Lord Damocles wrote: I wonder what esoteric ritual GW perform to determine which of the specialists get 40K rules..?
'Ah yes, I'll just make one of my Goremongers worse!'
Shakalooloo wrote: The confessor is not part of the Sanctifier unit in 40k? Very weird.
They want the Confessor Ministorum Priest to use the existing datasheet.
It does mean that if someone happens to have a full complement of priest guys, they have to sub the new guy in for one of them, rather than getting to use him in addition. Bah! Time was one could have 0-5 preachers on top of however many HQ slots of bigger priests, and now it's just 3 total. Bah, I say!
JWBS wrote:Repaint makes it worse. This is like when people paint their Knights in chapter colours or something, bit of an immersion downgrade.
What's wrong with Knights in chapter colors? I can totally see a Knight closely linked to a particular chapter rocking that chapter's heraldry.
Heck, some Knights are tied to certain chapters. Look at poor Draco, the Knight Paladin from Dawn of War III - The Thieving Magpie Chapter stole his whole Knight!
It just doesn't make much sense in that combined armed forces don't operate like that, they don't adopt each others colours. Also for me personally I like the nostalgia of seeing two disticnt schemes delineating the disticnt forces like you used to see in WD army shots. When I was a kid I didn't like it and used to think a unified scheme would look better but I gradually grew to appreciate it (personal preference)
Agreed w JWBS. Used to value total uniformity when i was younger, these days i lean more into the feudal aspects of the setting where theres more individuality in personal heraldry, etc.
I can understand a freeblade adopting some heraldic aspect of another organization they work closely with, but that shouldnt *erase* their own personal heraldry and make their individual identity as a freeblade subservient to a chapter. I would argue that it would actually be inappropriate and frowned upon by other entities within the imperium who would view it as a breach of the codex astartes that threatens the imperium as a form of "legion building".
Honestly, this just comes down to GW wanting Knights to both be their own thing and a super heavy walker they could use for every Imperium army. The fluff kind of turned into something that would justify including one for everyone rather than anything coherent.
Lord Damocles wrote: Doesn't really matter from a pure rules point of view, since nobody is going to be swapping their Plasma Gun and Holy Fire for a Meltagun anyway...
The silliness intensifies; as the build instructions for the Missionaries show the option of putting the brazier on the flamer guy, but the rules disallow it!
Lord Damocles wrote: Doesn't really matter from a pure rules point of view, since nobody is going to be swapping their Plasma Gun and Holy Fire for a Meltagun anyway...
The silliness intensifies; as the build instructions for the Missionaries show the option of putting the brazier on the flamer guy, but the rules disallow it!
No, it is an option. The flamer missionary can have a brazier or a holy relic, and the other one can have a melta gun and holy relic or a plasma gun and brazier. It's melta man that doesn't get to play with the brazier.
EDIT; Whoops, you obviously meant the 40k rules, where yes, they disallow that flame/flame combo. Which is extra weird, since the KT rules really incentivise giving the brazier to the flamer missionary - sure, the second flame attack is redundant, but since they lack a chainsword it gives them a decent melee attack.
The Confessor not having 40k rules beyond 'use Ministorum priest' is strange since he doesn't match the available weapon options.
Duke Sliscus, Decapitator, and Baron Sathonyx are too much to hope for. Vect has been elevated to such NPC status that we may never see him on the table again.
KidCthulhu wrote: Duke Sliscus, Decapitator, and Baron Sathonyx are too much to hope for. Vect has been elevated to such NPC status that we may never see him on the table again.
We got the Silent King and Primarchs, so I think that Lord Vect is more that possible, he's inevitable!
When it comes to the Dark Eldar, there's a sliding scale for what could happen with their 'dex:
- Finecast units removed, the Lady added in
- Finecast units remain, the Lady added in
- Finecast units replaced with plastic sets, plus the Lady added in
- Finecast units replaced with plastic sets, with the Lady and other units/characters added in
- Finecast units replaced with plastic sets, plus the Lady added in, DE get the Bad Guy slot in 11th ed starter set (with all the releases that entails)
Until we get evidence to the contrary? I'll keep my expectations set to the worst of those options, then GW will find it hard to disappoint me.
There was a sixth Arks of Omen book cut due to the release schedule for 9E being so messed up by covid. I wonder if Asurmen & Malys were originally planned for that but held back.
There was a sixth Arks of Omen book cut due to the release schedule for 9E being so messed up by covid. I wonder if Asurmen & Malys were originally planned for that but held back.
They do have matching ruined terrain bases, like when Drazhar and Jain Zar released together...
Lathe Biosas wrote: I'm not really familiar with the Dark Eldar. Who is the Lady, and why is everyone so excited to see her?
She tore her own heart out to replace it with one made from an extra-dimensional crystal. She's described as being the only person capable of out-witting Lord Vect. She fights with a fan, like a boss.
KidCthulhu wrote: Duke Sliscus, Decapitator, and Baron Sathonyx are too much to hope for. Vect has been elevated to such NPC status that we may never see him on the table again.
Vect seems the obvious choice for unique centrepiece model, and the current unified system of T, W etc for vehicles and non-vehicles means he might even be viable to use lol.
Lathe Biosas wrote: I'm not really familiar with the Dark Eldar. Who is the Lady, and why is everyone so excited to see her?
She tore her own heart out to replace it with one made from an extra-dimensional crystal. She's described as being the only person capable of out-witting Lord Vect. She fights with a fan, like a boss.
She's also Vect's other half, as a way of showing that she can put that into practice. Though the heart she stole and replaced her own with was originally Cegorach's.
Lathe Biosas wrote: I'm not really familiar with the Dark Eldar. Who is the Lady, and why is everyone so excited to see her?
Before Yvraine was introduced, she was the most powerful living woman in the Warhammer 40k universe.
Her character is somewhat comparable to Princess Azula from Avatar: The Last Airbender—a highly manipulative genius teetering on the edge of madness, an exceptional fighter, and relatively young considering the lifespan of her people. Malys is under a thousand years old; for comparison, Asdrubael Vect witnessed the Fall of the Aeldari, placing his age at over 10,000 years.
Malys leads the Poison Tongue and is Vect’s greatest rival. She’s often interpreted as a progressive force in contrast to Vect’s stagnant rule (as the supreme leader, any change would threaten his power) and the reactionary ambitions of the old Aeldari nobility, who wish to restore the “glory days” when they ruled all Aeldari.
Adding to that, Malys has the heart of Cegorach, the Laughing God —making her a strong candidate for a tie-in with the Harlequins. She’s a character with potential, beyond being a one-off relase. If explored more deeply, she could drive changes not only for the Drukhari but possibly even the Harlequins as well. But I guess, that is expecting too much from GW.
And on a simpler note, she’s considered a “new” unit—at least in the sense that her most recent rules date back to 5th edition. Drukhari players aren’t exactly used to getting new units; in fact, the last real addition to their roster was also back in 5th edition, as far as I remember.
And to represent that awesomeness? I predict she'll be a t3, w5, character with a ++ save that's inexplicably worse than a basic Archon. Oh and some sort of Fights First ability - that only works if she's leading a unit.
ccs wrote: And to represent that awesomeness? I predict she'll be a t3, w5, character with a ++ save that's inexplicably worse than a basic Archon. Oh and some sort of Fights First ability - that only works if she's leading a unit.
Five wounds? That’s optimistic—Lelith only has four.
As for her abilities, I’d expect the standard two. One will likely be a variant of Master of Deceit, the Captain in Phobos Armor's ability, since that closely mirrors her 5th edition rule, just adapted for Marines. The other ability tied to leading a unit, will be, in the worst case, feel no pain against psychic attacks. Back in 5th edition, she made her entire unit completely immune to all psychic powers.
I hate to be a negative Nancy, but if there is any truth at all to how the model was acquired, then there is a slim chance it might never be a production model.
I'd wager being a random sprue in a pile it could be a factory cast off or failure box, or just the spares that were meant to do into recycling etc.
There's no guarantee it's from a release pile or box, they may have chosen not to mass produce this one.
Dudeface wrote: I hate to be a negative Nancy, but if there is any truth at all to how the model was acquired, then there is a slim chance it might never be a production model.
I'd wager being a random sprue in a pile it could be a factory cast off or failure box, or just the spares that were meant to do into recycling etc.
There's no guarantee it's from a release pile or box, they may have chosen not to mass produce this one.
At the very least, they’ve made a mold, as far as I know their prototypes are 3D printed. Plastic molds are quite expensive, so reaching this stage already represents a significant investment. I’m not sure how often GW scraps a model once it gets this far, but I’d imagine it doesn’t happen too often... then again, who knows.
This isn't the first time an unreleased or unannounced model has made its way into an order erroneously. There's no reason to believe that this one is any different, although the way Dark Eldar have been treated I can appreciate being skeptical until GW makes it official.
Which they might. Hopefully GW reacts to it with a reveal article.
Geifer wrote: This isn't the first time an unreleased or unannounced model has made its way into an order erroneously. There's no reason to believe that this one is any different, although the way Dark Eldar have been treated I can appreciate being skeptical until GW makes it official.
Which they might. Hopefully GW reacts to it with a reveal article.
It's different in that it hasn't come from a GW order.
Discount Dracula wrote: At the very least, they’ve made a mold, as far as I know their prototypes are 3D printed. Plastic molds are quite expensive, so reaching this stage already represents a significant investment. I’m not sure how often GW scraps a model once it gets this far, but I’d imagine it doesn’t happen too often... then again, who knows.
Lord Damocles wrote: GW makes moulds for the free models they give away in stores each month. The prices really aren't that prohibitive.
Plastic injection molds are typically made from high-quality steel and are expected to be used for around 100,000 cycles. For lower-volume casts (like limited event models) GW will use aluminium molds that require less tooling time & cheaper material, but only last for 5,000-10,000 cycles.
While costs have come down substantially compared to a decade or two ago, steel molds are still a major investment. We know that GW use 3D print prototyping to review new models and often paint them before the final mold is ready. It's highly likely that once a kit has reached the plastics stage GW have a plan in place to release it and recoup their costs.
My best theory for this case is that this is a model originally planned for Arks of Omen (as discussed above), but held back before going into full production (either just before or just after the injection mold was tooled).
Then either:
a) It is now being actively produced for a release later this year and as part of that someone in the warehouse has misplaced the sprues; likely dropping some in the wrong tote/stillage. The minimum-wage staff doing picking & packing are unlikely to notice things like that.
b) Studio staff had pre-release copies of this model and sold it on with others they recieved for free
So do we reckon we’ll get a “oh no, not again’ emergency reveal today?
GW are normally pretty swift, unless there’s an upcoming reveals show.
As for those pondering whether Dark Eldar might get more? Remember that Fuegan got a similar leak treatment, and was just the tip of a pretty solid iceberg for Craftworlds.
Dudeface wrote: I hate to be a negative Nancy, but if there is any truth at all to how the model was acquired, then there is a slim chance it might never be a production model.
There isn't. Dante was acquired from "a car boot sale", too.
xttz wrote: My best theory for this case is that this is a model originally planned for Arks of Omen (as discussed above), but held back before going into full production (either just before or just after the injection mold was tooled).
Then either:
a) It is now being actively produced for a release later this year and as part of that someone in the warehouse has misplaced the sprues; likely dropping some in the wrong tote/stillage. The minimum-wage staff doing picking & packing are unlikely to notice things like that.
b) Studio staff had pre-release copies of this model and sold it on with others they recieved for free
Or, C) GW knows what it’s doing and is seeding these out to randoms deliberately (a wee tug on our collective Douglas)
Or or D) RANDOMER MY FOOT! And those showing them off on Reddit are GW employees, with GW’s knowledge, consent and direction, to do so, again to give us a wee tug on our collective Douglas.
Dudeface wrote: I hate to be a negative Nancy, but if there is any truth at all to how the model was acquired, then there is a slim chance it might never be a production model.
There isn't. Dante was acquired from "a car boot sale", too.
Nope, he was sent out incorrect in a GW direct order
xttz wrote: My best theory for this case is that this is a model originally planned for Arks of Omen (as discussed above), but held back before going into full production (either just before or just after the injection mold was tooled).
Then either:
a) It is now being actively produced for a release later this year and as part of that someone in the warehouse has misplaced the sprues; likely dropping some in the wrong tote/stillage. The minimum-wage staff doing picking & packing are unlikely to notice things like that.
b) Studio staff had pre-release copies of this model and sold it on with others they recieved for free
Or, C) GW knows what it’s doing and is seeding these out to randoms deliberately (a wee tug on our collective Douglas)
Or or D) RANDOMER MY FOOT! And those showing them off on Reddit are GW employees, with GW’s knowledge, consent and direction, to do so, again to give us a wee tug on our collective Douglas.
I'm 50% Douglas genetically, so I'm curious what it is that's an euphemism for? I'm near the window and ready to defenestrate just in case.
Dudeface wrote: I hate to be a negative Nancy, but if there is any truth at all to how the model was acquired, then there is a slim chance it might never be a production model.
There isn't. Dante was acquired from "a car boot sale", too.
Look, if Honest Tony says that Dante just fell into his pocket at a 'car boot sale', and Jimmy The Fence backs up his story, who am I to question it?
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: So do we reckon we’ll get a “oh no, not again’ emergency reveal today?
GW are normally pretty swift, unless there’s an upcoming reveals show.
As for those pondering whether Dark Eldar might get more? Remember that Fuegan got a similar leak treatment, and was just the tip of a pretty solid iceberg for Craftworlds.
Didn't we already have rumors of an Eldar refresh before that, though? Haven't heard of any for the DE, so I'm more inclined to believe she's gonna be part of some random "Versus" boxset
Lathe Biosas wrote: I'm not really familiar with the Dark Eldar. Who is the Lady, and why is everyone so excited to see her?
