaul.
Basically, are people expecting this to be a good game, or just a good excuse to get a pile of beakies?
Its a grest game. Rules are built from 7th (so very close to 6th, with some changes. Thr new rules are very similar but incorporate things like move values and keywords, and stats arent capped at 10. There is also the reaction mechanic that lets you make limited actions with a unit in your opponants turn (capped at 1 per phase but there are ways to gain 2 or 3a phase with warlord trsits etc)
Currently I much prefer playing heresy than 40k. Its alot more indepth, easier to learn and read the rules, and puts narrative first over competitive play
Thank you, this is an excellent size comparison! We can see that the beakie legs are quire a bit taller and chunkier than on the older models, and that they're basically the same size than the CSM. They also don't look quite so puny next to the Primaris like some other pics make it to seem.
I already asked this, but I'll ask again: does anyone have any pics or videos that would show the sprue or assembly instructions? I'd really like to see how the models go together.
Thank you, this is an excellent size comparison! We can see that the beakie legs are quire a bit taller and chunkier than on the older models, and that they're basically the same size than the CSM. They also don't look quite so puny next to the Primaris like some other pics make it to seem.
I already asked this, but I'll ask again: does anyone have any pics or videos that would show the sprue or assembly instructions? I'd really like to see how the models go together.
Unfortunately, there haven't been sprues on display at the event, so we'll have to wait for a little longer. I noticed though that the shoulder pads with the rivets are two-part, split in the middle, to avoid any undercuts like with the Mk6 shoulder pads from the current 40k Tactical Squad kit.
Glad that it looks like they were sculpted with each other in mind. Saul doesn't appear to have a cloak or anything blowing in the opposite direction of Lucius
Each of the major factions waging war in the Horus Heresy will feature in their own books. For the really esoteric things – including discontinued models – rules will be made available for free in the forthcoming Legacies of the Age of Darkness PDF. In any case, we want you to be able to join in all the fun with the new edition as soon as possible – no matter what you collect.
zedmeister wrote: That's a nice mod... ah, gak. Another pissing rock
Looking at that raised leg, that'll be easy to remove that rock and lower that leg, taking a slice from the front and putting it round the back of the upper leg.
So we have a reasonably priced box set that isn't a limited release, huge rules compendiums for the Astartes so nobody misses out on either side, and free rules for yet to be updated factions.
Any more doom left to scry because this is looking like GW's best launch so far.
Gert wrote: So we have a reasonably priced box set that isn't a limited release, huge rules compendiums for the Astartes so nobody misses out on either side, and free rules for yet to be updated factions.
Any more doom left to scry because this is looking like GW's best launch so far.
A broken clock is right twice a day?
Marine armies won't have rules at launch, which is a clear miss unless you like power armour.
Each of the major factions waging war in the Horus Heresy will feature in their own books. For the really esoteric things – including discontinued models – rules will be made available for free in the forthcoming Legacies of the Age of Darkness PDF. In any case, we want you to be able to join in all the fun with the new edition as soon as possible – no matter what you collect.
That's been read by most people as "free get you by" rules for non-Marines. It of course might not be but one can dream.
This is gearing up to take over as one of the Big Three systems for sure. I've never seen them make such a genuine effort to make a game easy to get into.
Each of the major factions waging war in the Horus Heresy will feature in their own books. For the really esoteric things – including discontinued models – rules will be made available for free in the forthcoming Legacies of the Age of Darkness PDF. In any case, we want you to be able to join in all the fun with the new edition as soon as possible – no matter what you collect.
Gert wrote: The HH event at WHW in July has just been changed to the new ruleset. Gak move by the events team there.
I wondered about that. I figured the boxed set wouldn't be June (before this weekend's announcement) because of that event. It didn't make sense to have an old event after the new launch.
It still doesn't, but it is gakky to change it on folks. Turns a last hurrah into something to be bitter about.
Yeah, that change to the event especially sucks for those who were going to bring armies like Mechanicum or Custodes that won't have new rules by that time.
"Legacies of the Age of Darkness" huh? I hope there will be rules for Indomitus TDA & Tarantulas in that one.. That'd actually redeem 30K for me, and I could merrily keep on playing my RT-era tribute 40K army in HH2.0
Sacredroach wrote: Now they need to release a new corrupted Lucius...as that old one has not aged well at all.
Take that back! The Lucius the eternal model is amazing. Even in finecast. I recently repainted mine and I think it stands the test of time, other than being a little small.
I also converted myself a heresy Lucius, but I will likely have to get this one aswell. It's a great looking model.
Voss wrote: though... did they actually call it a 'launch box?'
Or were they just generally talking about the launch of the new edition?
Sometimes I think people get caught up in labeling box sets (and their 'intended audience') far more than GW does.
That is indeed true. They do just call it the new boxed set.
They called it "launch set", when they announced the box.
The Praetors are some of the first kits moving to plastic, making the game more approachable than ever before. If you’re a fan of the lore or the Horus Heresy series from Black Library, but you’re not so familiar with advanced resin kits, this is the edition of the game you’ve been waiting for. Both miniatures will be in the launch set for the new edition, on which we’ll have more details coming very soon…
All launch sets are boxed sets, but not all boxed sets are launch sets. Their referral to the box as a "boxed set" does not preclude it from continuing to also be a "launch set", unless they have stated specifically otherwise.
chaos0xomega wrote: All launch sets are boxed sets, but not all boxed sets are launch sets. Their referral to the box as a "boxed set" does not preclude it from continuing to also be a "launch set", unless they have stated specifically otherwise.
Well they said on stream it would be supported "for a long time" so it sounds like it'll be the box for the entire edition at least.
chaos0xomega wrote: All launch sets are boxed sets, but not all boxed sets are launch sets. Their referral to the box as a "boxed set" does not preclude it from continuing to also be a "launch set", unless they have stated specifically otherwise.
Well they said on stream it would be supported "for a long time" so it sounds like it'll be the box for the entire edition at least.
...or they think that this time they have made enough. Unlike all those other times they said the same. Hopefully it's the first.
Voss wrote: though... did they actually call it a 'launch box?'
Or were they just generally talking about the launch of the new edition?
Sometimes I think people get caught up in labeling box sets (and their 'intended audience') far more than GW does.
That is indeed true. They do just call it the new boxed set.
They called it "launch set", when they announced the box.
The Praetors are some of the first kits moving to plastic, making the game more approachable than ever before. If you’re a fan of the lore or the Horus Heresy series from Black Library, but you’re not so familiar with advanced resin kits, this is the edition of the game you’ve been waiting for. Both miniatures will be in the launch set for the new edition, on which we’ll have more details coming very soon…
Possibly they're also reserving the right to adjust the contents/price sometime after launch. Lower introductory price for the launch version, higher price for the standard release version.
chaos0xomega wrote: All launch sets are boxed sets, but not all boxed sets are launch sets. Their referral to the box as a "boxed set" does not preclude it from continuing to also be a "launch set", unless they have stated specifically otherwise.
Well they said on stream it would be supported "for a long time" so it sounds like it'll be the box for the entire edition at least.
...or they think that this time they have made enough. Unlike all those other times they said the same. Hopefully it's the first.
chaos0xomega wrote: All launch sets are boxed sets, but not all boxed sets are launch sets. Their referral to the box as a "boxed set" does not preclude it from continuing to also be a "launch set", unless they have stated specifically otherwise.
Well they said on stream it would be supported "for a long time" so it sounds like it'll be the box for the entire edition at least.
When they said that I assumed they meant the new edition of Horus Heresy rather than the box specifically, but if so then thats insane that GW would be willing to make such an incredible offer a long-term product.
chaos0xomega wrote: All launch sets are boxed sets, but not all boxed sets are launch sets. Their referral to the box as a "boxed set" does not preclude it from continuing to also be a "launch set", unless they have stated specifically otherwise.