We are excited because we havent gotten much love since 5th edition. The new models (while small) still hold up (current archon is meh time for a new one GW)
In 6th edition they removed 5 characters
Vect, Lady M (pictured here), Duke Sliscus (another archon that likes Drugs), Baron Sathonyx (hellion leader), and the Decapitator (mandrake HQ). None of the 6 of us dark eldar players were very happy
They also removed the Dias of destruction (vects ride) which while old they had a model for
They gave us 1 grotesque sculpt, the court, and beasts, that have since been removed from sale since they were in fine cast
Since then they have upgraded characters we got in 5th to plastic, made Lilith snarl, and generally ignored us. Anything new is welcome so they can ignore us for ~20 years again.
End of edition campaign probably based around Pariah Nexus with Imperial, Chaos, Necron involvement.
Necrons: Nightbringer & Trazyn models
Vashtorr will get some chaos 'creations'. Probably not a full new faction
I hope they just update the Nightmodel to plastic rather than a remodel. If it's a remodel they'll probably add a bunch of pointless gribblies and make it stand on a rock instead of surfing scarabs.
I really don't like GW's current design philosophy, everything looks busy and overdone to me. As if the model artist just didn't know when to stop modelling and kept adding more and more details.
Lathe Biosas wrote: I'm not really familiar with the Dark Eldar. Who is the Lady, and why is everyone so excited to see her?
We are excited because we havent gotten much love since 5th edition. The new models (while small) still hold up (current archon is meh time for a new one GW)
In 6th edition they removed 5 characters
Vect, Lady M (pictured here), Duke Sliscus (another archon that likes Drugs), Baron Sathonyx (hellion leader), and the Decapitator (mandrake HQ). None of the 6 of us dark eldar players were very happy
They also removed the Dias of destruction (vects ride) which while old they had a model for
They gave us 1 grotesque sculpt, the court, and beasts, that have since been removed from sale since they were in fine cast
Since then they have upgraded characters we got in 5th to plastic, made Lilith snarl, and generally ignored us. Anything new is welcome so they can ignore us for ~20 years again.
You’ve also got that incubi character and the incubi and then mandrakes via killteam.
Out of curiousity I did a check on which finecast kits are still available for 40k and the list is now short enough to be a rumour engine on it's own. The ones I've marked like this* are either officially confirmed as getting a new kit (in the case of the SW Rune Priest) or have been mentioned by Valrak in a rumour list.
There's also Tau Firesight Team, SW Cyberwolf, and Khorne daemon Skullmaster herald that are unlikely to be replaced via a 40k release.
The Ork weirdboy seems like something that'll be saved for early 11th alongside an Ork range refresh. But if I was a betting guy I'd think that Draigo has to have good odds of being covered in this end of edition campaign, and if the Deceiver doesn't show up with the other two Nercon characters then it'll probably be the token model with a Necron 11E codex.
...when did the Rune Priest get official confirmation, xttz? The Wolf Priest is shown in the Adepticon article, but I cannae see a mention of the Rune Priest.
Dysartes wrote: ...when did the Rune Priest get official confirmation, xttz? The Wolf Priest is shown in the Adepticon article, but I cannae see a mention of the Rune Priest.
It got confirmed inside my head when I mixed up two units with a similar name!
Lord Damocles wrote: GW makes moulds for the free models they give away in stores each month. The prices really aren't that prohibitive.
The free models of the month are not unique models, they just open an existing unit kit and build them. So no they don't make moulds just for free models.
Lord Damocles wrote: GW makes moulds for the free models they give away in stores each month. The prices really aren't that prohibitive.
The free models of the month are not unique models, they just open an existing unit kit and build them. So no they don't make moulds just for free models.
They do both, depending on the month. It may be one or the other.
Discount Dracula wrote: The free models of the month are not unique models, they just open an existing unit kit and build them. So no they don't make moulds just for free models.
Sometimes this is the case, but more often than not the "monthly free model" comes as a seperate sprue building just that model (or two, with Skaven last month). The "grab a sprue from the box and split it manually" is the exception, not the rule.
Lord Damocles wrote: GW makes moulds for the free models they give away in stores each month. The prices really aren't that prohibitive.
The free models of the month are not unique models, they just open an existing unit kit and build them. So no they don't make moulds just for free models.
I've received a single sprue model before. It may depend on region/store
Crispy78 wrote: None of those are new though, just model refreshes for existing characters / units.
Dark eldar don’t need anything new particularly. Maybe characters but not units, they’re ok for units. Maybe biased as I don’t like named character.
I think they're definitely short a few units with the way the army is so heavily divided along the three subfactions, unless there's some big shake up planned compared to how they worked previously.
A couple of cross-over units (say a Haemonculus Arena Construct - that get enhanced by coven units but boosts cult ones nearby, or a Cabal vehicle boosting cult units as it livestreams the battle back home, or a Coven Soulvault acting to motivate cabal troops by placing their immortal lives at risk whilst also allowing rapid regeneration or fresh clones etc) to make a 75/25 split more appealing when the detachment is very much focused on just boosting one element.
Although if the Duke is also returning, I wonder if the Corsairs will find their way more into the Dark Eldar book. Valrak has had a rumour of them getting an expanded range with vehicles and other units. He is an old Dark Eldar character, but in the background is the leader of the Sky Serpent Corsairs.
Crispy78 wrote: None of those are new though, just model refreshes for existing characters / units.
Dark eldar don’t need anything new particularly. Maybe characters but not units, they’re ok for units. Maybe biased as I don’t like named character.
Really? Even just bringing back lost options would be 4+ units (Bloodbrides, Trueborn, Court, Beastmaster) and 4+ characters (Duke, Decapitator, Baron, Vect) and there used to be 2 levels for each generic HQ.
Lathe Biosas wrote: I'm not really familiar with the Dark Eldar. Who is the Lady, and why is everyone so excited to see her?
We are excited because we havent gotten much love since 5th edition. The new models (while small) still hold up (current archon is meh time for a new one GW)
In 6th edition they removed 5 characters
Vect, Lady M (pictured here), Duke Sliscus (another archon that likes Drugs), Baron Sathonyx (hellion leader), and the Decapitator (mandrake HQ). None of the 6 of us dark eldar players were very happy
They also removed the Dias of destruction (vects ride) which while old they had a model for
They gave us 1 grotesque sculpt, the court, and beasts, that have since been removed from sale since they were in fine cast
Since then they have upgraded characters we got in 5th to plastic, made Lilith snarl, and generally ignored us. Anything new is welcome so they can ignore us for ~20 years again.
You’ve also got that incubi character and the incubi and then mandrakes via killteam.
Incubi character is Drazhar, we had a drazhar model (even if it was from 3rd edtion).
Same with lilith (its a downgrade IMO)
The mandrakes are plastic over fincast, upgrade yes
Incubi were also made plastic over fine cast.
The point being, we had 5 (6 if out count the dias) characters removed completely and now we have 3 units you cant buy at all.
Crispy78 wrote: None of those are new though, just model refreshes for existing characters / units.
Dark eldar don’t need anything new particularly. Maybe characters but not units, they’re ok for units. Maybe biased as I don’t like named character.
Really? Even just bringing back lost options would be 4+ units (Bloodbrides, Trueborn, Court, Beastmaster) and 4+ characters (Duke, Decapitator, Baron, Vect) and there used to be 2 levels for each generic HQ.
And a generic Succubus on a jetbike would be nice too: a dual kit with an optional Archon rider would be even better, but Reavers are Wyches, not Kabalytes, so I could see GW giving us just a succubus.
Havik110 wrote: They also removed the Dias of destruction (vects ride) which while old they had a model for
In fairness, if you're resculpting the Raider & Ravager, then removing the Dias makes sense - though it (and Vect) should've returned by now.
I would have loved if the Dias was TWO raider kits, with an add-on sprue to make them a single catamaran with Vect's throne in the center. I don't care if it would have cost 3 time that of a Raider.
Havik110 wrote: They also removed the Dias of destruction (vects ride) which while old they had a model for
In fairness, if you're resculpting the Raider & Ravager, then removing the Dias makes sense - though it (and Vect) should've returned by now.
I would have loved if the Dias was TWO raider kits, with an add-on sprue to make them a single catamaran with Vect's throne in the center. I don't care if it would have cost 3 time that of a Raider.
Or re-imagine the Tantalus in plastic with optional parts for a throne.
Crispy78 wrote: None of those are new though, just model refreshes for existing characters / units.
Dark eldar don’t need anything new particularly. Maybe characters but not units, they’re ok for units. Maybe biased as I don’t like named character.
Really? Even just bringing back lost options would be 4+ units (Bloodbrides, Trueborn, Court, Beastmaster) and 4+ characters (Duke, Decapitator, Baron, Vect) and there used to be 2 levels for each generic HQ.
I'd want to see them evolved if so. Trueborn and bloodbrides being simply kabalites/wyches with more specials is a boring concept and treads on the toes of other units.
The army also suffers from the "3 armies in 1" problem, where it maybe does need 2 ranks of hq, simply because each third doesn't have enough on its own.
Dark Eldar are one of those armies where you think they are in a good spot cause they've had a bunch of decent kits over the years and if you don't play them you don't really twig that they've actually lost more than you realise outside of leaders.
That said considering Necrons, Eldar, Tyranids and Orks are all in pretty good standing that does leave a nice spot for Dark Eldar to swoop in as an edition focus for a big chunky update.
Crispy78 wrote: None of those are new though, just model refreshes for existing characters / units.
Dark eldar don’t need anything new particularly. Maybe characters but not units, they’re ok for units. Maybe biased as I don’t like named character.
Really? Even just bringing back lost options would be 4+ units (Bloodbrides, Trueborn, Court, Beastmaster) and 4+ characters (Duke, Decapitator, Baron, Vect) and there used to be 2 levels for each generic HQ.
I'd want to see them evolved if so. Trueborn and bloodbrides being simply kabalites/wyches with more specials is a boring concept and treads on the toes of other units.
The army also suffers from the "3 armies in 1" problem, where it maybe does need 2 ranks of hq, simply because each third doesn't have enough on its own.
Quite a few armies have multiple ranks of HQ, plus a number of different specialist HQs as well. 4 of the 5 Dark Eldar characters can only join a single specific unit.
Crispy78 wrote: None of those are new though, just model refreshes for existing characters / units.
Dark eldar don’t need anything new particularly. Maybe characters but not units, they’re ok for units. Maybe biased as I don’t like named character.
Really? Even just bringing back lost options would be 4+ units (Bloodbrides, Trueborn, Court, Beastmaster) and 4+ characters (Duke, Decapitator, Baron, Vect) and there used to be 2 levels for each generic HQ.
I'd want to see them evolved if so. Trueborn and bloodbrides being simply kabalites/wyches with more specials is a boring concept and treads on the toes of other units.
The army also suffers from the "3 armies in 1" problem, where it maybe does need 2 ranks of hq, simply because each third doesn't have enough on its own.
Quite a few armies have multiple ranks of HQ, plus a number of different specialist HQs as well. 4 of the 5 Dark Eldar characters can only join a single specific unit.
I know, but it's also part and parcel of the army having its identity in 3 separate bags, much as daemons did. I wouldn't disagree they could do with more, but that is the reason why.
I know, but it's also part and parcel of the army having its identity in 3 separate bags, much as daemons did. I wouldn't disagree they could do with more, but that is the reason why.
Each of the 4 daemons factions are flush with HQ in comparison? If you put Drazhar in the kabal theme, then each of the 3 themes has a single foot HQ and a named foot hq.
Khorne has 6 characters- monster + unique, a foot + unique, 1 cav, and 1 chariot.
Tzeentch has 7- monster + unique, 2 foot + unique, 1 cav, and 1 lone flying thing
Nurgle has 6- monster + unique, 3 foot + unique, and 1 cav
Slaanesh has 7- monster plus unique, and 3 foot + 2 unique
Additionally there is Belakor and daemon prince on foot and winged for 3 more monster characters.
I know, but it's also part and parcel of the army having its identity in 3 separate bags, much as daemons did. I wouldn't disagree they could do with more, but that is the reason why.
Each of the 4 daemons factions are flush with HQ in comparison? If you put Drazhar in the kabal theme, then each of the 3 themes has a single foot HQ and a named foot hq.
Khorne has 6 characters- monster + unique, a foot + unique, 1 cav, and 1 chariot.
Tzeentch has 7- monster + unique, 2 foot + unique, 1 cav, and 1 lone flying thing
Nurgle has 6- monster + unique, 3 foot + unique, and 1 cav
Slaanesh has 7- monster plus unique, and 3 foot + 2 unique
Additionally there is Belakor and daemon prince on foot and winged for 3 more monster characters.
Not played them myself but played against them, they really need a way to make the 3 armies in one work, each bit can’t be a fully fleshed out force. True born and what have you were always a lazy way to pad out the force,
Is there anything that is really missing units wise? I get that they are thin on characters and agree some cross over ones would be good. But they have a decent mix of unit types, converting the last of the finecast stuff would be good like beasts and court.
Always thought he court would make a good killteam, like the inquisitors retinue.
Automatically Appended Next Post: I can see they haven’t had anything “new” in a while. Hoping for something more than a couple of named characters.
Andykp wrote: Not played them myself but played against them, they really need a way to make the 3 armies in one work, each bit can’t be a fully fleshed out force. True born and what have you were always a lazy way to pad out the force,
There are no force organisation slots anymore, but some sort of Wych Cult 'heavy support' giant arena beast, and Haemonculus Coven 'fast attack' scuttly many-legged wracks would make each of the three sub-armies feel more complete.