Well they said on stream it would be supported "for a long time" so it sounds like it'll be the box for the entire edition at least.
...or they think that this time they have made enough. Unlike all those other times they said the same. Hopefully it's the first.
I think they've pretty much put this fear to rest. They've been good about getting sufficient copies out for the last year+. Some times too many, as I ventured forth looking for Ash Wastes stuff this weekend at a not-local store (no luck as they hadn't gotten a shipment between weather and the local delivery schedule), but found a big old pile of Dominion still hanging out.
chaos0xomega wrote: All launch sets are boxed sets, but not all boxed sets are launch sets. Their referral to the box as a "boxed set" does not preclude it from continuing to also be a "launch set", unless they have stated specifically otherwise.
Well they said on stream it would be supported "for a long time" so it sounds like it'll be the box for the entire edition at least.
...or they think that this time they have made enough. Unlike all those other times they said the same. Hopefully it's the first.
They said that if they run out that they'll make more.
I get that the community likes to assume GW will kick their dog, but let's not make up stuff.
I'm excited for the box but just not excited for any particular faction. I've painted too much black in regards to marines already (Ravenwing, Ravenguard, Deathwatch, and Black Templars in waiting), so I can't get excited for DA or RG for this set.
Most of my group have Traitor armies so wanted to lean Loyalist, but not feeling very inspired. Not going to do UM or IF (friend has Ultras, IF is yellow and iyanden is one too many yellow armies for me).
I've always had no issue picking factions previously, but what can people here recommend to help steer me in the right direction? Short stories, overview, videos, anything?
bullyboy wrote: I'm excited for the box but just not excited for any particular faction. I've painted too much black in regards to marines already (Ravenwing, Ravenguard, Deathwatch, and Black Templars in waiting), so I can't get excited for DA or RG for this set.
Most of my group have Traitor armies so wanted to lean Loyalist, but not feeling very inspired. Not going to do UM or IF (friend has Ultras, IF is yellow and iyanden is one too many yellow armies for me).
I've always had no issue picking factions previously, but what can people here recommend to help steer me in the right direction? Short stories, overview, videos, anything?
Well if it's no black, no traitors, no Ultras, and no Fists then that basically leaves you with Salamanders, Space Wolves, Blood Angels, or White Scars.
I'd say if you got your fill of yellow with Iyanden then maybe avoid Scars as well since white is also a fiddly color to paint. Likewise grey isn't too far off black (and certain units like Deathsworn are full black) so I'd personally skip on Wolves as well.
I'd say look at Blood Angels and Salamanders and decide based on either playstyle or fluff. Since you already have Raven Guard and Ravenwing maybe Salamanders would be a good change of pace (less fast attack oriented).
I kinda want to try my hand at making one of the lost legions, but I'm not sure where to start. There's the menducia tarot thing which gives a pretty good idea of what the two would have been like (and my personal preference to actually bother making is Fortune). But I wanna try my hand at making crunch and not just lore.
bullyboy wrote: I'm excited for the box but just not excited for any particular faction. I've painted too much black in regards to marines already (Ravenwing, Ravenguard, Deathwatch, and Black Templars in waiting), so I can't get excited for DA or RG for this set.
Most of my group have Traitor armies so wanted to lean Loyalist, but not feeling very inspired. Not going to do UM or IF (friend has Ultras, IF is yellow and iyanden is one too many yellow armies for me).
I've always had no issue picking factions previously, but what can people here recommend to help steer me in the right direction? Short stories, overview, videos, anything?
I've been doing the same dance.
I want to lean into other things for Chaos in 40k, so I'd rather do loyalists with the HH box. But I like the traitor color schemes so much more, and for several loyalists I just don't want to paint a lot of that.
Plus background and themes of several of the loyalist armies just aren't... appealing. Sometimes its the specific flaws or fixations. Or just a reluctance to field one of the Shattered Legions, though Salamanders are actually one of my top contenders, for being skillful and rather sane by 40k standards, and for eschewing land speeders (because I hate flying bases). But the fact that they're not really present for most of the Heresy is awkward.
So I've been digging through detailed summaries on various online sites, trying to pick out threads I can latch on to.
If it came down to pure paint scheme, I think the Tsons in heresy look the best. Really stunning (funny, because I can't stand them in 40K). After looking at images of the beakies painted in legion colours, Salamanders and Tsons are drifting toward the top.
bullyboy wrote: I'm excited for the box but just not excited for any particular faction. I've painted too much black in regards to marines already (Ravenwing, Ravenguard, Deathwatch, and Black Templars in waiting), so I can't get excited for DA or RG for this set.
Most of my group have Traitor armies so wanted to lean Loyalist, but not feeling very inspired. Not going to do UM or IF (friend has Ultras, IF is yellow and iyanden is one too many yellow armies for me).
I've always had no issue picking factions previously, but what can people here recommend to help steer me in the right direction? Short stories, overview, videos, anything?
I challenge you to read Chris Wraight’s White Scars books and not want to make a Scars force…
I’m the opposite, I’ve felt inspired to do pretty much every legion at some point or other.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
bullyboy wrote: If it came down to pure paint scheme, I think the Tsons in heresy look the best. Really stunning (funny, because I can't stand them in 40K). After looking at images of the beakies painted in legion colours, Salamanders and Tsons are drifting toward the top.
Yeah the Thousand Sons look very cool. And I think they work really well if you’re going for a flat red or metallic red too. Also the 40k models for them give quite a lot of bits you can use. I converted a veteran squad from the Rubric kit, and a Sekhmet squad using the Scarab Occult mixed with the Tartaros kit (I think they’re Cataphractii only in the new edition ) My main issue is I don’t know how I’d carry the scheme over to vehicles, I think the red I did was contrast red over gold, I’m not sure how that would work on bigger models.
The Hexagrammaton was how the Legions were organised prior to the Principia Bellicosa. It allowed for tactical flexibility within the wider Legion as individual Astartes would belong to one Order outside of their traditional Company or Squad. This meant that if a certain type of tactic was required, there would be enough Astartes in a select group that could then instruct their comrades for that battle. The 1st kept it when most others dropped it for the Principia and then Johnson reorganised it when he inherited the Legion, turning it into the Wing system which was a hybrid of the original Hexeagrammaton and the Calabanite Orders.
These painting tutorials crack me up! Here's the 'Eavy Metal tier equivalent
I can kind of understand GW not wanting to freak out their customers, but the distinction between how they show you to do it vs how they do it themselves is kind of funny
The thing is, the GW tutorials specifically don't show you how. That doesn't seem to be the point- its mostly giving you a list of paints to buy and stressing that they're crap unless watered down (though I suspect that's unintentional).
They list colors to use, mention a technique, capture a handful of brush-strokes and then jump to 'and it looks like this.'
Which, unfortunately in the DA video, most of it is pretty invisible until they take it away from the painter and switch backgrounds at the end. The camera and the light background wash out the in-progress details beyond the obvious red or metal.
Billicus wrote: The whole "spray it black, then also paint it black" thing they've been doing lately for black armour is SO crap. Who has time for that?
That isn't particularly weird. Getting perfect, even coverage everywhere with spray primer is... unlikely.
Though personally, I'd go with a different spray primer brownish-red (I like AP's Chaotic Red) to give the black some depth. Metallic primer has some potential as well, depending on what effect you're going for.
For the loyalist legions, I'd do a dark red primer for DA, a metallic for Iron Hands and a dark blue for RG. Shift the base colors somewhat so there is at least some distinction between them beyond iconography.