Andykp wrote: Not played them myself but played against them, they really need a way to make the 3 armies in one work, each bit can’t be a fully fleshed out force. True born and what have you were always a lazy way to pad out the force,
There are no force organisation slots anymore, but some sort of Wych Cult 'heavy support' giant arena beast, and Haemonculus Coven 'fast attack' scuttly many-legged wracks would make each of the three sub-armies feel more complete.
I know we are getting into wish-listing territory here but the could really go to town on models like those. Also beasts could be a great place to add all manner of new and wondrous things.
Andykp wrote: Not played them myself but played against them, they really need a way to make the 3 armies in one work, each bit can’t be a fully fleshed out force. True born and what have you were always a lazy way to pad out the force,
There are no force organisation slots anymore, but some sort of Wych Cult 'heavy support' giant arena beast, and Haemonculus Coven 'fast attack' scuttly many-legged wracks would make each of the three sub-armies feel more complete.
I know we are getting into wish-listing territory here but the could really go to town on models like those. Also beasts could be a great place to add all manner of new and wondrous things.
Hell, they could just expand out some of the Court models; squads of Sslyth, packs of Ur-ghuls used as hunting hounds! A few more xenos mercenaries - maybe give us some loxatl models finally!
I'd love for a little more flexibility in Beast/Court units. I know, I know, "what's in the box only" is the thing now. There are a few exceptions out there (mostly marines) that don't follow this, can't Dark Eldar have one of those unicorns? Nothing even huge, just some minor variance away from "one of each" model type (or similar).
Far as I can see from the Index at least, the 3 mini sub-factions are just gone. The keywords for Kabal, Haemonculus Coven, and Wych Cult still exist but I don't see a single thing that refers to them.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
cuda1179 wrote: I'd love for a little more flexibility in Beast/Court units. I know, I know, "what's in the box only" is the thing now. There are a few exceptions out there (mostly marines) that don't follow this, can't Dark Eldar have one of those unicorns? Nothing even huge, just some minor variance away from "one of each" model type (or similar).
As the Court models seem to have dropped off the web store, I'm actually hoping that they do become a single box - instead of having to buy 4 individual resin models for the best part of £20 a pop (to field a pretty mediocre 'unit')...
Crispy78 wrote: Far as I can see from the Index at least, the 3 mini sub-factions are just gone. The keywords for Kabal, Haemonculus Coven, and Wych Cult still exist but I don't see a single thing that refers to them.
I'd expect that when the codex drops there will be a 'themed' detachment for each where they become relevant.
As the Court models seem to have dropped off the web store, I'm actually hoping that they do become a single box - instead of having to buy 4 individual resin models for the best part of £20 a pop (to field a pretty mediocre 'unit')...
You didn't HAVE to buy resin Ur-ghouls. They were available as plastics from Blackstone Fortress. They were (and still are) plentiful & cheap from resellers on EBay/etc.
Andykp wrote: Not played them myself but played against them, they really need a way to make the 3 armies in one work, each bit can’t be a fully fleshed out force. True born and what have you were always a lazy way to pad out the force,
There are no force organisation slots anymore, but some sort of Wych Cult 'heavy support' giant arena beast, and Haemonculus Coven 'fast attack' scuttly many-legged wracks would make each of the three sub-armies feel more complete.
The slavers having some enslaved monsters fighting for them would go a long way towards making them stand out from the Craftworlds.
Lathe Biosas wrote: Does anyone remember the Grey Knight portion of the Adepticon preview?
Did they mention an all Nemesis Suit Detachment?
They mentioned there's a Walkers and Vehicles based Detachment that would work for people that wanted to go Baby Carrier heavy. But I doubt Baby Carriers will be Battleline in it, so you're still limited to the 6 you can take now.
Andykp wrote: Is there anything that is really missing units wise? I get that they are thin on characters and agree some cross over ones would be good. But they have a decent mix of unit types, converting the last of the finecast stuff would be good like beasts and court.
Some things Drukhari don't have from a game mechanic perspective, I am not saying they should have everything listed here, but it is something the army doesn't have.
They don't have lone operative, no dedicate sniper unit, no dedicated flamer/handflamer/overwatch unit, no indirect fire, their only jetpack infantry is also their only heavy weapon infantry, so isn't really used as normal jetpack infantry, their weaponry is mostly splinter weapons (anti-infantry) and dark light (prefered targets mostly vehicles and monster) their ranged weaponry has has not really usefull option in between for beasts and mounted targets. Their only scout is the out of production beast pack, their only infiltrators the mandrakes, this is going into fluff, but Drukhari should have at least one normal scout or infiltrator unit, not only beasts or mercenaries in my opinion. Mandrakes are in the lore not Drukhari, just working together with them.
Other aspects from the lore:
1. Hackers, if GW ever wants to go that direction, as an alternative for the factions without psykers (epsecially Necrons, Drukhari an T'au seem to be fitting), Drukhari use computer viruses already against the Imperium in the lore.
2. The Borg as a mercenary faction, their 40k name was Thorn<something>, can't remember anymore, but the Star Trek Borg are a good comparison. When the Aeldari empire fell, Commoragh was the biggest pocket realm, but not the only one that survived, most got seperated from the rest. In one realm a nanite swarm went out of control and assimilated all Eldar, that were trapped in it. The last mentioning about it was that the Drukhari reestablished a route into it, but they mostly only declared it part of Commoragh and sometimes some Kabalites patrol the gate, but else the Drukhari didn't do anything to wipe them out, so they still should be around.
3. Actual Haemonculus creation, it is regularly mentioned in the lore how Haemonculi kidnap and modify other lifeforms, but all Coven units right now represent from a lore perspective either heavily altered Drukhari or tools to collect the samples to experiment on, there is not a single unit to represent their experiments.
4. Alternative versions of some units for specific Wych Cults, Kabals or Covens, similar to Krieg, Cadia, Catachan guardsmen, but I personaly think if the right subfactions are picked for Drukhari the difference can be more meaningfull than it is for some of the Astra Militarum units. For example in the lore one Wych cult is mostly are fanatical Khaine worshippers, that get themself before a battle into a religious frenzy, the Wyches of another Wych cult dispise fair battles and prefer to strike from the back, the Wyches of the next want to compare their strength in a fair fight against strong opponents and one other cult goes completly unarmed into battle, they are trained at disarming opponents and using their own weapons against them.
I don't think we will ever see any of these, I just wanted to point to some of the more extreme options here that would be actually fitting the lore.
Andykp wrote: Is there anything that is really missing units wise? I get that they are thin on characters and agree some cross over ones would be good. But they have a decent mix of unit types, converting the last of the finecast stuff would be good like beasts and court.
Some things Drukhari don't have from a game mechanic perspective, I am not saying they should have everything listed here, but it is something the army doesn't have.
They don't have lone operative, no dedicate sniper unit, no dedicated flamer/handflamer/overwatch unit, no indirect fire, their only jetpack infantry is also their only heavy weapon infantry, so isn't really used as normal jetpack infantry, their weaponry is mostly splinter weapons (anti-infantry) and dark light (prefered targets mostly vehicles and monster) their ranged weaponry has has not really usefull option in between for beasts and mounted targets. Their only scout is the out of production beast pack, their only infiltrators the mandrakes, this is going into fluff, but Drukhari should have at least one normal scout or infiltrator unit, not only beasts or mercenaries in my opinion. Mandrakes are in the lore not Drukhari, just working together with them.
Other aspects from the lore:
1. Hackers, if GW ever wants to go that direction, as an alternative for the factions without psykers (epsecially Necrons, Drukhari an T'au seem to be fitting), Drukhari use computer viruses already against the Imperium in the lore.
2. The Borg as a mercenary faction, their 40k name was Thorn<something>, can't remember anymore, but the Star Trek Borg are a good comparison. When the Aeldari empire fell, Commoragh was the biggest pocket realm, but not the only one that survived, most got seperated from the rest. In one realm a nanite swarm went out of control and assimilated all Eldar, that were trapped in it. The last mentioning about it was that the Drukhari reestablished a route into it, but they mostly only declared it part of Commoragh and sometimes some Kabalites patrol the gate, but else the Drukhari didn't do anything to wipe them out, so they still should be around.
3. Actual Haemonculus creation, it is regularly mentioned in the lore how Haemonculi kidnap and modify other lifeforms, but all Coven units right now represent from a lore perspective either heavily altered Drukhari or tools to collect the samples to experiment on, there is not a single unit to represent their experiments.
4. Alternative versions of some units for specific Wych Cults, Kabals or Covens, similar to Krieg, Cadia, Catachan guardsmen, but I personaly think if the right subfactions are picked for Drukhari the difference can be more meaningfull than it is for some of the Astra Militarum units. For example in the lore one Wych cult is mostly are fanatical Khaine worshippers, that get themself before a battle into a religious frenzy, the Wyches of another Wych cult dispise fair battles and prefer to strike from the back, the Wyches of the next want to compare their strength in a fair fight against strong opponents and one other cult goes completly unarmed into battle, they are trained at disarming opponents and using their own weapons against them.
I don't think we will ever see any of these, I just wanted to point to some of the more extreme options here that would be actually fitting the lore.
Jump infantry wise they have helions who function very much as the same thing, fast fighty folk nipping about all over the shop. I agree some kind of pathfinder scout thing would be good and more variety in loads of the warriors would be good. They have kind of painted themselves into a corner with the whole being mobile raiders vibe, can’t really do artillery or heavy support stuff like that.
One I particularly like the idea of, is a suicide soul slave squad made up of various species from across the galaxy.
They are used as both bullet catchers out front, driven by slave drivers, and also food for all the DE around them. Every one that dies gives you the chance to resurrect an DE in a squad within 6".
So basically, you end up with double protection layers, where they shield twice, while also being equipped with say ossifier implant bombs that explode them in melee if they actually get there.
There's not enough of the horrific side of the DE in the army, they're just mean spikey eldar.
Archons should be able to take 'flesh throne' upgrades, a mutated living chair to carry them into battle made up of their favourite slaves continually invigorating them as they move about the battle.
You could even have special rules for backstabbing inside the army, where characters might be able to attack friendly units, but it's by using devestating MW attacks or something that also obliterates whatever was attacking the unit. Mutually assured destruction. Using the moment of weakness to your advantage and killing off challenges to their rule. This combined with the regeneration from soul slaves above even allows the squad to come back regardless...
There's just so much beyond different configurations of 'spiky dude with needle rifle' they could do.
Jump infantry wise they have helions who function very much as the same thing, fast fighty folk nipping about all over the shop. I agree some kind of pathfinder scout thing would be good and more variety in loads of the warriors would be good. They have kind of painted themselves into a corner with the whole being mobile raiders vibe, can’t really do artillery or heavy support stuff like that.
Sorry I didn't mean their speed, it was literally about their jumping. Zephyrim squad as a prime example: Power Weapons, Deep Strike, Reroll Charges. Drukhari have their transports, but that is an expensive way and it has a bigger footprint. A dedicated unit for lying in ambush and jumping on their enemies, doesn't even need to be a jump pack or gravchute, they have web portals a person can carry, a unit jumping directly from the webway into the battle is not stretching it too far.
I feel like I’m being pitched to, just wish I had any power to do anything with these great ideas, some really good stuff they could do with them here that I had never considered. Fingers crossed they get more than just a named character or two.
chaos0xomega wrote: More Dakka was fed into a woodchipper and then the remaibs burned for good measure and the earth where it once stood salted. GW always overcorrects.
Of course, they are Orks.
Did you really expect GW to give them something nice?
chaos0xomega wrote: More Dakka was fed into a woodchipper and then the remaibs burned for good measure and the earth where it once stood salted. GW always overcorrects.
Of course, they are Orks.
Did you really expect GW to give them something nice?
You got something nice for a couple weeks. Sheesh. Next time you'll want something nice for an entire month!
chaos0xomega wrote: More Dakka was fed into a woodchipper and then the remaibs burned for good measure and the earth where it once stood salted. GW always overcorrects.
Of course, they are Orks.
Did you really expect GW to give them something nice?
Orks getting nice things leads to them suffering for entire editions. If it was Eldar on the other hand...
Getting an op detachment or rule is the worst thing that can happen to a faction, as sooner or later, it's highly likely that it's going to be nerfed into irrelevancy, far more than it needs to.
Marshal Loss wrote: Loving the EC design articles. The studio has done an absolutely phenomenal job on this range, hope they're chuffed with the result
They're not my thing, but I can see a lot of thought has gone into the designs - I appreciate the models without actually having any desire to own them. The article on Fulgrim has also made me change my mind about the WH40k version - it's actually pretty good.
Strange then that they are still using the ancient Chaos vehicle upgrade sprue for the EC vehicles. Those oversized spikes, chains and skulls look really out of place next to these elegant new models.
ArcaneHorror wrote: Getting an op detachment or rule is the worst thing that can happen to a faction, as sooner or later, it's highly likely that it's going to be nerfed into irrelevancy, far more than it needs to.
I'm building an Ynnari force currently as I want to use eldar and dark eldar together and I am a bit worried...
At least Oks can use those models in some other detachment, but there is only one way to field the Ynnari, so if the detachments gets nuked then that's the whole army concept gone.
Does anyone remember if the Greater Blight Drone or the Lord Felthius and the Tainted Cohort were available under the Death Guard listing previously (referencing Warhammer.com)? Seems like at least the Greater Blight Drone moved about, possibly in anticipation of the codex.
PoorGravitasHandling wrote: Does anyone remember if the Greater Blight Drone or the Lord Felthius and the Tainted Cohort were available under the Death Guard listing previously (referencing Warhammer.com)? Seems like at least the Greater Blight Drone moved about, possibly in anticipation of the codex.