I use grey sprays for miniatures that are going to wind up predominantly black, much more depth that way. Black spray followed by black brush layer seems like a horrible technique to me.
GW uses a black spray because GW sells a black spray. The other option is the Contrast sprays but they're for doing things the Contrast method rather than the classic method. Even the coloured sprays GW made were supposed to be done over a black/white base spray.
Gert wrote: GW uses a black spray because GW sells a black spray. The other option is the Contrast sprays but they're for doing things the Contrast method rather than the classic method. Even the coloured sprays GW made were supposed to be done over a black/white base spray.
That isn't true. Even though they aren't really, they sell their sprays as primers (though they admittedly don't use that word anymore. Just 'Makes undercoating and basing your models simple' which implies no other steps)..
Whatever the reasoning, it isn't 'they sell a black spray' - They also still sell grey, red, metallic and blue among their 13 sprays. They could show those off and explain the effect of undercoating.
Voss wrote: That isn't true. Even though they aren't really, they sell their sprays as primers (though they admittedly don't use that word anymore. Just 'Makes undercoating and basing your models simple' which implies no other steps)..
How aren't they primers exactly? You prime the model with the spray then do the rest of the painting on top, unless you skip that stage and just go straight to a base paint which is a personal choice. The sprays are used for undercoats and quick base painting before the application of layers, washes, highlights, etc. Why does the store page for a spray need to explain every single step of the painting process?
Whatever the reasoning, it isn't 'they sell a black spray' - They also still sell grey, red, metallic and blue among their 13 sprays. They could show those off and explain the effect of undercoating.
The point of these videos isn't to explain the basics of painting though. That would be the videos explaining the basics of painting or the in-person tutorials at GW stores.
A model where the primary colour is black gets a black primer before being base painted with black to catch any missed spots and to prevent painting onto bare plastic which can cause chipping or flaking. That's the GW process.
Also, GW doesn't "stress" that the paints are rubbish because you should water them down. Base paints are thick paints, so when you only need to use them as a tidy up (as is the case here) you thin it down to avoid ruining details while keeping the colour similar to the spray.
Billicus wrote: The whole "spray it black, then also paint it black" thing they've been doing lately for black armour is SO crap. Who has time for that?
One who doesn't know 100% sure he isn't going to do slip requiring touch up. If you don't brush then slip over either you spray over or paint by brush and end up different looking part. Spray colour doesn't match brush colour.
Gert wrote: GW uses a black spray because GW sells a black spray. The other option is the Contrast sprays but they're for doing things the Contrast method rather than the classic method. Even the coloured sprays GW made were supposed to be done over a black/white base spray.
That isn't true. Even though they aren't really, they sell their sprays as primers (though they admittedly don't use that word anymore. Just 'Makes undercoating and basing your models simple' which implies no other steps)..
Whatever the reasoning, it isn't 'they sell a black spray' - They also still sell grey, red, metallic and blue among their 13 sprays. They could show those off and explain the effect of undercoating.
Heh, imagine thinking they undercoat in black bcos that's the only colour of spray they can make and sell There's a vid in this thread just a couple of replies above this of a non-GW employee that uses black spray undercoat in the majority of his vids.
JWBS wrote: Heh, imagine thinking they undercoat in black bcos that's the only colour of spray they can make and sell There's a vid in this thread just a couple of replies above this of a non-GW employee that uses black spray undercoat in the majority of his vids.
Show me in the post I wrote where I explicitly acknowledged the other GW sprays that I said GW only makes black spray.
Billicus wrote: The whole "spray it black, then also paint it black" thing they've been doing lately for black armour is SO crap. Who has time for that?
Chaos Black primer has a different shade to it than Abbadon Black so by painting it Abbadon Black first if you make mistakes it's easier to hide them since the colors match.
Not sure if it's been stated yet, but do we know if stratagems are a part of Nu-heresy? The reactions appear to be some form of stratagem-lite type thing, which I'm not entirely enthused about. But they look like they can be easily enough ignored if both players are willing.
The inclusion of stratagems though would put a major dampener on my enthusiasm for this though.
Snrub wrote: Not sure if it's been stated yet, but do we know if stratagems are a part of Nu-heresy? The reactions appear to be some form of stratagem-lite type thing, which I'm not entirely enthused about. But they look like they can be easily enough ignored if both players are willing.
The inclusion of stratagems though would put a major dampener on my enthusiasm for this though.
no strats aren't. the closest thing seem to be reactions which are MUCH smaller in number
Snrub wrote: Not sure if it's been stated yet, but do we know if stratagems are a part of Nu-heresy? The reactions appear to be some form of stratagem-lite type thing, which I'm not entirely enthused about. But they look like they can be easily enough ignored if both players are willing.
The inclusion of stratagems though would put a major dampener on my enthusiasm for this though.
no strats aren't. the closest thing seem to be reactions which are MUCH smaller in number
Seems like a terrible way of painting that. Leadbelcher has good coverage, so it doesn't make sense to prime in it unless it's the dominant colour, metals are also on the gloss side so paint doesn't stick to them as well as it would a matte primer, better off priming something that forms a better base for the purple. Then painting it purple and also adding a purple contrast doesn't add much contrast for the effort being put into it.
So 3 coats of paint of something that barely looks better than grabbing a can of Dioxazine Purple from Liquitex and giving it a squirt.
Seems like a terrible way of painting that. Leadbelcher has good coverage, so it doesn't make sense to prime in it unless it's the dominant colour, metals are also on the gloss side so paint doesn't stick to them as well as it would a matte primer, better off priming something that forms a better base for the purple. Then painting it purple and also adding a purple contrast doesn't add much contrast for the effort being put into it.
So 3 coats of paint of something that barely looks better than grabbing a can of Dioxazine Purple from Liquitex and giving it a squirt.
With a Leadbelcher undercoat I would have expected a Contrast color for the armour to give it a metallic quality.
Wow, off to a terrible start with the first two of these painting videos. Do *something* to give them a bit of visual interest like a squad marking or whatever
Well they really were a pair of lacklustre tutorials. Doesn't bode well for the next 16.
I'm liking the Hexagrammaton rules previewed so far. For as basic as it is, the 1+ to hit for Stormwing I find quite appealing. Maybe that's just because I want to run massed tac squads though. Here's hoping they give the 1st Legion rules to up the potency of their plasma.
The free painting tutorials have always been aimed at lowering the bar to entry by showing easy table top ready standards, not really pushing the bar. It's why they moved away from the "parade ready" style guides and focus on simpler techniques. They're basically just painting 101 to help people get started.
H.B.M.C. wrote: Leadbelcher spray is pretty flat. Not the shiniest stuff in the world.
Really? Out of the pot leadbelcher is pretty glossy, would be odd if the rattle can version isn't. I have a rattle can of it kicking around somewhere but I haven't fired it in anger yet (that KT Octarius terrain is still waiting for me, lol).
ClockworkZion wrote: The free painting tutorials have always been aimed at lowering the bar to entry by showing easy table top ready standards, not really pushing the bar. It's why they moved away from the "parade ready" style guides and focus on simpler techniques. They're basically just painting 101 to help people get started.
The problem I have with these specific tutorials (and many other GW ones) is not only are they not pushing the bar, they are painting to a basic level in a very time consuming way. Spray leadbelcher (even though the majority of the model is purple), lay down a coat of purple... lay down another coat of purple because leadbelcher is a bad base for purple... then do a layer of purple contrast which is so close to the original purple that it barely adds any shading / contrast to the model.