I would be shocked if the Greater Blight Drone made it into the codex, considering it's in Legends. Have any units ever come back from Legends status? Also, I don't think any Forge World kits have rules in a codex - they're all listed as 'Imperial Armor'.
Rough Riders came out of Legends. Theres been some others but i cant recall which. Also several units which came back but slightly chamged (DKoK Engineers iirc).
The thing is its very random. Some things will go into Legends and never leave others might return but that could be in decades.
There's also sometimes where a model leaves but can work as a counts as very easily - eg Soulblight for AoS lost a bunch of models from Cursed City this edition - however many of them are hero-characters and can easily be things like necromancers in game.
So you lose the named character, but you can just throw them down as a generic.
chaos0xomega wrote: Rough Riders came out of Legends. Theres been some others but i cant recall which. Also several units which came back but slightly chamged (DKoK Engineers iirc).
I probably should have used the word 'models'. Rough Riders got new models to go with those new rules.
Has anything come out of Legends without getting a new model?
Most of the time once something goes into Legends its model is retired and if GW brings it out they bring out an updated model for it. IT might even be that the reason it went into legends was purely model related - not selling well and the mould broke; too expensive to keep in production; finecast etc...
chaos0xomega wrote: Rough Riders came out of Legends. Theres been some others but i cant recall which. Also several units which came back but slightly chamged (DKoK Engineers iirc).
I probably should have used the word 'models'. Rough Riders got new models to go with those new rules.
Has anything come out of Legends without getting a new model?
I bring you some whispers from the warp. You may decide for yourselves if they are truth, or heresy.
World Eaters
New Blessings of Khorne list:
Reroll charges
Fight on death 4+
Consolidate / pile in 6"
Sustained
Lethal
Dev wounds versus infantry
(Advance & Charge, FNP, +2" move all gone)
Zerker squads are 10-20 models
Invocatus gives deep strike & ability to ignore enemy models when moving
Death Guard
Army will be more Elite, similar to Custodes
All Detachments will be good
Cultist, Termi Lords, Termi Sorcerer will be gone
Mortarion will lose his Ignore Modifiers Aura (Pretty Easy guess with the Fulgrim VS Mortarion article floating around here). Points will go up, Will be able to kill 10-12 Marines in a single turn. Will be very strong but wont be a must take.
Deathshroud Termies can drop within 6 Inches and Charge, T7
Blightlord Termies have 2 Damage Melee and Extra Strength and AP when shooting within Contagion range, T7
T6 Plague Marines, New ability
Iconbearer may have an ability similar to the current Helbrute
Ah, yeah no legends is a one way street, unless you count Karanak being marked legends and then unlehended like two weeks later
Otherwise Overread is technically correct - Several Old World armies were AoS legends armies that got unlegended as Old World armies, but thats definitely not what you meant.
Actually there might be some Horus Heresy stuff that was legends until it wasnt without new models. IIRC Brass Scorpions and some of the other daemon engines were marked as legends units and then subsequently got updated non-legends rules without a corresponding miniature release.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
xttz wrote: I bring you some whispers from the warp. You may decide for yourselves if they are truth, or heresy.
World Eaters
New Blessings of Khorne list:
Reroll charges
Fight on death 4+
Consolidate / pile in 6"
Sustained
Lethal
Dev wounds versus infantry
(Advance & Charge, FNP, +2" move all gone)
Zerker squads are 10-20 models
Invocatus gives deep strike & ability to ignore enemy models when moving
Death Guard
Army will be more Elite, similar to Custodes
All Detachments will be good
Cultist, Termi Lords, Termi Sorcerer will be gone
Mortarion will lose his Ignore Modifiers Aura (Pretty Easy guess with the Fulgrim VS Mortarion article floating around here). Points will go up, Will be able to kill 10-12 Marines in a single turn. Will be very strong but wont be a must take.
Deathshroud Termies can drop within 6 Inches and Charge, T7
Blightlord Termies have 2 Damage Melee and Extra Strength and AP when shooting within Contagion range, T7
T6 Plague Marines, New ability
Iconbearer may have an ability similar to the current Helbrute
After cutting 20 model units in so many other armies, including csm, I have trouble believing theyd give berzerkers the option.
Karanak honestly feels like he got caught in the crossfire.
GW management are clearly enforcing some hard lines between their different product brands right now. AoS and Old World are being forced apart as much as they can. To the point they brought back models like the old Marauders instead of simply put round bases in the current AoS pack of updated models.
This is clearly a top down directive aimed at making sales easier to tie to specific brands in their house - which likely helps feed into marketing, finances and a bunch of other elements. IT's not all bad, but it does lead to choices that are company not hobby driven.
I feel like GW are going to "soft" do this to demons for 40K and AoS. I say soft because they can't just replace all the models for one game instantly and they can't cut them all out either. So I think Karanak just got caught in that when GW removed a selection of "fantasy" models to lock them in AoS and out of 40K. Probably as part of a multi-stage move to separate them.
Now granted some models are likely going to linger for longer anyway - core demons; greater demons, demon monsters; demon prince and a few other kits. IT might even be that big things like the Greater Demons never get fully separated or the process gets part way and a new management directive comes down and the plan changes before they are reached.
Black Templars have had access to Crusader bricks all edition. Dropping the armywide FNP for world eaters seems like a move towards making that kind of unit both less obnoxious to play against and easier to cut point costs for. Zerkers can also get more return from strat & character bonuses without needing to make their base profile stronger.
Based on these rumours, Chaos legion faction seems to be intentionally designed with distinct playstyles, possibly as an analogue of another existing faction:
DG are similar to Custodes
EC are akin to Eldar
WE become the Chaos BT-equivalent
Its woryh noting, btw, that BT crusader squads are one of the rare examples of a unit that costs more than just a straight 2x multiplier at full strength vs at half strength. 10 Crusaders are 150pts, 20 are 320. To me that suggests that GW may well cut the option with the next codex as they vlearly felt inclined to try to disincentive taking 20 model units with the 20 pt premium
Well, only one of the DG detachments will allow the use of daemons, so for anyone wanting to use those units in the codex, only that one detachment will be any good.
Shakalooloo wrote: Well, only one of the DG detachments will allow the use of daemons, so for anyone wanting to use those units in the codex, only that one detachment will be any good.
Unless they change the Daemons Index, you can ally up to 25% (based on game size) of Nurgle Daemons with that.
Won't have any particular synergies, but it's there (for now).
Shakalooloo wrote: Well, only one of the DG detachments will allow the use of daemons, so for anyone wanting to use those units in the codex, only that one detachment will be any good.
Unless they change the Daemons Index, you can ally up to 25% (based on game size) of Nurgle Daemons with that.
Won't have any particular synergies, but it's there (for now).
The Index has not yet been updated to reference the Emperor's Children faction (still just says "if your warlord is Lucius" for the Slaanesh stuff), so I'm fully expecting the daemonic pact rules to go away once all four cult legion codexes are out.
Shakalooloo wrote: Well, only one of the DG detachments will allow the use of daemons, so for anyone wanting to use those units in the codex, only that one detachment will be any good.
Unless they change the Daemons Index, you can ally up to 25% (based on game size) of Nurgle Daemons with that.
Won't have any particular synergies, but it's there (for now).
The Index has not yet been updated to reference the Emperor's Children faction (still just says "if your warlord is Lucius" for the Slaanesh stuff), so I'm fully expecting the daemonic pact rules to go away once all four cult legion codexes are out.
The book isn't released yet, so they won't have updated it. It's only just gone up for preorder.
Hulksmash wrote: Could you take a pod for Primaris? I can't remember these things and haven't kept up with marines at all this edition.
yeah, you can. not sure if that was added in 9th, but you def can in 10th
Automatically Appended Next Post: anyway this is a very interesting thing to drop with no preamble on a Monday. it's a neat looking model, and solving the footprint issue for good is certainly nice (tho it does create a new issue of it being harder to transport)
Kid_Kyoto wrote: Will they be even more annoying to assemble and paint?
So much hate for building/painting the old ones. There is always room for things to get worse, but they would need to work at it. Fixed doors should help a lot to make the build eaiser.
Kid_Kyoto wrote: Will they be even more annoying to assemble and paint?
given you have optional debris on the ground now I guess you can either build them open or closed, so less moving parts that make building complicated
also the interior is cleaned up with the details being just on the wall
Kid_Kyoto wrote: Will they be even more annoying to assemble and paint?
given you have optional debris on the ground now I guess you can either build them open or closed, so less moving parts that make building complicated
also the interior is cleaned up with the details being just on the wall
GW wrote:
The newest incarnation of the Drop Pod has a few major changes to better suit its role in-game. The storm bolter and deathwind launcher normally mounted above the passengers – which, let’s face it, was a colossal safety hazard – has been removed, while the endlessly fiddly doors that spawned a thousand arguments about vehicle footprints are now fastened firmly in their open position.
kodos wrote: of course, instead of writing proper rules it is easier to make a new model that is worse to store and transport
They did that, too.
The kit is significantly easier to build and will have a new Datasheet which clarifies exactly where everything gets measured from – leaving little room for creative rules interpretations. That new Datasheet will be available via free download when it’s released.
I was about to say, "Hey, they didn't Primaris the hell out of it, what a pleasant surprise!" but the doors stuck open kills my enthusiasm. I guess it's okay if I treat strictly as a terrain piece for my Inquisimunda stuff.
I admit the new model is better for playing, but the old model was more useful, as you could not only use it as a game piece, but could use it in Dioramas etc. Now that the doors are always open, there's less modelling potential with the kit.
The Land Raider article posted right after the pods make me think we might be getting a re-made Land Raider as well..
tauist wrote: I admit the new model is better for playing, but the old model was more useful, as you could not only use it as a game piece, but could use it in Dioramas etc. Now that the doors are always open, there's less modelling potential with the kit.
The Land Raider article posted right after the pods make me think we might be getting a re-made Land Raider as well..
Honestly the LR kit holds up pretty darn well, especially considering its age. It might be nice to have it reboxed with a new accessory sprue, but I’m happy with the old ones.
I need to re-hang the poster that came with the WD in my workshop…
chaos0xomega wrote: Im surprised and a bit disappointed nobody has commented on the fact that they put the new drop pod on an (optional) tactical rock.
They do look like a fairly decent source of tac rocks for use on other models.
Hoping the new datasheet doesn't just remove the guns and call it a day, gaining options for transporting Gravis/Centurions would make them much more useable.
Ease of assembly aside (and really, the old/current one isn't that bad), this looks like a straight downgrade as a model. The open doors like distinctly stubbier as well.
Ease of assembly aside (and really, the old/current one isn't that bad), this looks like a straight downgrade as a model. The open doors like distinctly stubbier as well.
One of the things that makes the current pod so bad is trying to build it so it opens/closes. If the said “screw it” and just glued everything in one position, it would be a lot easier.
I’m OK with stubby doors. The footprint on the table on the doors open old ones was massive. Even with stubby doors, I would not be shocked to get a “ignore the doors, measure everything from the hull” rule.
Ease of assembly- not just the doors. Instead of a seperate harness assembly that goes in the middle and takes 15 parts, the harnesses are molded up and dividers are part of the outer fins, meaning 20 parts are down to a mere 5, though with less detail.
Fun fact... "year of chaos" wasn't actually referring to AOS Skaven, it was a reference to how often the release schedule would be rearranged and messed around.
The old kit was one of the few mainline kits that took genuine modelling skill to even put together. It was also on three sprues, which is the same as the Rogal Dorn.
My guess is they have the ability to cut that in half, which is why they're packed two to a box. Making it always open cuts ten door pieces to five, and two base pieces to one. cut out the weapon and harnesses, and even with the rocks I think you can squeeze it pretty tight.
The key to this kit will be whether the door pieces have exterior detailing. GW tells us the rocks are optional; I don't see much point in them being optional if the doors don't have exterior detailing. What I'm hoping is that ambitious modellers can convert hinged doors if they want to...
Because fixed open doors are just... Dull.
Also, two in a box will make the kit more expensive, and will likely include unit splitting rules so that you can't use a single pod to deliver 10 models.
I might try and pick up one of the old kits before they disappear- having doors that open and close is a must-have option for me, and I'm not sure I want to take a chance on GW giving me the option to convert the model I want.
Nevelon wrote: The footprint on the table on the doors open old ones was massive. Even with stubby doors, I would not be shocked to get a “ignore the doors, measure everything from the hull” rule.
I really wish they put "ignore doors" in the rules. Even with the new one the footprint with the doors is pretty damn big, and with old one it is huge. And it will be awkward if a lot of people have the old models with significantly different footprint than the new one. Besides, it is just bizarre that it the doors are part of the model, you technically cannot put your models on them and the enemy models cannot even move over them.
Finally, a kit with less detail, less functionality and less freedom! But to be fair, GW also for the first time in history removed an unnecessary gun from something.
Utterly disappointing.
Ive only just wanted to get a droppod but now this is coming can't find the original anywhere.
I want closeable doors... I'm getting right royally pissed off with gw's changes for the "better" of late.
Not everyone is game orientated. Some are modellers. This has just removed all interest in droppods for me now.
GW's sales pitch of 'yeah we took off the dumb guns and clarified the janky rules' is... interesting... given that they were entirely problems of their own making...
Lord Damocles wrote: GW's sales pitch of 'yeah we took off the dumb guns and clarified the janky rules' is... interesting... given that they were entirely problems of their own making...
Yes I noticed that too... It's clearly an attempt at humerous self depreciation.
However.
For most change hating, neo-phobic ranters, like myself, it's another nail in the coffin. And reads more like; "we made a model that's irritating to build and awkward to use in game.
Now we're fixing it, arent we wonderful?"
Taking one thing away to ammend another issue is not solving problems.
Then forcing you into buying two at a time, to justify improved costs...
Gah... Ignore me. I'm old, and just plain sick of it ...
I'd say that it's sad that you can't build pseudo-Dreadnought pods from the new kit, but GW's all but got rid of Castaferrum Dreadnoughts anyway now so...
I expect I will have the new ones built long before I get around to finishing the pile of old ones sitting partially completed out of frustration.
If it is 2 in a kit, I'd expect something g like 2 different sprues- 3 copies with 3 fins and some rubble, and a second with one fin and the center engine and bottom plate
I did, but I was hoping for a spiky version, like they showed in the most recent Crusade book that I'll probably never play with.
That would have been too much to hope for during The Year of Chaos...
There really wasn't any need to replace what is a perfectly nice existing model. The rules for the guns are an irrelevance either way and any rules for open/closed doors and where to measure from could simply been have an errata.
I'm sure the new model will look great but why not something else like the aforementioned Dreadclaw? Even if GW wanted a loyalist SM release, why not new assault terminators or bring back the thunderfire cannon.
I've got two drop pods. I won't be getting any new ones.
Its crazy to remove the stormbolter. It has been a genuine gamechanger as far as I have been playing. Countless games has been decided when you suddenly remember the drop pods bolter to shoot down the last guys holding an objective.
Anyway, slightly bigger drop pods is what you call "dreadnought drop pods" in horus heresy, so great to get those in plastic
Are these slightly bigger? I dont see mention of size in the description.
I do wonder if they plan to continue selling the current drop pod for HH though, given that the LI drop pods match the current design and not the new one.
chaos0xomega wrote: I do wonder if they plan to continue selling the current drop pod for HH though, given that the LI drop pods match the current design and not the new one.
Be weird if drop pods get stormbolters when everybody else has combi-bolters.
chaos0xomega wrote: Are these slightly bigger? I dont see mention of size in the description.
I do wonder if they plan to continue selling the current drop pod for HH though, given that the LI drop pods match the current design and not the new one.
I supposed they are slightly bigger, but the picture on War Com main page (not in the article) have a picture of primaris standing by a pod, and it looks to be more or less the same size as the old one. If so its weird.
Since you cannot deploy models on top of other models, you will have to deploy your troops outside of the droppod's flower petal footprint.
Basing my knowledge on the original (which did not include modular debris), this was a large area... which can be very constricting in today's smaller, more terrain heavy boards.
As much as I would love to rebuild some classic BLOOD RAVEN STEEL REIN! Droppod nonsense - I don't see how it will be viable.
Since you cannot deploy models on top of other models, you will have to deploy your troops outside of the droppod's flower petal footprint.
Basing my knowledge on the original (which did not include modular debris), this was a large area... which can be very constricting in today's smaller, more terrain heavy boards.
As much as I would love to rebuild some classic BLOOD RAVEN STEEL REIN! Droppod nonsense - I don't see how it will be viable.
But of course, I could be wrong... again.
Drop pods have long been a source of rules debates. We’ll see how they do this round.
I always felt it was best when the doors were ignored altogether, but that was HIWPI, not necessary RAW.
I suspect a closed door option STL will appear within hours of the sprue pics getting into the wild. Assuming there's not some pegs that need to be cut off that would let you pose the doors in other orientations for diorama purposes.
I'm a little surprised that the LI drop pods have working doors but these don't, wonder what bit of the scaling up process didn't work.
But I can certainly see the logic, I would have thought that drop pods need to be pretty cheap (money wise) as they're something you generally might want a couple of but they're pretty boring units on the battlefield.
Cheap and easy definitely seems the way to do them.
It looks like the doors aren't as tall, so the resulting footprint may not be as large as it used to be. That said, with as many L-shaped ruins as the tournament scene likes, these will still have a hard time finding a landing zone. Personally, I prefer a more open space for my games.
Sgt. Cortez wrote: If it weren't for GWs prices a pack of these would probably make some nice terrain pieces.
Drop pods are functually terrain pieces from the start, despite the moving doors and turret inside.
After my first drop pod in the 5th ed space marine spearhead (along with the metal thunderfire) this new kit is making me actually excited to build a drop pod. It's like the shift from the metal to plastic land raider crusader.
That spearhead box also came with the first vanguard veteran models and thunderfire cannon as well, maybe contenders for marines 10.5 release?
Sgt. Cortez wrote: If it weren't for GWs prices a pack of these would probably make some nice terrain pieces.
Drop pods are functually terrain pieces from the start, despite the moving doors and turret inside.
After my first drop pod in the 5th ed space marine spearhead (along with the metal thunderfire) this new kit is making me actually excited to build a drop pod. It's like the shift from the metal to plastic land raider crusader.
That spearhead box also came with the first vanguard veteran models and thunderfire cannon as well, maybe contenders for marines 10.5 release?
Wait. There's a new 'marine codex coming soon? I just thought they were going to finish the Wolves, Sallys, and Shorties (GKs).
Lathe Biosas wrote: Wait. There's a new 'marine codex coming soon? I just thought they were going to finish the Wolves, Sallys, and Shorties (GKs).
The current Road Map also shows Black Templars, there was a hint image in the LVO presentation that showed Tor Garadon/Imperial Fists, and rumors are saying something for all 4 remaining Loyalist First Founding.
No codex rumors, just a seeming wave of models like the brutalis dread and missile dudes last edition. Things like assault terminators are still missing as well.
Sgt. Cortez wrote: If it weren't for GWs prices a pack of these would probably make some nice terrain pieces.
Drop pods are functually terrain pieces from the start, despite the moving doors and turret inside.
After my first drop pod in the 5th ed space marine spearhead (along with the metal thunderfire) this new kit is making me actually excited to build a drop pod. It's like the shift from the metal to plastic land raider crusader.
That spearhead box also came with the first vanguard veteran models and thunderfire cannon as well, maybe contenders for marines 10.5 release?
Wait. There's a new 'marine codex coming soon? I just thought they were going to finish the Wolves, Sallys, and Shorties (GKs).
Rumor is it’s a new marine codex, not Salamander specific, unless we are going back to supplements like 8th. I’d still expect a new marine book though and watch them drop the predators etc from this one.
The drop pod was of a piece with many SM releases around then (09-12/14) when GW were desperately trying to come up with new releases for Space Marines (See the Space Wolf Cavalry and Centurions as the clear exemplars of GW having run out of good ideas) inline with their new "new release" focus that eventually led to the utter madness of the Primaris redo of the whole line leading to lots of good concepts being replaced by roughly equivalent but terrible ones and the non-terrible replacements all being worse from an aesthetic and hobby perspective.
Drop pods were a big deal in the art and background (Coming to life even more with the Dawn of War games both ingame and in the opening cinematic) and so GW knew making a kit would sell well, even only for hobby purposes. They were a missing and iconic Space Marine vehicle small enough to produce in plastic. The bonus was FW had already done a lot of the hard work in translating them design-wise to 28mm and so it was only the issue of breaking them up for a sprue.
But it was hard to just make them just a decorative marker for a deep strike so they got a datasheet of their own making them true vehicles, albeit stationary ones. (Like Hammerfall bunkers but beloved. Seriously, not even competitive players who could benefit from their use when they are meta ever use them!)
This created an awkward situation where their primary role was one suited more to a piece of deployable terrain marker than a true model or datasheet asset. As can be seen by GW's own insistence that it was onerous to have them function as LoS terrain apparently due to disputes. Thus the new version with perma-open doors and no weapons defacto making it a piece of terrain if not truly making it one made from Chinese plastic. Of course the Deathstorm drop pods require them to be treated as datasheet assets but it seems they are gone now to remove the issue in trying to make them terrain markers.
What worries me is how awkward and annoying this new version will be as well as GW potentially pushing it (2 in a box) meaning the spectre of things going one step further and it being replaced, at least at tournaments with a floppy template. The constant push to US-style FLGS and tournament 40k through social media to even young kids playing with friends living near them in Western Europe worries me that eventually we may reach the logical conclusion first reached by Warmachine (Which as a US-based game went straight for competitive FLGS style and effectively went through a lot of the things we see today since GW invite the ITC guys to work for them) and do away with terrain altogether and use flat templates for everything from mountains to lakes. Already objective markers have been replaced with floppy gaudy templates at less and less competitive levels.
Hopefully they just do away with the drop pod as a concept in the game if things get to that, the true model is already dead with this thing in it's place.
Uhh.. I used Drop Pods way before Centurions and Space Wolves Wolf Cav were a thing.
They used to be hyper competitive back in 5th... I still have nightmares about Space Wolf Rune Priests stepping out of them and erasing my Imperial Guard Armoured Company with Jaws of the World Wolf.
Lathe Biosas wrote: Uhh.. I used Drop Pods way before Centurions and Space Wolves Wolf Cav were a thing.
They used to be hyper competitive back in 5th... I still have nightmares about Space Wolf Rune Priests stepping out of them and erasing my Imperial Guard Armoured Company with Jaws of the World Wolf.
Drop pod kit was 2008, thundercav was 2010, both in 5th ed, so not that much of a gap. 2013ish for centurions and 6th ed launch.
Lathe Biosas wrote: Uhh.. I used Drop Pods way before Centurions and Space Wolves Wolf Cav were a thing.
They used to be hyper competitive back in 5th... I still have nightmares about Space Wolf Rune Priests stepping out of them and erasing my Imperial Guard Armoured Company with Jaws of the World Wolf.
Drop pod kit was 2008, thundercav was 2010, both in 5th ed, so not that much of a gap. 2013ish for centurions and 6th ed launch.
Huh. I guess I just don't remember them being used much. Thanks for the information. As they used to say, "Knowing is half the battle."
The change from resin to plastic drop pod was not a straight conversion to plastic like the trygon and valkyrie, the fw drop pod was a 5 man version, while the plastic made it so 10 marines could logically fit, plus a gun option.
Lathe Biosas wrote: Uhh.. I used Drop Pods way before Centurions and Space Wolves Wolf Cav were a thing.
They used to be hyper competitive back in 5th... I still have nightmares about Space Wolf Rune Priests stepping out of them and erasing my Imperial Guard Armoured Company with Jaws of the World Wolf.
Drop pod kit was 2008, thundercav was 2010, both in 5th ed, so not that much of a gap. 2013ish for centurions and 6th ed launch.
Huh. I guess I just don't remember them being used much. Thanks for the information. As they used to say, "Knowing is half the battle."
Rules for"Drop pods" actually existed long before the model. Back in 3rd edition you could have a "Drop Pod Assault" force. The "drop pod" was just the 5-inch blast marker you set troops under. I want to say it limited you to Terminators, Dreadnoughts, Scouts, and Speeders.
cuda1179 wrote: Rules for"Drop pods" actually existed long before the model. Back in 3rd edition you could have a "Drop Pod Assault" force. The "drop pod" was just the 5-inch blast marker you set troops under. I want to say it limited you to Terminators, Dreadnoughts, Scouts, and Speeders.
At the very start of 3rd ed, they also released this little guy for a touring in-store event here in Oz, with different rules to the codex - treating the pod as an actual model rather than just a deployment mechanic.
New kit does at least look a lot easier to build. Removing the weapons does seem to also remove any point in having it on the table, though.
I mean, that's technically what it is. It was made by Matt Weaver during his time with the Oz studio (before he went on to work for Forgeworld) from plasticard, foamcore and assorted plastic bits, and then cast for the roadshow.
NAVARRO wrote: For sure you can have a closed version right?
Nope. Article clearly states they are always open:
the endlessly fiddly doors that spawned a thousand arguments about vehicle footprints are now fastened firmly in their open position.
It IS entirely possible that GW will cut this model in such a way that a simple hinged-door conversion will be impossible: their intent is clearly that the piece be modelled with open doors (according to Warcom, who have been known to make mistakes).
But then, why make the rocks optional? If it's a fixed build with no possibility for conversion, why bother? The key will be whether or not the doors maintain the shape of an exterior on what what would be the bottom of the model in the fixed open position. If they do maintain that shape, conversion should be easy. If they don't, it will be impossible. And I'm not confident in GW's ability to make good choices.
Tastyfish wrote: I suspect a closed door option STL will appear within hours of the sprue pics getting into the wild. Assuming there's not some pegs that need to be cut off that would let you pose the doors in other orientations for diorama purposes.
The problem there is that hinge assemblies typically require the frame and the door to work together to achieve the effect- usually in the form of pins on the door that fit into sockets on the frame. Simply printing doors with pins alone will not achieve the effect. A static closed door might be possible.. But nowhere near as interesting. GW published an article in White Dwarf that showed you how to hinge a rhino top hatch- not a terribly hard conversion, so if by some slim stroke of luck, GW actually molds the kit with exterior door surfacing, that technique should work here. I haven't built the little drop pods that debuted with Kill Team: Rogue Trader yet because I was planning to hinge them too.
But I can certainly see the logic, I would have thought that drop pods need to be pretty cheap (money wise) as they're something you generally might want a couple of but they're pretty boring units on the battlefield.
Classic drop pods WERE cheap. Molding a hinge does not add a lot of expense. These, coming two to a box will be at least double the cost of the classic kit... And the real fear is that the reason they come two to a box is that someone at GW thought: HMMM. 5 doors = 5 dudes, and that's okay because there's precedent for vehicles with squad splitting rules, so we'll just sell them in boxes of two and you need to use both to deploy a single 10 man unit.
Because if THAT happens, you aren't trying to find table real estate for one of these things, but TWO OF THEM!
The revised Drop Pod kit looks like something that was done in a hurry. The 'modular terrain' looks rushed and kind of rubbish. And it has a huge footprint.