It's just a dumb way to paint, I know GW don't sell a purple spray, but damn, just go out and buy a purple spray from liquitex or vallejo or army painter or tamiya or whoever and save yourself many hours applying coat after coat to 50 models just to achieve a boring dark purple tone. Then if you want to follow it up with a purple contrast paint use as lighter purple as your basecoat so it at least creates some contrast, or maybe try a purple ink instead.
I think when it comes to "basic painting for beginners" there's much better approaches that won't have beginners tearing their eyes out after hour upon hour staring at the same pot of purple paint that they've just (no exaggeration) applied for the 100th time.
Even if you don't want to go down the spray can route, maybe apply the purple with a stippling brush ala artis opus style so it lays down faster and creates some natural shading in one coat.
I'd argue these are a cut above the usual TBF. Chipping, using Contrast as shades, and using the gem paint for the lenses? The lack of edge highlighting is nice.
H.B.M.C. wrote: Leadbelcher spray is pretty flat. Not the shiniest stuff in the world.
Really? Out of the pot leadbelcher is pretty glossy, would be odd if the rattle can version isn't. I have a rattle can of it kicking around somewhere but I haven't fired it in anger yet (that KT Octarius terrain is still waiting for me, lol).
A lot of the GW sprays aren't a 100% match for the pot colours, and it varies by batch. Leadbelcher & Zandri Dust are the worst for it IMHO.
BrianDavion wrote: no strats aren't. the closest thing seem to be reactions which are MUCH smaller in number
…for now.
Yeah didn't 8th start with just a few generics? I could really easily see this bloating in expansions if there's demand for HH and the designers want some space to make more rules by just adding more and more layers that sometimes add depth and sometimes just add to the pile.
That Emperors Children one with the Metallic Basecoat was alienating, also the Violet is too dark but I like the finish with the lack of edge highliting and the chipping armour.
Rules bloat is inevitable; got to sell those books somehow, the rainforests aren't going to deplete themselves. Even with the looming threat of that it'll be cool to have a mainline Games Workshop game that is kind of starting from scratch in that regard, not building on the gakky foundation of 9th ed.
ClockworkZion wrote: With Andy Hoare leading the HH team I don't expect it to bloat in the same way the new blood 40k team has been taking 40k, but time Will tell.
ClockworkZion wrote: With Andy Hoare leading the HH team I don't expect it to bloat in the same way the new blood 40k team has been taking 40k, but time Will tell.
Snrub wrote: Not sure if it's been stated yet, but do we know if stratagems are a part of Nu-heresy? The reactions appear to be some form of stratagem-lite type thing, which I'm not entirely enthused about.
Interesting to see that perspective - the Reactions leaked from Playtest Phase 3 document are the majority of the reason I am buying into HH2.
AllSeeingSkink wrote: Really? Out of the pot leadbelcher is pretty glossy, would be odd if the rattle can version isn't. I have a rattle can of it kicking around somewhere but I haven't fired it in anger yet (that KT Octarius terrain is still waiting for me, lol).
I was as surprised as anyone, but yeah it was very flat. I had to go over the buildings with regular leadbelcher to get it looking right. You can see a bit of it here. The darker bits on the roof is the spray colour.
ClockworkZion wrote: With Andy Hoare leading the HH team I don't expect it to bloat in the same way the new blood 40k team has been taking 40k, but time Will tell.
Does he lead the current necromunda edition?
I don't know honestly. I don't recall him on the dev video for Necromunda, so maybe not.
lord_blackfang wrote:
ClockworkZion wrote: With Andy Hoare leading the HH team I don't expect it to bloat in the same way the new blood 40k team has been taking 40k, but time Will tell.
Oh you sweet summer child
I said "expect" and "same way as the 40k team". I'm not saying we can't or won't see any bloat, just that if they have any bloat it'll be milder than the 40k version.
Ok, now how long until we see some melee weapons?
) My main issue is I don’t know how I’d carry the scheme over to vehicles, I think the red I did was contrast red over gold, I’m not sure how that would work on bigger models.