I know the Drop Pod's design is well established and iconic, but the best solution to the problems it creates on the tabletop would be to redesign the ramps so that it doesn't take up so much room. Maybe something like that (i.e. a Primaris Drop Pod) is in the works, and this kit is just an interim solution.
I actually don't mind this at all. The closing door gimmick was kinda meh anyways. I do think its funny that the weapons were removed due to them being a safety hazard yet they put sentry guns on cargo crates. Lets not pretend that most games of 40K (or at least the games they're marketing the whole game towards) have extremely dense terrain setups were the footprint is gonna screw with placement.
Midnightdeathblade wrote: I do think its funny that the weapons were removed due to them being a safety hazard yet they put sentry guns on cargo crates.
It was just a throwaway comment, and clearly tongue-in-cheek. The actual reason they removed the weapons is more likely just to keep the kit as simple as possible.
Because they rocks look terrible on the wrong table. If they had been moulded on without the option to remove them, people would have hated it.
That hasn't stopped them with every other example of a tactical rock in any game system they produce, why is the drop pod the one model where the rocks are optional and not, say, the LoV Grymnir? Do those rocks not look terrible in the middle of a Boarding Action?
I just think them hailing this as an improved model when they have removed features and options is disingenuous. It's 2025, if they had a problem with the door mechanism they have the technology to rectify it rather than just getting rid of it. If there was an issue with the model's footprint being inconsistent then they could have either written rules around that, or just ignored it like they do with every other transport that has opening doors. Removing functional features and game options is a sledgehammer approach
Little worried that they've put out a Land Raider article at the same time, are we going to get a "new and improved" Land Raider with missing weapons and sealed doors too?
That hasn't stopped them with every other example of a tactical rock in any game system they produce, why is the drop pod the one model where the rocks are optional and not, say, the LoV Grymnir? Do those rocks not look terrible in the middle of a Boarding Action?
Yes, indeed they do. So maybe this is a sign that GW are finally learning that keeping the tactical rocks optional where possible is better design...
I just think them hailing this as an improved model when they have removed features and options is disingenuous. It's 2025, if they had a problem with the door mechanism they have the technology to rectify it rather than just getting rid of it. If there was an issue with the model's footprint being inconsistent then they could have either written rules around that, or just ignored it like they do with every other transport that has opening doors. Removing functional features and game options is a sledgehammer approach
I dunno, I see their point on this one. The old pod is a fiddly model to assemble, in an industry where customers increasingly want 'easy and quick' over 'detailed'.
Fully articulated vehicle models are great for modellers, but are arguably bad design for gaming miniatures. If there is no in -game reason for the vehicle to be able to open and close it's doors, then having movable doors on the model is just making the kit more complicated for no good game-related reason. Keen modellers can take a basic kit and add door hinges. Gamers with less interest in model building just want a model they can assemble and put on the table.
Likewise the basic Knight chassis coming with fixed legs.
It’s….easier. A more universally friendly kit, for pretty much any level of model building experience. It’s really had to build it wrong, and once assembled is nicely balanced and steady on the tabletop.
Yet, the knee joints and that aren’t especially thick, precisely to make it easier to break those assemblies down for reposing, should that be your jam.
And whether we like it or not, the same goes for single loadout characters. Anyone being able to buy off the peg and and not miss out on possible wargear combos levels the playing field. If you want to convert up or scratch build? Theres still nothing preventing you doing that. Which is often, erroneously in my opinion, presented in the community as GW discouraging or outright forbidding scratch builds and conversion.
Tactical rocks are there to give variation in leg position for infantry. If they make the infantry rock optional they need to provide either variations in what is being stood upon or options in leg position, while then has knock on implications for other parts of the model pose. To a certain extent debris is debris. Even in spaceships, and especially Imperial ships, there are quite a lot of rocks in the form of marble statues and ridiculous fixtures and fittings. Mining or industrial ships are likely to have random accumulations of rocks as raw materials, so it’s not utterly stupid for rocks to be present there.
But I can certainly see the logic, I would have thought that drop pods need to be pretty cheap (money wise) as they're something you generally might want a couple of but they're pretty boring units on the battlefield.
Classic drop pods WERE cheap. Molding a hinge does not add a lot of expense. These, coming two to a box will be at least double the cost of the classic kit... And the real fear is that the reason they come two to a box is that someone at GW thought: HMMM. 5 doors = 5 dudes, and that's okay because there's precedent for vehicles with squad splitting rules, so we'll just sell them in boxes of two and you need to use both to deploy a single 10 man unit.
The expense part comes in when you realise they can cut in half the number of needed door components. The current kit has an inside and outside piece for each door, but fixing the doors open removes the need for outside detail. This kit can now consist of 2x sprue for the pod base, then 5x smaller identical sprues with 2 struts & 2 doors, for 10 of each total. That's why they come in pairs.
This will be a cheaper / smaller injection mold that the previous kit, but it's worth noting that 'cheaper' only applies to GW's own costs. These are not going to be cheap for customers heh.
And whether we like it or not, the same goes for single loadout characters. Anyone being able to buy off the peg and and not miss out on possible wargear combos levels the playing field. If you want to convert up or scratch build? Theres still nothing preventing you doing that. Which is often, erroneously in my opinion, presented in the community as GW discouraging or outright forbidding scratch builds and conversion.
I have to disagree on this one, but only because of the way GW implemented it. Removing options from characters rather than making kits with previously missing options added was, IMO, the wrong way to go. Making characters easy to build was a good idea. Making them boring... Less so.
Likewise, as I mentioned earlier in the thread, with removing the weapon on the drop pod... It's difficult to see a good reason for doing that, as it makes it a really boring model to put on the table... It's just terrain, now.
insaniak wrote: I dunno, I see their point on this one. The old pod is a fiddly model to assemble, in an industry where customers increasingly want 'easy and quick' over 'detailed'.
Fully articulated vehicle models are great for modellers, but are arguably bad design for gaming miniatures. If there is no in -game reason for the vehicle to be able to open and close it's doors, then having movable doors on the model is just making the kit more complicated for no good game-related reason. Keen modellers can take a basic kit and add door hinges. Gamers with less interest in model building just want a model they can assemble and put on the table.
GW are definitely not adopting "easy and quick" over "detailed" - especially with vehicle kits. Look at the number of parts required to build an Impulsor, for example, even though it's supposed to be just a basic transport. So what they've done with the Drop Pod definitely goes against the grain.
Charax wrote: Little worried that they've put out a Land Raider article at the same time, are we going to get a "new and improved" Land Raider with missing weapons and sealed doors too?
The Land Raider is in a strange place. The current kit is pretty ancient now. It pre-dates their digital design method, it doesn't fit together particularly well, it doesn't match the aesthetics of the Primaris range of vehicles (and has arguably been rendered obsolete by the Repulsor). Yet it's still iconic, and still seems to have a place in Marine armies - and this article suggests it's here to stay. I think an updated kit would be welcomed. It would only require some tweaking of the details to make it consistent with the Primaris aesthetic. There is no need to make any significant changes to the overall look of it. But rather than being simplified, I would expect something with more considerably more pieces.
So much rage over a new drop pod?? The old one had doors you could shut, so what, the doors never closed after they landed, they stayed open, said so in the fluff so what was the point of the does closing on the model, other than making rocket noises as you put it on the table!
As for the “fear” that each one only holds 5 marines, don’t be daft you can see space for each marine in the harness clamp things, 2 per door, so 10. Stop panicking it will be ok.
Drop pod models should be cheap and easy to build as they are more terrain than vehicle so this kit is perfect, it lost a storm bolter, so what, the storm bolter wasn’t the defining feature of the model. Losing the doors as has been suggested would have been a bigger change to what has been the definitive feature of the drop pod, it opening up like petals of a flower.
They have made a model that is more usable, easier to build but still serves the exact same purpose as the old when, this is just better and good move by GW. I can easily imagine sales of drop pods haven’t been great for a while now and this kit will sell. I have had my current marine army since primaris arrived and haven’t been interested in buying a drop pod because the kit was a pain, these I will 100% pick up a box and bet I’m not alone in that.
Andykp wrote: So much rage over a new drop pod?? The old one had doors you could shut, so what, the doors never closed after they landed, they stayed open, said so in the fluff so what was the point of the does closing on the model, other than making rocket noises as you put it on the table!
As for the “fear” that each one only holds 5 marines, don’t be daft you can see space for each marine in the harness clamp things, 2 per door, so 10. Stop panicking it will be ok.
Drop pod models should be cheap and easy to build as they are more terrain than vehicle so this kit is perfect, it lost a storm bolter, so what, the storm bolter wasn’t the defining feature of the model. Losing the doors as has been suggested would have been a bigger change to what has been the definitive feature of the drop pod, it opening up like petals of a flower.
They have made a model that is more usable, easier to build but still serves the exact same purpose as the old when, this is just better and good move by GW. I can easily imagine sales of drop pods haven’t been great for a while now and this kit will sell. I have had my current marine army since primaris arrived and haven’t been interested in buying a drop pod because the kit was a pain, these I will 100% pick up a box and bet I’m not alone in that.
The defining feature of the drop pod was that it provided a rule that didn't necessitate a model. They've always been wrong for the tabletop.
GW are definitely not adopting "easy and quick" over "detailed" - especially with vehicle kits. Look at the number of parts required to build an Impulsor, for example, even though it's supposed to be just a basic transport. So what they've done with the Drop Pod definitely goes against the grain..
It's definitely a direction change... Many of the kits released in the last decade or so have been needlessly fiddly. It felt a lot like they got carried away with what they could do in plastic, spurred on by that weird philosophy that they were a miniature maker rather than a games company... And the end result was a bunch of kits that look great when they're finished, but are a right pain to put together.
If they've remembered that these models are intended to be used in a tabletop game, then that can only be a good thing, in my book.
And whether we like it or not, the same goes for single loadout characters. Anyone being able to buy off the peg and and not miss out on possible wargear combos levels the playing field. If you want to convert up or scratch build? Theres still nothing preventing you doing that. Which is often, erroneously in my opinion, presented in the community as GW discouraging or outright forbidding scratch builds and conversion.
I have to disagree on this one, but only because of the way GW implemented it. Removing options from characters rather than making kits with previously missing options added was, IMO, the wrong way to go. Making characters easy to build was a good idea. Making them boring... Less so.
Likewise, as I mentioned earlier in the thread, with removing the weapon on the drop pod... It's difficult to see a good reason for doing that, as it makes it a really boring model to put on the table... It's just terrain, now.
I cant say that theres like a trend in therms of kit designs to be fair... Some kits are overly convoluted to build others oversimplified, some have options while others do not. It's not even a detail thing.
With that said this seems to be an half designed kit with the removal of key features just for the sake of saving GW money and time.
Also if they were focused on functionality across the board you would not have the silly thin fragile details, not fit for tabletop use like, you see on so many kits.
It boils down if these are aimed as gaming tokens or display pieces. Obviously GW will try to sell you these as "art" so they can justify the price tag.
Boring minis is also relative to each person sensibility, I rather have a plain and with minimal details Primaris than one that is flooded with details, the former is more enjoyable to paint and I can reposition/convert it etc.
I have to say something about GW dissuading people from converting/sculpting... Officially they dont sell tools or Putty anymore and today you see less and less bespoke sculpted projects unlike a decade or two ago. Very few people still hang onto that and most print some bits and call it done. So its not only GW not supporting in the same way, its also the way the hobby is going today.
Note that by 'boring' I was referring to characters not having options, not styling.
Being able to customise character loadouts is one of the things that always appealed to me about 40k. Dumping a bunch of options because they cost to release a model that only comes with a single gun and a single melee weapon is a massive downgrade.
insaniak wrote: Note that by 'boring' I was referring to characters not having options, not styling.
Being able to customise character loadouts is one of the things that always appealed to me about 40k. Dumping a bunch of options because they cost to release a model that only comes with a single gun and a single melee weapon is a massive downgrade.
I think Necromunda found, in my opinion, the right balance for that. Regardless of selling the options on the gang box they have that extra box set with options of weapon etc. To some extent they do that in 40k for the Primaris specific chapters.
This does raise a question: whats going to happen to owners of the current drop pod? Based on the article, there will be rules pertaining to how to properly measure rules interactions based on the new kit, presumably to include the new smaller doors. That likely means the current kit is entirely mechanically illegal, assuming the doors are being counted as part of the model. And if they are, anyone who built their pods with doors closed is fully sol
chaos0xomega wrote: This does raise a question: whats going to happen to owners of the current drop pod? Based on the article, there will be rules pertaining to how to properly measure rules interactions based on the new kit, presumably to include the new smaller doors. That likely means the current kit is entirely mechanically illegal, assuming the doors are being counted as part of the model. And if they are, anyone who built their pods with doors closed is fully sol
I'm going to choose the hope that the rules will be based around the main structure of the model which I've seen is apparently close in size, therefore leaving the old model more painful to actually place on the table due to the larger doors (if open) but the old model remains viable.
I think we havent seen the last of the old Drop Pod model. GW's just going to slap a new SKU and boxart to it, so then they will have two Drop Pod kits, one for HH and one for 40K. Suits their current obsession of making discreet kits for each franchise.
chaos0xomega wrote: This does raise a question: whats going to happen to owners of the current drop pod? Based on the article, there will be rules pertaining to how to properly measure rules interactions based on the new kit, presumably to include the new smaller doors. That likely means the current kit is entirely mechanically illegal, assuming the doors are being counted as part of the model. And if they are, anyone who built their pods with doors closed is fully sol
Doors closed is probably the easiest to adapt - just cut a piece of MDF to the footprint of the new drop pod and put the old drop pod on it with some rocks and scenery.
If the current Pod is bigger open than the new one, then that's more of a challenge to adapt - though you could close the doors and use the first option.
CorwinB wrote: So the Legions Imperialis Drop Pod kit is going to be more complicated than the 40K one ? What a time to be hobbying!
Ooof... lol that's just too darn funny!
What do you want to bet that this "new" drop pod will be made in China, at around $80 MSRP? With the same type of oily plastic the terrain is made from?
tauist wrote: I think we havent seen the last of the old Drop Pod model. GW's just going to slap a new SKU and boxart to it, so then they will have two Drop Pod kits, one for HH and one for 40K. Suits their current obsession of making discreet kits for each franchise.
The new one's a Primaris Drop Pod. It can transport 10 Tacticus Marines (Firstborns are too short to safely fit in the harnesses).
tauist wrote: I think we havent seen the last of the old Drop Pod model. GW's just going to slap a new SKU and boxart to it, so then they will have two Drop Pod kits, one for HH and one for 40K. Suits their current obsession of making discreet kits for each franchise.
The new one's a Primaris Drop Pod. It can transport 10 Tacticus Marines (Firstborns are too short to safely fit in the harnesses).
So no Spiky Chaotic Types allowed then?
I wonder how fast they (GW) will phase out the old Drop Pods from games.
I know a couple people who still use the (now old) Drop Pod in their current builds.
tauist wrote: I think we havent seen the last of the old Drop Pod model. GW's just going to slap a new SKU and boxart to it, so then they will have two Drop Pod kits, one for HH and one for 40K. Suits their current obsession of making discreet kits for each franchise.
The new one's a Primaris Drop Pod. It can transport 10 Tacticus Marines (Firstborns are too short to safely fit in the harnesses).
So no Spiky Chaotic Types allowed then?
I wonder how fast they (GW) will phase out the old Drop Pods from games.
I know a couple people who still use the (now old) Drop Pod in their current builds.
CorwinB wrote: So the Legions Imperialis Drop Pod kit is going to be more complicated than the 40K one ? What a time to be hobbying!
Ooof... lol that's just too darn funny!
What do you want to bet that this "new" drop pod will be made in China, at around $80 MSRP? With the same type of oily plastic the terrain is made from?
When was the last time they made terrain outside the UK? I know they used to, but anecdotes aside, any actual evidence of it lately?
NAVARRO wrote: For sure you can have a closed version right?
Nope. Article clearly states they are always open:
the endlessly fiddly doors that spawned a thousand arguments about vehicle footprints are now fastened firmly in their open position.
It IS entirely possible that GW will cut this model in such a way that a simple hinged-door conversion will be impossible: their intent is clearly that the piece be modelled with open doors (according to Warcom, who have been known to make mistakes).
I assume the entire bottom is one big flat base made of the doors. I'd be curious if this is outsourced by the same facility that makes the terrain.
chaos0xomega wrote: This does raise a question: whats going to happen to owners of the current drop pod? Based on the article, there will be rules pertaining to how to properly measure rules interactions based on the new kit, presumably to include the new smaller doors. That likely means the current kit is entirely mechanically illegal, assuming the doors are being counted as part of the model. And if they are, anyone who built their pods with doors closed is fully sol
I'm going to choose the hope that the rules will be based around the main structure of the model which I've seen is apparently close in size, therefore leaving the old model more painful to actually place on the table due to the larger doors (if open) but the old model remains viable.
Seems implied that measurement will be based on open doors, so texhnically using the old pod would be modeling for advantage at that point due to the larger door size.
chaos0xomega wrote: This does raise a question: whats going to happen to owners of the current drop pod? Based on the article, there will be rules pertaining to how to properly measure rules interactions based on the new kit, presumably to include the new smaller doors. That likely means the current kit is entirely mechanically illegal, assuming the doors are being counted as part of the model. And if they are, anyone who built their pods with doors closed is fully sol
Doors closed is probably the easiest to adapt - just cut a piece of MDF to the footprint of the new drop pod and put the old drop pod on it with some rocks and scenery.
If the current Pod is bigger open than the new one, then that's more of a challenge to adapt - though you could close the doors and use the first option.
Ah, now thats clever. Might have to get an old kit to take some measurements so i can sculpt up some 3d printable adapters to sell.
I was thinking GW doesn't like to release new toys in a vacuum - what are the odds there will be a new and totally unbalanced Space Marine Drop Pod Detachment in the future?
CorwinB wrote: So the Legions Imperialis Drop Pod kit is going to be more complicated than the 40K one ? What a time to be hobbying!
Ooof... lol that's just too darn funny!
What do you want to bet that this "new" drop pod will be made in China, at around $80 MSRP? With the same type of oily plastic the terrain is made from?
When was the last time they made terrain outside the UK? I know they used to, but anecdotes aside, any actual evidence of it lately?
https://panjiva.com/Games-Workshop/46006013#us-import-shipments Latest shipping (13 March) shows 1595 units of redacted from China - so they still have manufacturing in China but they hide what is as people used to use the Bill of Lading to spot releases ahead of time ( about 6 weeks) although the HTS code suggests this is printed material.
Lathe Biosas wrote: It would just been easier to say the doors blast off upon landing... and all the problems would've been solved.
and then people would have gotten mad at GW over it being a retcon
the doors have always been blast off at landing, the problem was simply that early models were build with closed doors because of no interior and true line of sight using the actual model have them an advantage
could have just added that a DP never blocks line of sight no matter the model and there would not have been a problem
kodos wrote: the doors have always been blast off at landing
Clearly not, given all previous models...
kodos wrote: the problem was simply that early models were build with closed doors because of no interior and true line of sight using the actual model have them an advantage
Que?
The first Forgeworld model had such open doors that it even came with optional dudes to put inside (but still blocked line of sight!).
Two things I'm wondering about from a modeling perspective:
1. For those that want to hack up the model and make it able to have closable doors, I wonder if the doors would even line up right with the main body? GW never intended them to, so they might not.
2. Is there any detail to the main body under the doors? If no you're going to have to scratch build the entire underside and lower half-inch of the pod.
Andykp wrote: So much rage over a new drop pod?? The old one had doors you could shut, so what, the doors never closed after they landed, they stayed open, said so in the fluff so what was the point of the does closing on the model, other than making rocket noises as you put it on the table!
While I don't own any of the current one, the first thing that springs to mind is that a closed drop pod looks like it would be easier to transport than an open one.
Forgeworld drop pod only had 5 marines, one in each door (instead of the shoulder harnasses for 10), but otherwise the plastic and FW pods were nearly identical. The doors were always hinged and folded down when they "blew off". GW made a tiny version for Epic Armageddon where the base was the doors already blown open, exactly like the new plastic kit.
I always glued mine shut, made it easier to paint, easier to transport, took up less footprint on the table. These new pods are going to be hella annoying to transport and store
kodos wrote: the doors have always been blast off at landing
Clearly not, given all previous models...
and the doors were blast open on landing, just because you can close them again on the model doesn't change that the lore always said that those were blast open on landing
the very first drop pod model we got was a paper template in white dwarf to cut your own cardboard model and add parts from the imperial guard tank accessory frame
and already during that time, it was just a marker on the battlefield were the unit was placed around, it didn't block line if sight and could be replaced with the 3" template if you didn't want to build the model
the necessity of the model and the problems with line of sight for closed or open doors wasn't a thing until the plastic model was sold
The expense part comes in when you realise they can cut in half the number of needed door components. The current kit has an inside and outside piece for each door, but fixing the doors open removes the need for outside detail. This kit can now consist of 2x sprue for the pod base, then 5x smaller identical sprues with 2 struts & 2 doors, for 10 of each total. That's why they come in pairs.
This will be a cheaper / smaller injection mold that the previous kit, but it's worth noting that 'cheaper' only applies to GW's own costs. These are not going to be cheap for customers heh.
Ahhh. I've never built one of the current kits (one of the reasons I'm so pissed about this stupid decision), so I had no idea that the current kit was 2 pieces per door.
I hope I can find an old one somewhere before it disappears. Unless these can be converted, I have no interest in them at all.
CorwinB wrote: So the Legions Imperialis Drop Pod kit is going to be more complicated than the 40K one ? What a time to be hobbying!
Ooof... lol that's just too darn funny!
What do you want to bet that this "new" drop pod will be made in China, at around $80 MSRP? With the same type of oily plastic the terrain is made from?
When was the last time they made terrain outside the UK? I know they used to, but anecdotes aside, any actual evidence of it lately?
I bought a Gondor Ruins kit in March 2024 that says "Designed in the UK, Made in China". Here's a photo of it next to an older one I bought earlier that says "Made in the UK".
I am finishing up a 'starter set company' of original marines from the 2e, 3e, 5e and 6e starters with some extra bits and bobs. Was wondering if I would pick up a drop pod but with this model I think I will do scratchbuilds instead. They'd just be too annoying to transport even if they look nice.
Andykp wrote: So much rage over a new drop pod?? The old one had doors you could shut, so what, the doors never closed after they landed, they stayed open, said so in the fluff so what was the point of the does closing on the model, other than making rocket noises as you put it on the table!
As for the “fear” that each one only holds 5 marines, don’t be daft you can see space for each marine in the harness clamp things, 2 per door, so 10. Stop panicking it will be ok.
Drop pod models should be cheap and easy to build as they are more terrain than vehicle so this kit is perfect, it lost a storm bolter, so what, the storm bolter wasn’t the defining feature of the model. Losing the doors as has been suggested would have been a bigger change to what has been the definitive feature of the drop pod, it opening up like petals of a flower.
They have made a model that is more usable, easier to build but still serves the exact same purpose as the old when, this is just better and good move by GW. I can easily imagine sales of drop pods haven’t been great for a while now and this kit will sell. I have had my current marine army since primaris arrived and haven’t been interested in buying a drop pod because the kit was a pain, these I will 100% pick up a box and bet I’m not alone in that.
The defining feature of the drop pod was that it provided a rule that didn't necessitate a model. They've always been wrong for the tabletop.
Disagree, I think they need a model just so show where they’ve landed and look cool. Rules wise no, but immersion wise 100% need to be represented.
Got chatting to the owner at Salute once. Nice guy - did a lot of injection molding for big companies, but ended up with a wargaming business thanks to Tony Reidy. Does/did a lot of the tooling for Wyrd and a few others.
Is this the first post primaris marine release to have less guns than the original? I mean it doesn't even have a heavy stubber on it for emperors sake.
The old kit was a pain to build so I get the redo, but non closing doors is lame. Especially as the tiny LI kit has them.
It also means some HH kits are going bye bye, the dreadclaw for instance uses the plastic kit as a base. Unless we get new ones of those. Maybe plastic dread drop pods are on their way?
Tamereth wrote: Is this the first post primaris marine release to have less guns than the original? I mean it doesn't even have a heavy stubber on it for emperors sake.
The old kit was a pain to build so I get the redo, but non closing doors is lame. Especially as the tiny LI kit has them.
It also means some HH kits are going bye bye, the dreadclaw for instance uses the plastic kit as a base. Unless we get new ones of those. Maybe plastic dread drop pods are on their way?
Even if GW stops selling the old drop pod, they can still cast some up to sell as part of the dreadclaw. Old basilisk sprues are cast up with the newer 5th ed chimaera hull sprues to make more modern basilisks after all
If GW wanted to make a new Drop Pod (of course, the model the fanbase has been chanting for ), I would have thought it would make more sense to make a different version - e.g. have it turn into more of a bunker that the Marines can stay in if they want to. If they want a more sensible gun, have a heavy gun or two that the Marines can operate.
Now, personally I don't think this is warranted in the most bloated army in existence. Let alone while other armies (that, just for once, I will refrain from naming) are emaciated husks.
However, it would seem more logical than an out-of-nowhere new model for a drop pod, apparently just to make some slight tweaks to the rules.
vipoid wrote: If GW wanted to make a new Drop Pod (of course, the model the fanbase has been chanting for ), I would have thought it would make more sense to make a different version - e.g. have it turn into more of a bunker that the Marines can stay in if they want to. If they want a more sensible gun, have a heavy gun or two that the Marines can operate.
Now, personally I don't think this is warranted in the most bloated army in existence. Let alone while other armies (that, just for once, I will refrain from naming) are emaciated husks.
However, it would seem more logical than an out-of-nowhere new model for a drop pod, apparently just to make some slight tweaks to the rules.
At least it is not adding to the bloat at all- it's not a new unit, just a redo of the kit to make assembly less of a nightmare, like when the leman russ and chimaera hulls were redone to remove all the individual wheels. It's not a new unit adding to the bloat, just a straight replacement (Other old models that could use a update/remaster in the same way are the tau tanks and eldar falcon hulls)
I've noticed a trend in the last 5 years that 40k has slowly ben adopting the Age of Sigmar, "Damn they look pretty, but you can't transport it," aesthetic in modeling....
the very first drop pod model we got was a paper template in white dwarf to cut your own cardboard model and add parts from the imperial guard tank accessory frame
Kalamadea wrote: Forgeworld drop pod only had 5 marines, one in each door (instead of the shoulder harnasses for 10), but otherwise the plastic and FW pods were nearly identical. The doors were always hinged and folded down when they "blew off". GW made a tiny version for Epic Armageddon where the base was the doors already blown open, exactly like the new plastic kit.
I always glued mine shut, made it easier to paint, easier to transport, took up less footprint on the table. These new pods are going to be hella annoying to transport and store
I have three of the original drop pods for my Space Wolves. The build hate they got is massively exaggerated. As with all things, the first kit attempted was the most challenging as expected, but not overly difficult especially if you had any sort of history building GW tank kits. The next two to five pods all went together much easier after the first, because you knew what you were doing and where to put the glue.
However having said that.... Pods two through 5 were one of the most tedious, ohh my god what was I thinking, painting project I've ever engaged in. You have to paint the exact same thing 5 times for each pod. EACH pod. I got so sick of painting door ramps, hose tubes, harnesses, exhaust vents, etc. that I never want to paint another one of those again. The nightmare still feels fresh 15 years later.
cuda1179 wrote: Two things I'm wondering about from a modeling perspective:
1. For those that want to hack up the model and make it able to have closable doors, I wonder if the doors would even line up right with the main body? GW never intended them to, so they might not.
2. Is there any detail to the main body under the doors? If no you're going to have to scratch build the entire underside and lower half-inch of the pod.
Ill make sure to also sculpt up some 3d printable doors for door-closed folks
Jayden63 wrote: I have three of the original drop pods for my Space Wolves. The build hate they got is massively exaggerated. As with all things, the first kit attempted was the most challenging as expected, but not overly difficult especially if you had any sort of history building GW tank kits. The next two to five pods all went together much easier after the first, because you knew what you were doing and where to put the glue.
However having said that.... Pods two through 5 were one of the most tedious, ohh my god what was I thinking, painting project I've ever engaged in. You have to paint the exact same thing 5 times for each pod. EACH pod. I got so sick of painting door ramps, hose tubes, harnesses, exhaust vents, etc. that I never want to paint another one of those again. The nightmare still feels fresh 15 years later.
Agreed. I had 2 of them. They weren't that hard to build, but it was an utterly tedious experience, by the end of which I didn't have any enthusiasm for painting them and never did.
It's amazing how much discussion this has generated.
Since this is unlikely to ever come up again I may as well throw my ₹2 in...
I never liked the idea that marines could drop from orbit and then just jump out of their red-hot, smoking drop pod like they were getting out of their Rhino-Pattern minivans.
I thought a good Drop Pod rule would be:
Turn 1: Place Closed Drop Pods (with scatter and fleeing people under them as needed), sit there the rest of the turn.
(Bad guys get to shoot the pods and try to blow them up with the marines inside)
Turn 2: Pods open and marines jump out.
This offsets the great advantages of drop pods (deep strike, block line of sight, disrupt enemy formations) with a major disadvantage that you have to sit and do nothing for a turn, while presumably in range of all the enemy guns.
Obviously the new fixed doors makes this impossible, but I thought I'd toss it out.
Turn 1: Place Closed Drop Pods (with scatter and fleeing people under them as needed), sit there the rest of the turn.
(Bad guys get to shoot the pods and try to blow them up with the marines inside)
Turn 2: Pods open and marines jump out.
This was the rule introduced for the Laniena roadshow pods, and I have a vague inkling it was the rule for the original Forgeworld pods as well.
But when 4th edition added pods to the codex as an actual model option, they needed to give people a reason to buy them over rhinos... and since sitting inside a transport in 4th edition was pretty much a death sentence, allowing Marines to immediately get out on landing gave them a distinct tactical edge.
The odd thing was that they made the pods too good to not take them, but then waited until everyone had made their own out of pringles cans and plumbing supplies before releasing the plastic kit...
The odd thing was that they made the pods too good to not take them, but then waited until everyone had made their own out of pringles cans and plumbing supplies before releasing the plastic kit...
There was one specific gatoraide bottle design I though worked really well, hexagon shape and lots X hatching designs on each side.
But it was an expensive option, they were $2-$3 a bottle.
Andykp wrote: So much rage over a new drop pod?? The old one had doors you could shut, so what, the doors never closed after they landed, they stayed open, said so in the fluff so what was the point of the does closing on the model, other than making rocket noises as you put it on the table!
As for the “fear” that each one only holds 5 marines, don’t be daft you can see space for each marine in the harness clamp things, 2 per door, so 10. Stop panicking it will be ok.
Drop pod models should be cheap and easy to build as they are more terrain than vehicle so this kit is perfect, it lost a storm bolter, so what, the storm bolter wasn’t the defining feature of the model. Losing the doors as has been suggested would have been a bigger change to what has been the definitive feature of the drop pod, it opening up like petals of a flower.
They have made a model that is more usable, easier to build but still serves the exact same purpose as the old when, this is just better and good move by GW. I can easily imagine sales of drop pods haven’t been great for a while now and this kit will sell. I have had my current marine army since primaris arrived and haven’t been interested in buying a drop pod because the kit was a pain, these I will 100% pick up a box and bet I’m not alone in that.
The defining feature of the drop pod was that it provided a rule that didn't necessitate a model. They've always been wrong for the tabletop.
Disagree, I think they need a model just so show where they’ve landed and look cool. Rules wise no, but immersion wise 100% need to be represented.
OK, they could just sell them as terrain, or a collectors piece etc. They just let a unit deepstrike and effectively nothing else. I don't see a clamouring for necron portals, gsc sewer entrances, warp portals, dropships etc. For other races to also add immersion and clutter to the table whilst doing nothing.
Andykp wrote: So much rage over a new drop pod?? The old one had doors you could shut, so what, the doors never closed after they landed, they stayed open, said so in the fluff so what was the point of the does closing on the model, other than making rocket noises as you put it on the table!
As for the “fear” that each one only holds 5 marines, don’t be daft you can see space for each marine in the harness clamp things, 2 per door, so 10. Stop panicking it will be ok.
Drop pod models should be cheap and easy to build as they are more terrain than vehicle so this kit is perfect, it lost a storm bolter, so what, the storm bolter wasn’t the defining feature of the model. Losing the doors as has been suggested would have been a bigger change to what has been the definitive feature of the drop pod, it opening up like petals of a flower.
They have made a model that is more usable, easier to build but still serves the exact same purpose as the old when, this is just better and good move by GW. I can easily imagine sales of drop pods haven’t been great for a while now and this kit will sell. I have had my current marine army since primaris arrived and haven’t been interested in buying a drop pod because the kit was a pain, these I will 100% pick up a box and bet I’m not alone in that.
The defining feature of the drop pod was that it provided a rule that didn't necessitate a model. They've always been wrong for the tabletop.
Disagree, I think they need a model just so show where they’ve landed and look cool. Rules wise no, but immersion wise 100% need to be represented.
OK, they could just sell them as terrain, or a collectors piece etc. They just let a unit deepstrike and effectively nothing else. I don't see a clamouring for necron portals, gsc sewer entrances, warp portals, dropships etc. For other races to also add immersion and clutter to the table whilst doing nothing.
All that’s sounds good, I’d like those. None are quite the same as a drop pod though. Difference is drop pods had epic models and lots or artwork before they appeared in 40K rules, we knew what they looked like and how they appeared. I suppose it all depends on how much representation you want for the rules, if they did it your way where the drop pods magically disappeared off the battlefield after landing and models just deepstriked (deep struck?) in I would think that was awful and lazy and it’d be better not to have the rule at all without a model. The other things you describe are a bit more abstract so not as bad although I don’t like the GSC stuff that much for the same reason. Personal taste I suppose.
Lathe Biosas wrote: I would gladly support Drop Pod models if they did something different than just allowing models to Deep Strike.
If the removed terrain like Ruins where they landed would be cool and different.
It'd also make placing them easier. If a terrain piece is removed to add a new one (the drop pod) there is more chance of managing to get it on the battlefield.
Turn 1: Place Closed Drop Pods (with scatter and fleeing people under them as needed), sit there the rest of the turn.
(Bad guys get to shoot the pods and try to blow them up with the marines inside)
Turn 2: Pods open and marines jump out.
This was the rule introduced for the Laniena roadshow pods, and I have a vague inkling it was the rule for the original Forgeworld pods as well.
But when 4th edition added pods to the codex as an actual model option, they needed to give people a reason to buy them over rhinos... and since sitting inside a transport in 4th edition was pretty much a death sentence, allowing Marines to immediately get out on landing gave them a distinct tactical edge.
You'd have thought that something that just survived being dropped from orbit should be able to laugh off a round of small arms fire.
Turn 1: Place Closed Drop Pods (with scatter and fleeing people under them as needed), sit there the rest of the turn.
(Bad guys get to shoot the pods and try to blow them up with the marines inside)
Turn 2: Pods open and marines jump out.
This was the rule introduced for the Laniena roadshow pods, and I have a vague inkling it was the rule for the original Forgeworld pods as well.
But when 4th edition added pods to the codex as an actual model option, they needed to give people a reason to buy them over rhinos... and since sitting inside a transport in 4th edition was pretty much a death sentence, allowing Marines to immediately get out on landing gave them a distinct tactical edge.
You'd have thought that something that just survived being dropped from orbit should be able to laugh off a round of small arms fire.
"How many atmospheres can the ship withstand?"
"Well, it's a spaceship, so anywhere between zero and one!"
Lathe Biosas wrote: I would gladly support Drop Pod models if they did something different than just allowing models to Deep Strike.
They do several things different besides just allowing DS.
1) They allow embarked units to DS on turn 1.
2) They & their passengers don't count against the limitations of how many units/pts you can place into reserves.
3) If placed right they also move block your opponent - this effect gets even better if you also use Deathwind pods & dreadnaught pods (see Legends for both of these).
Lathe Biosas wrote: I would gladly support Drop Pod models if they did something different than just allowing models to Deep Strike.
They do several things different besides just allowing DS.
1) They allow embarked units to DS on turn 1.
2) They & their passengers don't count against the limitations of how many units/pts you can place into reserves.
3) If placed right they also move block your opponent - this effect gets even better if you also use Deathwind pods & dreadnaught pods (see Legends for both of these).
1 & 2 for most people simply fall under "letting a unit deepstrike", yes it modifies it, but it snot changing the primary purpose of the rule.
3 is literally the issue and the reason the rules are changing we can assume.
Lathe Biosas wrote: I would gladly support Drop Pod models if they did something different than just allowing models to Deep Strike.
They do several things different besides just allowing DS.
1) They allow embarked units to DS on turn 1.
2) They & their passengers don't count against the limitations of how many units/pts you can place into reserves.
3) If placed right they also move block your opponent - this effect gets even better if you also use Deathwind pods & dreadnaught pods (see Legends for both of these).
1 & 2 for most people simply fall under "letting a unit deepstrike", yes it modifies it, but it snot changing the primary purpose of the rule.
Then those people don't understand the primary function of the pod - allowing that 1st turn Deepstrike.
Dudeface wrote: 3 is literally the issue and the reason the rules are changing we can assume.
Whatever it changes to, I'm still going to be move blocking the enemy
Then those people don't understand the primary function of the pod - allowing that 1st turn Deepstrike.
The point is that allowing a first turn deep strike doesn't inherently require a large vehicle model.. Before it was added as a model, the drop pod did just confer the ability to deep strike, by placing the models straight onto the board.
Having the model looks better, but if that's all it does then it's just a very expensive deep strike token.
Then those people don't understand the primary function of the pod - allowing that 1st turn Deepstrike.
The point is that allowing a first turn deep strike doesn't inherently require a large vehicle model.. Before it was added as a model, the drop pod did just confer the ability to deep strike, by placing the models straight onto the board.
Having the model looks better, but if that's all it does then it's just a very expensive deep strike token.
And thats my issue. As it stands it's essentially a really tall token. It doesn't do anything that couldn't be a simple rule... you don't need a model for teleportariums.
It is basically a token/terrain piece, but has an iconic look. Same reason things like basilisks, manticores and deathstrikes have models when they would be more accurately represented as hits coming from off the table.
Except in the case of basilisks, manticores and death strikes, your opponent has the opportunity to stop them from doing the thing they're supposed to do, and they function as a part of your army while they're on the table.
Mixed bag, mostly for the worst imo. Seems to be a nailing down of what constitutes WE and making sure niches are covered. Looks more like orks in power armour than ever.
insaniak wrote: Except in the case of basilisks, manticores and death strikes, your opponent has the opportunity to stop them from doing the thing they're supposed to do, and they function as a part of your army while they're on the table.
The drop pod just sits there.
Well, once upon a time, the opponent DID have the opportunity to prevent them landing.
And then came several editions worth of dumbing down the rules.
Now days? While you can't really outright stop them landing, you can block them from deploying effectively.
And if you don't think those pods are "functioning as part of my army" just as much as a Basilisk or whatever would ? Well....
And if you don't think those pods are "functioning as part of my army" just as much as a Basilisk or whatever would ? Well....
With the weapons gone, what actions can you take with the drop pod once it's on the table?
Contest/hold an objective?
How is it going to contest an objective if it can't shoot?
I don't know about you, but I really doubt a unit of soldiers are going to see the harmless drop pod and say "well, looks like we're stuck. That immobile, unarmed hunk of metal is completing impeding our ability to walk over there and secure that area. It's not as if we can just shoot that thing without our own weapons unmolested."
A preacher can at least shoot back and is somewhat a threat.
Presumably the pod is still connected into the Imperial comms and surveillance net, so it could be smashing out jamming and active surveillance supporting the general efforts.
I agree it doesn’t make a lot of sense, but you can crowbar in some vague reasons for it
I mean if a massive hunk of metal can just fall out of the sky, then that might discourage enemies from getting near the objective in case something else drops out of the sky. Also presumably the thing could be detonated remotely, even if that’s not currently an in-game option
Other than the Deathwind variant? They’re just one way rapid transport. A way to get your team of genetically altered psychopaths in might as well be impenetrable armour exactly where the enemy most likely doesn’t want teams of enemy genetically altered psychopaths in might as well be impenetrable armour, in a manner that outside of excellently designed AA cover, is basically unstoppable.
Right down your throat, right on top of your position.
), I would have thought it would make more sense to make a different version - e.g. have it turn into more of a bunker that the Marines can stay in if they want to. If they want a more sensible gun, have a heavy gun or two that the Marines can operate.
